Sitting of 3 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PETITIONS.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Edgbaston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 373 (Jamaica, Report for 1901-2) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Civil Service—Boy Copyists' Examinations —Irish Centres.
  MR. O'DOHERTY (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether
  1050
  the Civil Service Commissioners will consider the advisability of including the city of Londonderry in their list of centres for boy copyists' examinations, seeing that at present Londonderry is a centre for Excise and Customs examinations, and that the nearest centre at which candidates from Londonderry for the position of boy copyists can present themselves for examination is Belfast.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) I am informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that they have frequently considered the advisability of making the proposed change, but that they have come to the conclusion that it would be undesirable. The number of centres in Ireland is the same as in England and Scotland.

  Indian Military Pensions—Payment in England or India—Rate of Exchange.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will arrange that widows in the receipt of pensions from the old military funds while residing in India may be allowed to draw their pensions through their agents in England; and if he will state whether any expense or loss to the Indian Exchequer would be caused by the arrangement.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) On the 1st March, 1900, in reply to a similar Question, I pointed out to my hon. friend that the present arrangements are exceptionally favourable to annuitants, and informed him that I was not prepared to sanction the payment in England of these pensions at sterling rates during the residence in India of the annuitants for more than one year. Such an arrangement would have the effect of increasing the burden on the revenues of India, and I regret that I must adhere to the decision already announced.

  Irish Lights—Tuns Bank, Lough Foyle.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade Whether any steps have been as yet taken by the Irish Lights Board towards the erection of a gas and bell buoy at the Tuns Banks, Lough Foyle.
  †See (4) Debates, Ixxix., 1425.

  1051
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the buoy is now in hand and it is hoped that it will be installed during next summer.

  Buncrana-Carndonagh Railway.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the guarantee of the Donegal Grand Jury for portion of the capital required for the construction of the new railway from Buncrana to Carndonagh only ran from the opening of the line for traffic, and that the appointment of arbitrators, as required by Section 6 of The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, was not made by the Board of Trade during the continuance of said guarantee, will he say if, before the appointment of said arbitrators, any assurance was received from the railway company that the terms of the presentment of the Grand Jury had been carried out, and that the guarantee had begun to run.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Order authorising the railway, the guarantee is applicable to so much of the capital, not exceeding £5,000, as is for the time being paid up. As I have already stated in reply to a Question on this subject on Friday last, the Board of Trade, before appointing arbitrators, received an assurance that the capital authorised had been raised, and in these circumstances no further assurance seems, so far as the appointment of arbitrators is concerned, to have been necessary.

  India—Conduct of 9th Lancers at Sialkote.
  COLONEL LEGGE (): To ask Secretary of State for India whether he can give the data of the report from the officer commanding the 9th Lancers contained in a telegram from the Government of India, and whether any evidence has since been forthcoming in the case referred to in that report.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The report in question is referred to in a public statement issued by the Government of India in India. I quoted the exact words given, but I am unable to give the date of the report.
  1052
  Nor am I in possession of any information about the case that I have not already given the House.

  Telegraphists' Promotions in London Central Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): To ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a telegraphist in the Central Office, London, has been selected for the post of senior clerk, although thirty skilled operators were senior to him; whether, in view of the official declaration that good conduct, manipulative ability, and seniority are alone necessary for this position, he will state the grounds for the selection; and whether the telegraphists senior to the one selected by the Controller are to receive any recognition of their service as operating telegraphists.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I fear I must again ask the hon. Member to refer to my answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Hoxton on the 13st ultimo,† which comprises all that I can say on this subject.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that officials of the permanent staff of the Controller of the Central Telegraphs have been promoted recently to important administrative positions in the instrument gallery because of their special supervising abilities, he will state where these officers acquired their technical and practical knowledge; whether either of them has previously supervised in the instrument gallery of the Central Office; and whether one of the man promoted has for twenty-eight years been engaged on clerical duties remote from the instrument galleries.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have already informed the hon. Member, in answer to a Question which he put to me on the 27th November, that I selected for promotion the officers who were in my opinion best fitted for the duties of their new posts. I must respectfully decline to discuss their qualifications further by way of question and answer in this House.
  † see (4) Debates, lxxix., 1425

  South Africa—Education in the New Colonies.
  MR. CHAPMAN (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state what provisions are made for elementary education in the two States of South Africa recently added to His Majesty's Dominions, and whether he will state what measures are taken to protect the religious beliefs of the children; and, further, if he can state the number of schools in existence at the outbreak of the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Free primary education is given; and the syllabus of instruction adopted to start with has been that in use in Cape Colony. Attendance is not compulsory. As far as possible provision has been made in all school under Government control for imparting religious instruction in accordance with the wishes of parents. I cannot state the exact number of schools existing at the moment of the outbreak of war, but the number of scholars was very considerably less than it has been since the Colonies were annexed.

  London and Globe Finance Corporation.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON (): To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in view of the nature of the transactions disclosed before the official receiver during the liquidation of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, he has come to a final decision as to the action to be taken in the matter; and, if not, whether he can state when such decision will be arrived at.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) This case was fully considered last summer, and I came to the conclusion that the case was not one which should be taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Some further Papers have, I am informed, been transmitted to him within the last last few days, and they will be considered in due course.

  Drafts for the 9th Lancers.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for whether he can
  1054
  state how many drafts of the 9th Lancers have been sent out to India this year, the strength of each draft, and the dates of their departure from England and arrival in India; and whether any further drafts are to be sent out during the present trooping season.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I think an inconvenient precedent would be made if details of drafts joining particular regiments were given, and, as much labour would be entailed on the officers concerned if such demands became general, I fear I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to forego the in formation.

  London Irish Rifle Volunteers.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a service officers to the vacant command of the London Irish Rifle Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No official information has reached the War Office that the present officer commanding the London Irish Rifle Volunteers is retiring.

  Education Bill—Clause 18 (2)—Date of Coming into Operation.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board contemplate bringing the Education (England and Wales) Bill, if passed into law, into operation for any country before the scheme for establishing the education committee of the local education authority has been approved by the Board.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In matters which, under Clause 18 (2), stand referred to the education committee, I doubt whether it would be practicable, even if it were desirable, for the Board to go beyond the preliminary stages of discussion and consultation before the scheme for that Committee has been approved by the Board.

  Education Bill—Country Council Rating for Salaries, &c.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury Whether it will be in the power of a Country Council,

  1055
  before the appointed day under the Education (England and Wales) Bill, to levy a rate for the monthly or weekly payments for salaries, &c., for which they will then become liable.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It is true that the Country Council will have the power referred to, but I have no reason to think that there will be any necessity for the exercise of the power.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Articles of Peace—Boer Protest to Lord Kitchener.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will lay upon the Table or inform the House of the contents of the Written protest delivered by the Boer Generals to Lord Kitchener at the time the Articles of Peace were signed.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I would refer the hon. Member to p. 158 of Cd. 1163.

  War Commission.
  MR. YERBURGH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Commission will take evidence as to the manner in which the young soldiers endured the hardships of the campaign and withstood the attack of disease.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the South African War, and in view of the fact that General Sir Redvers Buller was Adjutant General of the Army from 1st October, 1890 to 30th September, 1897, he will use his influence to secure the calling of General Buller to give evidence before the Commission.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): In reply to
  1056
  these two Question, I am desired by my right hon. friend to say that the nature of the evidence called for by the Royal Commission rests entirely with that body. My right hon. friend has no influence whatever in the matter.

  Strength of Regular Army at Home.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of men now serving in the Regular Army at home, the number of men under twenty years of age, and the number of men under two years' service; and whether men under the age of twenty are returned as effectives.
  LORD STANLEY: The figures for non-commissioned officers and men on 1st November were as follows:—Total strength 145,668; under two years' service 50,820; under twenty years of age 33,551. All soldiers on the strength of their units are considered as effectives, whether under twenty years of age or not.

  Volunteer Officers and War Rewards.
  MR. LUKE WHITE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War Whether he will cause further inquiry to be made as to the rewards bestowed upon officers of Volunteer companies for their services; and, seeing that only four were rewarded out of over 500 who served in South Africa with Volunteer companies and Engineer detachments, will he state how many South African and over-sea Colonial Officers were awarded the D.S.O. and other decorations.
  LORD STANLEY: The number of Colonial troops employed in all amounted approximately to 80,000. 338 over-sea and South African Colonial Officers were rewarded. I cannot make any statement with regard to further rewards to the officers of Militia and Volunteers who served in the war.

  Argentina—The Murder of Mr. William Barnett.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reasons have been given by the Government of the Argentine Republic for the sentence passed upon the

  1057
  murderer of Mr. William Barnett; and if His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the Argentine Republic on the subject of the appeal lodged by the culprit against the sentence passed upon him.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): Grau, the murderer of Mr. Barnett has been sentenced to only eight years' imprisonment, and his accomplice to only one year's arrest. It is the solicitor for the prosecution who has appealed. The sentence is based on the opinion of the judge that there was no premeditation, and that Gran had not improperly assumed police authority. His extreme youth was also taken into consideration. His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Buenos Aires telegraphs that he is awaiting fuller reports relative to the case, and if there are good grounds for it he will make a strong representation against the sentence.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask whether, in view of the lenity of the sentence, the Government will make a further demand on the Argentine Government for the better security of British subjects in future.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The solicitor for the prosecution has lodged an appeal; and while the Chargé d'Affaires is waiting for a special Report it is impossible to take any steps.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether in view of Article II. of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12th January 1859, which binds this country not to place other or higher duties on any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of Russian dominions than on those of any other foreign country, and not to prohibit the importation of any such articles, and of Article X. Which binds this country to grant to Russian subjects every privilege, favour, and immunity granted to subjects of any other Power, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in
  1058
  order to place itself in a position to carry out the Sugar Convention, Brussels; and whether, in view of Article XXII. of the Treaty of 1859, which stipulates that the treaty shall remain in force until twelve months after either party thereto shall have given notice to the other to terminate the same, such notice has already been given by His Majesty's Government; and, if not, how His majesty's Government propose to place themselves in a position to give effect to the Sugar Convention as therein stipulated on 1st September 1903.
  LORD CRANBORNE: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the imposition of countervailing duties upon, or the prohibition of the importation of, bounty-fed sugar is not inconsistent with the provisions of the most-favoured-nation Clause. The Russian Government were informed in 1899 when the Government of India had imposed counter vailing duties against sugar imported from Russia, that this was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and that if the Russian Government were unable to agree in this view Her Majesty's Government were prepared to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859. No reply was made to this communication.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I may gather that as a matter of fact no notice has at present been given to terminate the treaty of 1859?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Will my hon. friend put the Question on the Paper?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have put it on the Paper.
  LORD CRANBORNE: What we have said is that we were ready to denounce the treaty if the Russian Government wished it, and no answer has been received.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then it has not been denounced?
  LORD CRANBORNE: No.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): Seeing that twelve months notice has to be given, what

  1059
  operation will that have upon the coming into effect of the Sugar Convention?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I have already said that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the imposition of countervailing duties or the prohibition of bounty-fed sugar is not inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation Clause.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): Is that founded on legal advice?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Of course it is.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As the Russian Government hold a contrary opinion, what measures have His Majesty's Government taken to reconcile the two opinions?
  LORD CRANBORNE: It would be inconsistent with practice to answer a supplementary Question of that kind. But we have offered to denounce the treaty of 1859.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given private notice. It is whether the noble Lord is aware that Dutch Minister of Finance stated yesterday in the Dutch Second Chamber that England will be bound by the terms of the Convention to levy countervailing duties on bounty fed sugar from her autonomous Colonies and British India; whether he can say that any, or which, of the States who signed the Convention have adopted a policy similar to that mentioned by the Dutch Minister of Finance; and whether there are any other points or articles in the Convention on which any of the other contracting parties have adopted a differed construction from that of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I only received notice of the Question a short time ago. If the hon. Member will be good enough to put the Question on the Paper I shall be delighted to give an answer.

  Sugar Bounties and the Shipping Trade.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): On behalf of the hon. Member for West Hull, I beg to ask the
  1060
  President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has statistics to show the probable effect of the ratification of the Sugar Bounties Convention on the shipping trade carried on with bounty-fed sugar in entire or part cargoes from the near Continental ports, and what portion of the sugar imported into the United Kingdom is at present in receipt of bounties; also what is the comparison of the short sea route freights from the Continental ports as against the long sea routed from the West Indies.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): If the Brussels Convention is ratified, all the principal Continental countries from which we import sugar will cease to grant bounties, so that no sudden diminution is to be expected in the shipping normally employed in carrying such sugar. Should the Convention result in our eventually drawing a larger proportion of our supply of sugar from more distant sources, the total employment of shipping will be increased. About nine-tenths of our imports of sugar at present come from bounty-giving countries. I am informed that the rates of freight for raw sugar to this country from Hamburg and the West Indies are from about 5s. to 7s. 6d. a ton, and from 20s. to 25s. a ton respectively.

  Bath Hospital Drainage.
  MR. BARLOW (Somersetshire, Frome): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to a letter, dated 1st September, 1902, from the Bath Rural District Board complaining of the system of drainage lately adopted by the Bath Statutory Hospital authorities, because of the danger it causes to the water supply of Monkton Combe, and asking that an inquiry may be instituted; and, having regard also to a letter or petition to the Local Government Board, dated 23rd September, 1902, from the parish of Monkton Combe to the same effect, and asking that an inspector may be sent down, whether he will state why an inspector has not been sent, and when one will be sent.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I received a letter from the Rural District Council on the 2nd September last calling attention to this matter and asking for my advice thereon, or for an inquiry, if this was deemed expedient. I at once communicated with the Bath Town Council, who explained the arrangements they had recently made for the disposal of the sewage of their hospital, and stated that if it was found necessary after a proper trial further to treat the effluent or adopt any modification of the system, this would be done by the Council. Subsequently, I received further complaints in the matter, and on the 20th of last month I addressed a communication to the Town Council urging them to deal with the sewage so as to obviate any above-ground nuisance, and stating that if it appeared, after investigation by a geological expert, that there was risk of dangerous contamination of the springs and wells in the neigh bourhood from the present system of sewage disposal, measures should be at once taken to remedy this. In reply, the Town Council have promised that this letter shall receive early attention. They state that certain defects pointed out by the Medical Officer of Health of the Rural District Council have been remedied, and that the system is now working satisfactorily. It does not seem to me to be necessary at the present moment to hold an inquiry on the subject; but the hon. Member may rest assured that I shall not lose sight of the matter.

  "The Parliamentary Debates"—Terms of the New Contract.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether. seeing that in evidence before the Select Committee on Reporting in 1893, the Controller of the Stationery Office gave the number and amounts of the tenders for the Parliamentary Debates in 1889 and 1892, there is any objection to stating the numbers and amounts of the tenders received for the contract commencing with next Session; or whether he will state the amounts of the two highest and the two lowest tenders received.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): No, Sir. The usual rule is to treat unaccepted tenders as confidential, and the exception made in the case of evidence before a Select Committee does not constitute a precedent for disclosing them by way of Question and answer in the House of Commons.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the hon. Gentleman state the figure quoted by Messrs. Wyman in their first tender, and was theirs the lowest figure?
  MR. HAYES FISHER: No, Sir, I do not think I can give that information.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the circumstances under which the tenders, invited in July last, for the Parliamentary Debates contract were superseded in the following month by new tenders, and what were the nature and significance of the differences between the two forms of tender; and will he explain the reason of the omission from Clause 4 of the tender of the condition contained in the expiring contract, that in obtaining such reports the contractor shall conform to the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 13th February, 1891, and renewed on 21st March 1893, and of the provision contained in former contracts that the contractor shall have, at all times when either House is sitting, representatives in attendance, capable of reporting in full when necessary.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: The first form of invitation to tender was withdrawn as, when tenders were received, it appeared that there had been some misunderstanding on the part of some of the tenderers of the intention of the following words appearing in Clause 5: "A tender for one of the Schemes only will be accepted." Two firms misinterpreting the intention submitted tenders for one Scheme only, understanding that they were not at liberty to submit tenders for more. In the form of tender as re-submitted all possibility of misunderstandings of the kind was removed by alteration in the wording. As regards the second Question, Condition 12 of the new Contract requires

  1063
  that the contractor "shall in all respects conform" to the Resolutions referred to. To speak of them as specially applicable to one part only of the work covered by the Contract seemed to weaken the injunction, and the last words were accordingly struck out of Clause 4. The provision "that the contractor shall have at all times when either House is sitting, representatives in attendance capable of reporting in full when necessary," did not appear either in the Contract with Mr. Bussy, which commenced with the session of 1898, or in the Contract now expiring with Messrs Wyman. It is replaced by the stipulations contained in Clause 4 of the present Contract.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the former Contract, besides the Fair Wage Resolution being mentioned in Clause 12, it was also specially referred to in Clause 4; that the reporters have only now been given a sort of general protection, whereas formerly they were specially protected?
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I am not aware of that.

  Crofts in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the Crofters Commission, in their Report on the social condition of the people of Lewis, state that the Sections of the Crofters Act, which deal with the enlargement of holdings, have in Lewis remained almost a dead letter; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I hope the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the answer given yesterday to his Question on the subject of this Report.
  MR. WEIR: Am I to understand that the matter is being considered by the Secretary for Scotland?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Report raises many questions, and my noble friend cannot possibly deal with specific suggestions by way of Question
  † See page 922.
  1064
  and answer. In good time he will, however, be prepared to announce the general policy of the Board.

  Landless Cottars in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Crofters' Commission in their Report on the social condition of the people of Lewis express the opinion that the landless cottars, or squatters, form a burden on almost every crofting township in the Island, will he say how he proposes to meet the difficulty.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to his Question on the subject of this Report.

  Teaching of Trades and Handicrafts in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission in their Report on the social condition of the people of Lewis, in favour of establishing and fostering technical instruction for the teaching of trades and handicrafts and the elements of scientific avocations, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of communicating with the Treasury and Board of Education on the subject, with a view to funds being provided for these purposes in the Estimates for the ensuing year.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member is probably aware that the operations of the Board of Education, which is an English Board, do not extend to the Lews. The Scotch Education Department, in arranging the estimates for the next financial year with the Treasury, will endeavour to see that an adequate amount is provided to enable the Department to meet the various grants claimable under its rules.

  Higher Commercial Education in Scotland.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that at present leaving certificates can be obtained by scholars, irrespective of age, who pass either in English, mathematics, Latin and Greek, or in English, mathematics, practical science, and either French or

  1065
  German, or in English, mathematics, French and German, and that under Circular 340, of January, 1902, no candidate after 1904 can obtain a leaving certificate unless he is seventeen years of age, and no certificate will be granted for English, mathematics, French and German except and intermediate certificate which may be taken by candidates over fifteen years of age; and whether he can give some assurance with a view to prevent the discouragement of higher commercial education which it has been the policy of the Scotch Education Department to encourage in recent years.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As indicated in circulars more recently issued, the Department proposes to institute a commercial certificate for pupils of a higher age. In such a certificate modern languages, as studied for the practical purposes of commerce, will receive full recognition, in accordance with the policy which the Department has for some years pursued with good results.

  Fever in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the outbreak of typhus and typhoid fever at North Tolsta, island of Lewis, has already resulted in upwards of fifty cases, as many as six persons in one family being affected; will he state what steps are being taken to stamp out the discase, whether the patients are isolated; and if so, where.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The numbers mentioned in my answer given on 20th November† referred to the period since 1st October only. In the early summer the cases were so mild that they attracted little attention, but when they proved to be infectious the local authority instituted an inspection, saw that all isolation practicable was carried out, strongly urged ablution of persons, and supplied disinfectants. In cases of typhoid fever, drains were cleaned out. Tolsta, being thirteen miles distant from Stornoway, removal to hospital was not considered advisable, especially in view of the difficulties of transit in such a district.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no means of
  † See page 22.
  1066
  isolating fever patients at this place, where there are only mud cabins. Will he further inquire?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Stornoway Mail Service
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that although the Stornoway and Kyle mail service was established for the carriage of passengers and goods as well as for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails, Messrs. MacBrayne, the contractors, frequently decline to convey goods from Stornoway to Kyle, on the ground that there is not sufficient time for their delivery before proceeding to Mallaig; and will he consider the expedieney of communicating with Messrs. MacBrayne on the subject.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member himself and others interested in the West Coast services have frequently complained of delays to the mails, which have on examination been shown to be due to the attempt of the contractors to provide facilities for the shipment of cargo, and under these circumstances I am not encouraged to make such representations as the hon. Gentleman now suggests.

  Irish Marine Store Dealers.
  MR. LONSDALE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the desire expressed by commercial bodies in Ireland that marine store dealers and second-hand dealers generally should be registered and licensed, he will at the earliest opportunity introduce a Bill to amend the law in this respect.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I hope to be able to introduce legislation in this matter next year.

  Swords Borough Schools.
  MR. MACARTNEY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at an examination for an Exhibition, to be competed for by the pupils of the Old and New Borough Schools at Swords, recently conducted

  1067
  by Mr. Michael Sullivan, LL. B., and Mr. T. P. O'Connor, B. A., respectively, a Senior and District Inspector of National Schools, the answering of Michael Keegan was superior to that of any other candidate, and that the examiners failed to return his name as a successful candidate, alleging that he was not properly qualified; and, seeing that the Commissioners of National Education made an order, on 14th October, instructing the examiners that the boy, Michael Keegan, was a qualified candidate, and that the examiners have refused to alter their decision, whether he will take steps to secure in future obedience to the scheme.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are accurately stated. The scheme framed for the management of these endowed schools provides that the decision of the examiners upon any question in respect of the qualification of a candidate shall be final. No change in the procedure under the scheme could be effected except by legislation. The propriety of altering the procedure in this respect will not be lost sight of in the event of legislation being introduced.

  Private Bills.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask whether the Government intend to take any action with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Private Bills?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understood the Report was only circulated yesterday morning, and therefore it is quite impossible for the Government to give any opinion as to the course which they ought to take in consequence of the findings of the Committee.

  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 385.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  [THIRD READING SECOND DAY'S DEBATES.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to
  1068
  Question [2nd December], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  (2.35.) DR. MACNAMARA (): When my speech was interrupted at the close of the sitting last night I was expressing my regret that the Government have thought it necessary to depart from the principle of one authority for all grades of education. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a sentence from a speech made by the Prime Minister, with which I desire to entirely associate myself—
  "The Government quite recognise that until both primary and secondary education in each district are confided to a single education authority we cannot regard our educational system as properly organised."
  I am sorry that the Bill in its career through the Committee stage has so seriously departed from that admirable principle. We have one authority for all grades of education—financial, administrative, and autonomous for every county borough, but I regret very much that the Government have found it necessary to depart from the principle by giving autonomy for purely elementary education, while secondary education is to be administered by the county centre to municipal boroughs of over 10,000 and urban districts with over 20,000 population. And much more than that I regret the fact that when Clause 3 was being discussed the Prime Minister acquiesced in the suggestion that miserable boroughs of under 10,000 and urban districts under 20,000 might, if they desired and cared to raise 1d. over and above the 2d. county rate, have autonomy to that extent over higher education. The result is this, that, starting with 129 authorities—county boroughs and administrative counties having autonomy for all purposes—we immediately proceed to create 201 authorities other than the 129 which will be autonomous for elementary but not for higher education, and 853 which will be autonomous

  1069
  in a measure for higher but not for elementary education. You have 1,183 authorities of one sort or another, and that is, I think, a serious departure from the reasonable ideal set before us by the Prime Minister in the words I have just quoted. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt been compelled to take this course by political exigencies rather than by educational expediency, but I do not suppose that the people in the localities will act with the maximum stupidity. Indeed, I hope they will not, and that the bad effects of this policy will be mitigated by the good sense of the people who will locally have to administer this scheme. I have no objection to municipalising the control of education. I think it is desirable wherever it is practicable, but it is not practicable in the great county boroughs. Take the case of Leeds. There you have 700 or 800 school departments of various kinds. You have, roughly speaking, 3,000 teachers and 100,000 pupils of one sort or another. You have an annual expenditure of at least half-a-million sterling, an expenditure which is bound to increase with the growth of population. What will be the result if you hand over that work to the Municipal Council? If the scheme of municipalisation is genuine, it must be agreed that in the urban districts a majority of the Education committee shall be members of the Municipal Council. That is the Birmingham League Scheme of which we have heard so much, and you are bound to it, or otherwise your scheme is spurious. Now, in a great city like Leeds the councillors are hard-worked business men, and the stupendous detailed public work entailed by this Bill would fall necessarily into the hands, first of all. of officials and, secondly, into the hands of a numbers of persons who are not directly responsible to the ratepayers who find the money. That is the greatest educational leap in the dark which the country has ever taken. I think the time must come when the county boroughs will come to Parliament and ask for a revival, in some form or another, of the ad hoc body for educational purposes, and in order to meet the objection of the multiplication of elections agree that their ad hoc body
  1070
  shall be constituted on the same date, the same voting paper, and in the same wards as the Municipal Council. It is my profound belief that that will happen.
  Now, Sir, I want to say a word or two about the question of finance. I am profoundly thankful to the Government for having had the courage to recognise once for all that the hopeless endeavour to maintain elementary education by voluntary contributions should be entirely departed from. It has, I think, been a matter of common agreement that the voluntary schools cannot compete with schools supported out of the rates, and I am therefore glad that the Government have decided that they shall be no longer left dependent on voluntary subscription or on the good will and charity of residents in the locality. In the first place, that brings under contribution for elementary education £60,000,000 of the rateable value of the country, which up to the present time has escaped any contribution in that form. I am delighted that the ratepayers of Preston, Stockport, Eastbourne, Cheltenham, Bournemouth, Lincoln, Chester, St. Helens, and 120 other towns will now be compelled to bear their due share of what AI believe to be a communal obligation. In the past they have shuffled out of it on the ground that they dislike the school board system of religious instruction, and that they prefer denominational instruction. I believe that is only true of a small number of the 128 towns. In many places, no doubt, some people have paid more than they need have done for the upkeep of the denominational schools, but so far as the bulk of the ratepayers is concerned the preference has been not for this or that form of religious instruction but for a system which will enable them to escape any contribution of the rates. The people of Preston have got their hearts' desire; they have denominational teaching under this Bill, and I am going to watch with what cheerfulness they will pay for it now that they have to do it out of the rates. It strikes me that when they find that denominational schools are just as expensive as undenominational schools have been they will love one about as little as they have loved the other in the past. I view with entire satisfaction the placing of public elementary schools on public funds and the universalistion of local rates.

  1071
  I am tired of allowing people to contract themselves out of their communal obligations.
  One of the immediate results of the passing of this Bill will be the necessity to overhaul the Education Code, which such matters as the staffing has been fixed with due regard to the poverty of the voluntary schools. What are the provisions of this year's Code in regard to the staffing of the schools? Each certificated head-teacher is held responsible for an average attendance of fifty children, which may mean anything up to seventy-five children on the school roll; each certificated assistant is responsible for an average attendance of sixty children—or about eighty children on the roll—and each ex-pupil-teacher is responsible for an average of forty-five, representing probably sixty on the roll. Then there is another class of young person, of whom there are some 17,000 at work in our voluntary schools—and I think it is a scandal that it should be so—a young person who has no qualification whatever except that she can assure the Inspector of Schools that she is over eighteen and has been vaccinated; this class of teacher is responsible for thirty children in average attendance, or anything up to forty-five on the roll. Thus at the present time in the voluntary schools of England and Wales there is only one certificated teacher for every 103 children in average attendance, which means that the classes are unteachably and cruelly large. The excuse of poverty which has hitherto been the ground for fixing that low standard now disappears, and therefore I urge that we must have an overhauling of the Education Code so as to bring us into something like with the other great civilised countries of Europe as well as the United States of America, where classes of sixty, seventy, eighty, and ninety are never seen. The least we can ask is that the classes shall be reduced to something like manageable proportions.
  I come to the question of the management of denominational schools. Rate aid materially involves absolutely full rate control. I have no anxiety as to that, for I am sure that the public, which now has to find eleven-twelfths of the cost of education, will in a short time demand
  1072
  more than four-twelfths of the representation on the management. So far as the majority of foundation managers is concerned, I look upon the scheme of the Prime Minister as a futile rampart of sand erected on the shore against an incoming tide. I do not see how the Government can expect to limit the representatives of the ratepayers to two out of six. My position was admirably summed up by Lord Selborne who, when asked in 1895 why the Archbishop's Committee did not recommend rate aid, said that—
  "He looked with the greatest fear to their having to take any such course as that of claiming a share of the rates. That, in his opinion, would be a most suicidal policy to adopt, for it would be handing themselves over body and soul to the enemy."
  The noble Lord will no doubt today content himself with the reflection that "Adversity makes strange bed-fellows." I feel sure that the time will come very soon when the four-twelfths representation will be held not to be an adequate return for the eleven-twelfths public aid. I wish next to say a few words on Clause 7, sub-Section 5, which is to be handed down to posterity as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I think that that Clause is an admirable addition to this Bill. It will no doubt be very rarely operative, but when it is applied it will prove a very efficacious correction to the vagaries of a few extreme clericals who are connected with our schools. Only this morning I had occasion to go into the details of a case which I believe the Kenyon-Slaney case will exactly meet. It is the case of the village of Billesdon, Leicestershire, the vicar of which has quite recently mysteriously developed High Church tendencies. The vicar one day went into the school—a Church school—where the schoolmaster worked hard for twenty years giving Church teaching to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, including the diocesan inspector. The vicar found the schoolmaster teaching that there were two sacraments, and, listening to this, said, "This won't do; you may take it there are seven sacraments." The schoolmaster replied, "I am very sorry, but I understand the Church Prayer-book only mentions two, and I have a conscientious objection to teaching seven." The vicar was apparently very much exasperated. This type of vicar is very rare, I admit;

  1073
  I have not met the type myself, and I have been very closely in touch with elementary education for twenty or thirty years. But here we have a specimen of what this sort of man will do. In this village there is a custom for the teachers to make a May garland and the children to make a procession around the village. Mr. Clowes, the headmaster. who was also superintendent of the Sunday school, without any previous discussion on the part of the vicar, received the following letter—
  "Third Sunday after Easter,
  Billesden Vicarage, Leicester.
  DEAR MR. CLOWES.—We think it would be a good plan to have the Maypole this year exclusively for children of the Church. Of course, there may be other Maypoles; but as the origin of Maypoles is of a Christian character the children of the Church should have a Maypole of their own. Please give notice in Sunday school to-day that the children of Sunday School and Church will have a special garland of their own this year and that they should go round this week to collect flowers, &c.
  Yours sincerely,
  CHAS. R. FOWKE.
  I may say, with reference to the statement that the origin of My poles is of a Christian character, that it rather nonplussed me, and I spent a lot of time in looking up encyclopædias and dictionaries to discover that origin, but in vain; perhaps one of my hon. friends will be able to invent a special brand of Maypole for Nonconformist children. But to return to the letter. The schoolmaster most respectfully but firmly declined to give out any such notice in the Sunday school, and here I may interpolate a remark on the question of appeal as provided for in the Bill. There id but a narrow margin, after all, between points of secular and religious instruction, and it would be interesting to know whether an appeal against the consequence of this schoolmaster's refusal to comply with the direction of the vicar came under the head of secular or religious. Mr. Fowke expressed the opinion that this master should thereafter resign the superintendence of the Sunday school or give out this notice, and the master accordingly sent in his resignation.
  This vicar wrote—
  "I got your letter last night on my return. I also received your resignation of superintendent of the Sunday-school. I, however, expressed no wish that you should resign.
  1074
  What I said was that you were bound to give out notices in the Sunday-school which I gave you, or to resign."
  This master, having resigned the superintendence of the Sunday school, was then called upon to resign his position as a day school teacher, but I am glad to say that such was the feeling of indignation aroused in the village that that notice of resignation was withdrawn. Nine-tenths of the people made an appeal to the vicar that Mr. Clowes should be allowed to continue giving religious instruction. And this is where the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment comes in. The vicar says: "Oh, no! under the trust deed I am the arbitrator in the matter, and to give religious instruction without my consent would create a schism in the village." It is in cases like this where the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment would be more effective. The position is broadly this, that in this village, where up to the present everything has been continued peacefully, you get day by day one section of the children called together to receive religious instruction of a particular sort at the hands of the vicar, and the great mass who do not desire to receive that kind of instruction getting none at all. I admit such a case is exceedingly rare, but it is such a case that the Kenyon-Slaney Clause would be able to meet, and it is because of occasional cases of this kind that I welcome that Clause, which would associate with a foolish incumbent of this kind, five laymen who would be able to regard the subject from a sane point of view.
  There is only one part of this Bill that I view with apprehension, and that is the part which deals with the provision of new schools. The three Clauses dealing with the provision of new schools were never properly discussed in Committee; they were rushed through in two sittings, with seven applications of the Closure, although they depart entirely and fundamentally from the Accommodation Clause of the Act of 1870. These three Clauses are a fatally ingenious scheme for fastening denominationalism upon national education in this country, and in ten years time I think that those who are watching the operation of this Bill, and the effect that it will have on the education of the country, will look back on those three Clauses as

  1075
  the most vicious part of this Bill. What are they? Supposing that a village wants a school—I daresay they would prefer a public undenominational school; if they insist or the local authority insists on their behalf upon having one, first of all they have to pay the general rate levied upon the whole county, which the hon. and learned Attorney General put at a maximum of 3d.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I did not say anything of the kind. I said I should be very glad if one could think it would not be necessary to raise more than 3d.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I will not enter into any wire-drawing dialectics with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I certainly understood him to suggest that that would be the maximum.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: There is no question of wire-drawing dialectics at all. I merely said I should be very glad if it were so.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I thought I was fairly representing the hon. and learned Gentleman. But, however, the village that wants a national school has first to pay the county rate of 3d. or 6d., and then if they insist upon an undenominational school, out of their restricted and poverty - stricken rateable value they have to find half, at least, or threequarters, of the entire capital sum for the erection of the school, which means that they will have to rate themselves to the extent of anything between 3d. and 30 pence for fifteen years. In the meantime you have the countervailing suggestion of the Church. The Church will come forward and say, "Why should you pay this charge? There is no necessity for your doing so; here is a building, which it may be is already in existence; or it may be, "We have a building fund, out of which we will build you a school free of charge, so that you will have nothing to pay but the county rate." Of course the people will accept the denominational school. They will swallow the Church Catechism to save the rate. I predict that under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, rarely if ever will a national school be set up in an outside area. Outside the great county boroughs and great urban
  1076
  centres generally, a new provided school will rarely be set up I may be asked, how is the Church to find the money for a central fund for the erection of non-provided schools? The voluntary contributions amount at present to £650,000. They will fall off, very naturally, when the universal school rate is established. But supposing they only fall off slightly, what will the Church do with the money? Under the original terms of the Bill the Church would have been compelled to use it for the repair of the school fabrics, but since the Bill was altered by Closure in compartments the Church of England gets half the school fees, £60,000, half the endowments, another £60,000, and half the rentals, £30,000.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: None of those provisions were altered by the Closure.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The provisions as to endowments and fees to be provided never arose until after the application of Closure by compartments.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: They were all discussed in debate.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Only after we had been given the time - table. However, half the fees would represent £60,000, half the endowments £60,000, and half the rents of the teachers' houses—though I am told it is the whole—£30,000, making £150,000 in all. That is exactly the sum mentioned by the Bishop of London as being necessary to keep up the repairs of Church of England school buildings.
  *MR. TALBOT (): That is an incorrect statement of what the Bishop said.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Then I will withdraw the remark and put the matter in another way. I have gone carefully into the question, and, judging from a Return which shows the amount spent on repairs in all elementary schools—although it is mixed up with other items—I should be well within the mark if I say that the Church of England has never spent upon repairs more than 2s. a head on the 3,000,000 children in Church schools. That comes to £300,000. Towards that you have £150,000 from public sources

  1077
  in the shape of rent, fees, and endowments—that is, half the amount which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, was to be paid by the owners.
  *MR. TALBOT: The owners do not receive fees, and the great bulk of Church schools have no fees whatever.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The total amount of school fees in Church schools is about £120,000; and if the Church is prepared to pool a large sum for building purposes, she ought to be prepared to pool a large sum for repairs. The simple fact is, that after deducting the balance of £150,000 for repairs from the voluntary contributions of £650,000, you have half a million of money still at the disposal of the Church with which to set up a great building fund. But I am not sure that the matter will rest where it is. According to The Times, Dr. Temple said yesterday at Canterbury that—
  "He thought this Bill drove a hard bargain with the Church in some respects."
  I should like to know what he calls an easy bargain. I should put it the other way and call it a hard bargain with the public. But he goes on to say—
  "In regard to repairs of buildings, he had thought that they would be allowed, at any rate, to leave upon the rates the repairs which were commonly included in the title of maintenance, those occurring from day to day, but that had been distinctly refused."
  Then comes this significant and ommous sentence—
  "It would be rather a difficult thing to carry any Amendment in the House of Lords, but, nevertheless, they were bound to try."
  All that I can say is that I hope his effort will be a very successful failure, because I think the bargain was a very fair one, and if anybody is hit it is the over burdened ratepayer. The Archbishop, in conclusion, said that—
  "He had summoned a meeting of all the Bishops for Friday next to discuss the details of the Bill, and he trusted that they might then determine in what way it would be their duty to deal with the Bill when it came into Committee next week."
  It would be a gross impertinence on my part to offer any advice to Dr. Temple and his colleagues on the Episcopal Bench, but if I did venture to give any advice, it would be that they had better be content with what they have; they have done very well out of the matter.
  1078
  If they endeavour to make any more extortions—I can call them nothing else—they will reach the last straw and break the patient ratepayer's back.
  I apologise for having kept the House so long. I have one final word. I frankly hope that this Bill, certain parts of which I have criticised, will work better in the localities than I fear will be the case. I sincerely hope that the result of the Bill will exceed the expectations of its most enlightened supporters. But this Bill is not the last word on the education question by a long way. I think the last word will be spoken by the people of this country in a much shorter time than the present Ministry imagine. The last word will not be spoken until every public school is under full and complete public control; as far as I am concerned, it will not be spoken until we place before every child in the realm, no matter how humble his extraction, such educational facilities as will enable him wisely and properly to steward the great national heritage which in due course will be handed over to his keeping.
  *(3.22.) SIR RICHARD JEBB (): Our protracted discussions in Committee have been devoted mainly to the details of the machinery, and to certain aspects of the denominational question. This Bill, however, embodies a great national reform, and before it leaves this House it seems well that some of us should attempt to state the broad effects of the Bill on the educational prospects of the country as we see them. That is what I shall endeavour to do from my own point of view. Before doing so, however, I desire to touch on one or two points in the interesting debate of yesterday.
  The first is a reference in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Referring to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, after enumerating the various educational agencies under the Bill, the right hon. Gentlemen said—
  "But still we have not yet exhausted the starry firmament. We discover, by its disturbing influence rather than by actual vision, another mighty element, as the old and watchful astronomer recognised the planet Neptune by its influence on other heavenly bodies before it came within the range of his telescope."
  That unseen power was, of course, the Bishop. I venture to think there is one

  1079
  difference between the astronomical discovery made by the right hon. Gentleman and that of Neptune. The actual priority of discovery in the latter case was due to a young man afterwards famous as Professor Adams, but the planet was discovered almost simultaneously by the distinguished French astronomer, Leverrier. The glory of the new astronomical discovery, however, is not shared by the right hon. Gentleman with any competitor; it belongs exclusively to himself. How he calculates the deflecting influence of an invisible Bishop on the orbit of a County Councillor, I cannot pretend to say; but, so far as I have observed the movements of those terrestrial bodies, I have not seen that they are particularly attracted by the ecclesiastical planet. As one who voted against the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, I should like to say why I took that course. Under the Clause, the tenour of the trust deed must be observed. The words "the tenour of" indicate that a general observance of the provisions as to religious teaching would suffice. For instance, if the trust deed provides that the teaching shall be that of the Church of England and under the supervision of the clergyman, the general tenour of the deed is satisfied if the teaching in the school continues to be the teaching of the Church of England, and the provision as to the supervision of the clergyman will not interfere with the control of the six managers: that control will be absolute. I entirely sympathise with those who, like the hon. and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, wish to control the vagaries of clergymen who are not loyal to the Church of England. For my part, I am a moderate Churchman; and I condemn as strongly as any man in this House the excesses of disloyal clergymen. But I believe that the number of these extreme men is very small; and the reason why I object to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause is that it seems to open the way to the exclusion even of a moderate clergyman, who has not offended against the principles of the Church, from having any say in the religious instruction given in the Church school in his own parish. Anybody familiar with village life knows how inconceivably small and petty are the jealousies which sometimes exist, and
  1080
  out of the six managers any four may now determine that the clergyman, however unobjectionable, should have nothing whatever to do with the religious teaching in the school. The secular control over the school is already absolutely under the local authority. While I regard this Clause as a provision which may be salutary in a very few cases, it is one which may also operate unjustly towards a number of clergymen who are not really open to censure of any kind, but who from some trivial local cause may find a majority of the managers against them. However, I will pass from that, simply saying that never since I entered the House have I given a vote under clearer convictions than was the case in regard to this Kenyon-Slaney Clause.
  The other point to which I wish to refer before coming to the more general aspect of the Bill is contained in a statement made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He said there is no evidence that members of the Church of England desire Church of England teaching for their children. He admits that Roman Catholics desire Roman Catholic teaching. The only evidence he gave us for this theory was that some Church of England parents sent their children to board schools. We have never denied that in some board schools the religious teaching is very good, only there is no security for it. Obviously that is no proof of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. Look at the history of the last thirty-two years. Would the Church of England have done all it has done, and made all these sacrifices, if the members of the Church did not care for Church of England teaching?
  I turn from these points, and come to the larger educational bearings of this Bill. Why is this Bill brought in? What was the state of national education to call for such a large measure of reform? The first cause was that elementary education was in an unsatisfactory state. This was so because some of he voluntary schools were leading a precarious existence, which might have been closed almost any time, and some of them were more or less inefficient, through poverty. That was a very serious defect in our elementary system. Then as to our secondary

  1081
  system: it was in a chaotic condition. The two main causes of this were the conflict and overlapping of the authorities for secondary education, and, secondly, the overlapping of schools. That is to say, many schools were not doing the work they were designed and fitted for, and were engaged in a competition with other schools. That was wasteful. The Leader of the Opposition observed yesterday that as our educational opportunties were so limited we should not be too fastidious about overlapping. But overlapping is a fatal impediment to general organisation. Until you have schools doing their proper work, you cannot have the system properly organised as a whole.
  These are two great defects which call for a large measure like this. There is a third defect, and that is the want of proper linking between primary and secondary education. It had been decided by law that the School Boards could not apply their funds to any other purpose than the elementary education of children. In 1899 the Board of Education took a step in the right direction, by providing that certain schools should be specially equipped and staffed for higher grade work, and that the higher elementary education should be organised, with a systematic curriculum. That was, I think, a reform of great importance, but something more was needed. With those three great defects in our existing educational system, what was the state of the public mind? Much has been said about the absence of a special mandate. I suppose it will be true to say that the public opinion of this country was coming to feel that the state of our education was a very grave national disadvantage, that it hampered us most seriously in industrial and commercial competition, and that it might even become an urgent national peril. If the existence of such a state of public feeling, constantly expressed, was not a mandate to a Government, I cannot imagine what stronger mandate they could want.
  What are the general aims of this Bill? In a few words, what are the chief things that it proposes to do? First in regard to elementary education. This Bill makes it possible, for the first time, that every public elementary school
  1082
  shall be maintained in a state of satisfactory efficiency. It makes this possible by assigning funds to the local education committees for that purpose, and the Board of Education will have as one of its duties to see that the purpose for which the money has been provided is fulfilled. There at once you have an immense gain, by the establishment of a secure basis for our educational system.
  Then, as to secondary education. In Clause 2 the local authority is charged to take a survey of the educational needs of its area and to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary; and it has to take the advice of the Board of Education as to the needs of the area, and the best way of meeting them. Certain funds are assigned to it for that purpose. I attach great importance to the provision that the Board of Education shall be consulted. A few years ago that provision would not have been of so much moment; but as the Board of Education is now constituted, it has a separate department for secondary education. It has all the machinery and the power, and it will certainly have the desire, to afford the most intelligent and effective guidance to the local authorities in the performance of their duty, to see that there is an adequate and suitable supply of secondary education in each area.
  Next, as to linking primary with secondary education. The co-ordination of education of every kind is expressly provided for in Clause 2 as one of the duties laid on the local education authority. How can such co-ordination be carried out? Largely, in the first place, by a judicious system of scholarships or bursaries, but also by the adjustment of the curriculum of schools of different kinds and grades.
  And now as to the training of teachers. There is nothing of greater national importance at this moment than the training of teachers, and that object is now expressly named in Clause 2. The local authority can establish training colleges or aid institutions that already exist. The grievance of Nonconformists is met, or I hope very largely met, because it is now in the power of the local education authority to establish undenominational training colleges, or undenominational hostels in connection with denominational training college. I am

  1083
  one of those who have always recognised the grievance of Nonconformists in this matter, and I rejoice to think that this Bill will go far to redress it. I attach very great importance to this provision in the Bill, coming as it does at a time when steps are being taken to establish a register of teachers. By the Order in Council of March last a Teachers' Registration Council is established. The Consultative Committee of the Board of Education have already framed regulations for the formation of a register, and the existence of this register will, I hope, afford a new and powerful stimulus to the training of teachers for secondary education.
  In Clause 18 there is a provision in regard to the education committee for the inclusion of experts. That I think is of very great value, because under the old system, even in School Board districts, it is well known that this element was not always adequately represented on the School Board. I welcome also the provision for the necessary inclusion of women in these education committees. It is hardly necessary to point out how indispensable their presence is.
  The greatest defect of the old educational system of this country was that it entirely failed to make education a prominent concern and interest of local life in counties or towns, whether large or small. Even in School Board areas education did not occupy that place, because the School Board was distinct from the organ of local government. I welcome this Bill for this reason among others, because I feel that it will go far to make education one of the foremost interests and concerns of the locality, be it country or town. At some sacrifice of strict logic in regard to the one authority principle, the Bill gives local autonomy in a prudently elastic form. The local autonomy is made adaptable to varying circumstances; and the position in which the Board of Education is placed is, so far as I can judge, the right one.
  Such central control as is given under this Bill to the Board of Education really depends upon two ideas. The first idea is that the Board of Education represents expert knowledge. The second is that the Board of Education will be competent to advise in the light of a wide and comprehensive survey, more comprehensive than any local authority could take. But when all has been said, it remains true that the working of this Bill will
  1084
  require the good will and loyal co-operation of all concerned. I am confident that that condition also will be fulfilled, and I believe that this Bill, instead of diminishing, as has been prophesied, will stimulate and increase the popular interest in education.
  It is constantly said that nothing is so disastrous in our country with regard to education as the absence of popular interest. For my part, I believe that there is great exaggeration upon this question. In some rural areas apathy exists beyond doubt, but, on the other hand, if you take the artisans of great towns in the North you will find that, as a rule, they are extremely keen about education. It was my honour to hold an educational post in Scotland for several years, and I had some opportunity of observing the feeling of Scotland about education. It may be due to a difference of temperament, or to more favourable conditions, or to both causes, but there is no doubt that in Scotland the interest in education is diffused through all classes in a way to which there is nothing comparable in England. I attribute that partly to the fact that the Scottish Universities have been open to all classes of the people, and partly also to the Scottish system of elementary and secondary education. To what has the apathy in England, so far as it exists, been due? I think one can point to one or two causes which go far to explain the difference between England and Scotland in that respect. The first cause has been the want of variety in the curriculum of our elementary schools. Under the old system of earning grants for special subjects, the curriculum was sometimes ludicrously unsuited to the circumstances and needs of the children. Under the block grant recently introduced, elasticity has been given in respect of the curriculum of elementary schools; thus in a rural school it will now be possible to teach things which will really interest the children, and which will be of use to them in their country life. Another great cause of that apathy has, I think, been want of continuity; that is, the fact that after a certain age, say, from twelve to fifteen years, there was in many cases no upward educational path open to a child of promise. Such a path is opened by this Bill. I think that is one

  1085
  of the most important benefits it will confer on the community. When these two defects in our educational system—want of variety and want of continuity—have been redressed, and when the machinery of this Bill is in full operation, I believe that in many, I hope most, localities of England there will grow up a real and living interest in education; and I believe that under the influence of this feeling, and with the loyal co-operation of all who are concerned, this Bill will prove what its framers have intended it to be, a far-reaching and salutary measure of educational reform.
  (3.46.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (): I am sure the House has listened with the greatest interest to the speech of one of the highest authorities upon the subject of education among Members of this Assembly. I listened with special interest to the theory of my hon. friend in reference to the apathy shown in this country towards the subject. That apathy, he said, did not exist in the great towns of the North of England, and it did not exist in Scotland. Yes, but what is the education given in the large northern towns and in Scotland? It is the education given under the direction of School Boards. Where is this apathy to be found? In the rural districts, and especially in the South of England, where education is given under the denominational system. That, I think, is a simpler account of the matter than that given by my hon. friend. But I will not venture to occupy the time of the House by going into a general review of what may be the operation of this Bill, being satisfied with the exposition given by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to confine what I have to say tonight to one principal point, and that is to my mind the most important part of the whole, the question of popular control as it stands under the Bill.
  Now, quite apart from all details, apart even from the religious difficulty and its controversies, stands the great principle we, at all events, shall always contend for, and which I believe is valued on the other side of the House, that in the disposal of large sums of public money there should be sufficient public control. I ask the House to consider what is the public control effected by this Bill. This Bill starts with a new educational authority, the councils in counties and
  1086
  boroughs, and it is claimed that as these are popularly-elected bodies, there is consequently popular control. Well, you start with these county and borough councils, and there is one feature in these discussions upon which I must observe, and that is that the subject has been argued throughout rather too much upon the position in boroughs. Now the real difficulty and the real necessity of education in this country lie in the rural districts, and what I have to say has more reference to these districts than to the towns. You start with your County Council. Now a County Council, as everybody will admit, is a body without extended experience of educational work at present. I do not say you cannot impose a new duty on County Councils, but this is an immense subject which quite overshadows the other duties they have to perform, and I think it is a great misfortune, as my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean said, that the electors of County Councils should not have had the opportunity of considering what sort of a council they would desire to deal with the subject of education. But that can only come later, and for the present you must take the Councils as they are after having been elected for the discharge of totally different duties and for dealing with matters of highways and other local subjects of infinitely less importance than education. This, however, as my right hon. friend says, is a battle that will have to be fought out in the future. Electors in due time will have to consider what should be the constitution of their County Council, and I believe it will be very different from what we have had up to the present time, Elections will be fought on very different grounds and will involve conflicts on religious and political issues to which they have hitherto been strangers. I will assume that County Councils have set to work. Now, they meet four times a year; it is hardly to be supposed that they will meet constantly, like School Boards. But you abolish School Boards and County Councils take their place. They meet four times a year, and of course they cannot settle even the policy, much less the details, of an educational system for the counties, and therefore they are to have an education committee. It is a very proper thing for a County Council to have such a committee, but up to this time a County Council has been thought capable

  1087
  of choosing and constituting their own committees. But we have changed all that. This Council is not to have the power of choosing its committee, and the consequences I will show as affecting the question of popular control. This committee, I suppose, for the County Council is forbidden to exercise its powers except on consultation with the committee, is to settle the educational policy. My hon. friend behind me stated that the majority of this committee must consist of elected members of the Council, but that is not so; there is a permissive power that it may not be so. If members of the County Council do not want a majority of their members to be on the committee, they may be in a minority, and , therefore, the popular element may be in a minority, and what is insisted upon is that, at all events, there shall be a large body of members of the committee not appointed by the Council; they are to represent other people and are to be nominated by other bodies.
  What becomes, then, of your public control? Here is a Council, which is an elected body, which has introduced into its body persons whom they are bound to appoint because they have been nominated by other bodies. Who are these other bodies? My hon. friend who has just sat down talks of education experts, and no doubt County Councils would voluntarily call in education experts to assist them, but that is not the real point; the point is the persons they represent in the shaping of an education policy. There is no secret about it. Everybody knows that the representatives of denominational and sectarian bodies are to be placed on this committee whether the County Council likes it or not. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Education Department used very conciliatory language on the subject. Well, he is a conciliatory person, but this Bill is one that is to last, and power is given to the Education Department to revise the schemes of County Councils, whom you assume to be bodies fit to conduct this great business. In the preparation of a scheme, the Council is supposed to know all about the sort of education fitted for its district, and the scheme goes to the Education Department at Whitehall. The Department may revise the scheme and, if necessary, have a public inquiry to decide whether or not a County Council is a fitting body and
  1088
  has framed a fitting scheme and competent for its purpose. It is to hear claimants to go upon the committee of the County Council. The Department may not approve the scheme, and may return it to the Council. But suppose the Council differs from the Department, and declines to accept the advice of the Department, what is to happen then? Well, you start with a conflict between the County Council and the Department. My hon. friend who has just sat down says he approves of the control of the Education Department, which runs, as I shall directly show, through the whole of this Bill, and makes them masters everywhere of the County Council in every part of its operations. And you call that popular control! The education authority has not popular control; it may be expert control, but it is not popular control, and the great feature of this Bill is that in no place has the popularly-elected body real control of any part of the education of the country; it is a subordinate agent, and the setting up of a great independent education authority deriving its force from its knowledge of the conditions of the district is absolutely contrary to the whole texture of this Bill. Then we will suppose that in the revised scheme of the Education Department representatives of all the sects have been placed, under the powers of this Bill, upon the Committee of the County Council.
  It has been stated here that that has been protested against, and we have endeavoured to mitigate even the terms under which the Councils were obliged to appoint upon nomination. I believe there were representations by a committee of the County Councils that they disliked, and naturally disliked, a position which was altogether inconsistent with their dignity and with their authority, and which they regarded as humiliating; but for some reason or other the Government retained these words, and would not even alter the word "nomination" of these outside bodies. Now, Sir, I say in the first place—to use the word which my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has used—you dilute your popularly-elected authority by pouring into it these nominations of outside bodies. That is the first invasion of the popular

  1089
  authority, because this important Committee is not a popularly-elected authority, nor is it nominated even by a popularly-elected body. I confess that this notion of holding a public inquiry, to allow these persons to come forward and claim to be put upon these Committees, not at the instance or even with the consent of the County Councils, is at once to introduce a conflict which will be extremely injurious to education. What is the position of the County Councils? If they do not accept the scheme returned to them by the Education Department, the Education Department in Whitehall supersedes the County Councils, and compels them to act under their orders. I say that is not popular control, nor even that of this education committee. I am trying to look at the thing as I imagine it will work in the rural districts with which I am acquainted. The County Council meets four times a year, and it has to do all the business of the county, which it does very well at present, and all the work of higher education and elementary education and technical education at those meetings. Of course it cannot do it. The work will have to be done by this committee. The committee will, I suppose, meet at the central town in the county, but how often it is to meet I do not know. The School Boards are constantly at work. I see there is a minimum of three months—that is to say, this committee is to meet four times a year also. And upon that is to depend the government of the education of the country. Therefore, it is not on the County Council, nor is it on this committee, that the real working of the education in the rural districts will depend. In the large towns it is different; the Councils are there, and the committees are there, and they can constantly attend to the work. But in the rural districts the whole thing depends, and must depend, on the managers, and the moment you come to the management you annihilate popular control; the whole object is to annihilate popular control. Six managers are to be appointed, and four of these are to be appointed under private trust deeds. That is the management which is to arrest education. The popular control of your great central authority is represented by
  1090
  one out of six. I say it is a farce to talk of popular control in the management of the schools in the rural districts. There is nothing of the kind. You have deliberately framed your plan for the purpose of excluding popular control. Who are these four managers? They are appointed under private trust deeds, and they are the statutory majority. What is the position, then, of the popularly-elected bodies in the practical management of education in these schools? They are permitted the privilege of appointing one man out of six in the management of all the denominational schools in the rural districts. To talk of popular control under such a system is a farce, a contradiction in terms altogether. You may say that, though the mangers are appointed in this manner, they are to be under the direction and instruction, with regard to secular education, of the education authority. But there is a great difference between giving instructions to men whom you appoint yourself and giving instructions to men who are appointed by other people. But the instructions are to be given to men whom they have not appointed and whom they cannot dismiss, and the statutory majority are what you may call strangers altogether to the education authority, from whom they receive their instructions. That you start with.
  I remember that when this Bill was launched we were told that the minority were to act the part of an Opposition; they were to criticise and to appeal to public opinion against anything they disapproved of in the action of the majority. It is that majority to whom the minority of one is to give the instruction in regard to secular education. What is the position in reference to the things in regard to which instruction is to be given? The managers may differ in the view of secular education taken by the County Council or their committee. My hon. friend who has just sat down stated that the great defect of elementary education in this country was want of variety. But this Bill has destroyed all variety in elementary education in this country. The Cockerton judgment is accepted as the Government's principle of elementary education. They actually confine the words "elementary education" to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Therefore, we may well understand that there will be differences of opinion—a

  1091
  more enlightened view on the part of the County Councils than on the part of the nominees of the trust deeds. But who prevails in that matter? These two authorities—that is to say, the managers and the County Council, who give the instructions—are treated in this Bill as co-equal authorities; one is not subject to the other. They may both of them appeal to the Education Department, and the Education Department may rule out the instructions of the County Council even upon secular education.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYdissented.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I know the Attorney General has given one interpretation on this matter, but it has not the force of a court of law. What he says is that they only determine whether the instructions have been carried out. I do not believe that is the force of the words at all. The words of the Clause are very distinct. They are:
  "If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education."
  Therefore, on any question that arises between these two authorities the Board of Education may decide in favour either of one or the other equally. That is not popular control; it is the control of the Education Department, which is not a popular body. Therefore here, again, as everywhere, the authority of the County Council is superseded by the authority of the Education Department, and the popular element is overwhelmed by Downing Street. You raise in these autonomous bodies exactly the same feeling that has been raised in your self-governing colonies by the interference of the experts of Downing Street. They did not tolerate it, and you will not find it tolerated here. The County Councils have proved themselves able and competent to do their own business; and to be told that on every question that arises between them and the managers, the managers will appeal against their instructions to the Education Department, is a source of friction, in my opinion, that will be absolutely injurious to the working of your educational system. As to secular
  1092
  education, then, the Education Department is the last resort and the final authority to determine it, and not the popularly elected authority. This latter is not the authority in this matter of secular education. All the representations, therefore, which have been made upon this subject, that the local education authority would be supreme in secular education, are entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill.
  Take another subject, one of much less importance—the maintenance of buildings. I refer with regret to this sordid subject, which has been dealt with in such a huckstering spirit. What has been the situation with regard to this question? We have been told that this great contribution towards the maintenance of the buildings was a consideration to support the monopoly to be granted to the voluntary schools. We are told that there was to be a great sacrifice on their part. What sacrifice is there? By dint of mere clamour on their part during the debates on the Bill, they have been able to appropriate funds which have been intended for the general education of the children, for the relief of their liabilities—for the relief of those subscriptions which they were to make in order to keep up those buildings. They have succeeded in appropriating endowments, they have succeeded in appropriating the fees and the grants from the Exchequer; and in that manner, as my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen has shown, they have got rid altogether of this liability, and, I believe, pocketed a little nest egg for themselves. And so disappears the whole of the consideration for which they were supposed to claim the monopoly of these schools. Then, when a demand is made by the local authority for some repairs in a country school, these parties, who have shown this spirit, make an appeal to the Education Department in London to inquire and decide whether the repair in some country school ought to be made on the demand of the local education authorities; as if the authorities in Downing Street were better judges of such a matter than the local education authorities who were on the spot and knew what the state of the school was; so that the intellect and

  1093
  experience of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education are to be called upon to decide the number of coats of paint ultimately to be given to the school building. I confess I do not at all like the idea of a man of his great educational experience being called upon to decide a question of that kind. That is what my hon. friend who has just spoken calls the expert authority of the Board of Education. I venture to think that there will be frequent applications, because if the managers think they can save half-a-crown, the matter will go to Downing Street, and the question will be decided by the Secretary to the Education Department. I confess that an arrangement of this kind seems to me to be one not calculated either to promote the educational interests of the district or the dignity of the Established Church of England.
  Then, Sir, there has come into this Clause of the Bill, by a sort of miracle, the famous Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. The circumstances of that operation are very curious. It does not depend on popular control at all, of course. Popular consideration is to have nothing to say in the matter; it depends entirely on the foundation managers, and the question is whether one of the foundation managers, that is to say, the parson, is to control education, or whether it is to be the managers generally. But, really, the one means the four foundation managers. Well, this Kenyon-Slaney Amendment seems to puzzle the universal intellect of the House. No two persons seem to have the same opinion about it. We have had successive explanations of the Clause from the Attorney General, but each explanation makes the matter less intelligible than it was before. Whether it is that the trust deed should invest the parson with the sole authority in religious teaching, or whether it is that the sole control shall be in the hands of the managers, we are just as much at a loss to know as when the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment was first introduced into the House. It is a remarkable thing that the Government have said that that was always their policy. Well, if it is so, it is curious that they did not put a Clause in their Bill which would have explained their meaning. It is still more curious that, after this Clause was put in, they have not made it clear to the ordinary
  1094
  intellect what the meaning of that Clause is. Now it is going to be sent up to another place, in order that another place may explain what nobody here understands. It will have, no doubt, some exposition in another place, and it will not be left, as the Clause now stands, to be determined by the Education Department in Downing Street. However, we may feel sure that, like a ghost, before many days expire, the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment will haunt us again here in some form or other. Whether it will be intelligible then or not, whether it will then be satisfactory or not to the adopting parents who sit on the front Bench, I really do not know. I must, I fear, leave that for further explanation.
  With reference to this question of popular control, I will only further allude to the Clause which deals with new schools. It is a most extraordinary thing. If there be anything which the local education authority ought to be a judge of and capable of judging, it is whether there should be a new school in a district of its area. If it is not fit to judge of such a matter as that, it is not fit to judge of anything at all in regard to education. It is absolutely excluded from judging that question, because the Education Department are to be the sole judges whether there is to be a new school or not. If the Education Department thinks that there ought to be a new school in the district, what happens? Why, the Education Department summons a meeting to inquire whether the local education authority is a fit judge of such things. They invite the people to come, and any ten ratepayers can come forward and say, "The County Council knows nothing at all about this. We pray that you shall not allow them to erect a new school; our school is the best, and if there is to be a new school it is not to be their school; it is a school which we are prepared to put up." What a predicament to put the County Council in! They are to be challenged by outsiders, and their views are to be set at naught—the views of the education authority. What becomes, then, of popular control with regard to new schools, and that the authority are to decide this question amongst other things? I call special attention to this enactment in this Clause, because it is the greatest indignity and disability inflicted upon the local authorities

  1095
  that it is possible to conceive. It is not, seemingly, the wishes of the parents or the opinions of the authorities on the spot that are to be considered. Then, as to "the economy of the rates," is it the Education Department in London or the County Council which is to determine the disposal of the rates? A thing like that will not be tolerated, and ought not to be tolerated. Yet it is seriously proposed that a matter of this kind shall be taken out of the hands of the Council and put into the hands of the Education Department in Downing Street. Do you call that decentralisation? Why, a more centralising Bill was never introduced into this House. It centralises everything and every point, and it makes the Education Department in Downing Street masters of the County Council at every step and in every department of their work. Therefore, to say that this is not a centralising Bill is futile; it is contrary to every Clause of the Measure. And the opinions of the County Councils with regard to it have been declared. I have already referred to the County Councils Association. It is my belief that they regard the manner in which they are dealt with, with, if not indignation, resentment. They are treated as if they were children. They are treated as people who are incapable and incompetent to carry on their work if they are not under the tutelage and under the rod of the Education Department in every step that they have to take. The Council of the county which I have honour to represent, have passed a resolution against this Bill by a majority of twenty-nine to sixteen. This body respectfully informed the Government that if the Bill "passed in its present shape this Council cannot be responsible for its administration." I do not wonder at any County Council taking such a view of a duty cast upon them when they are treated throughout as if they are not fit to discharge the office which they are called upon to undertake. That is what I have to say upon the subject of popular control.
  Sir, there are many other features of this Bill to which we have great objection, but this is a question which seriously affects the authority to which you are going to transfer the education
  1096
  of the country. In my opinion you are showing an absolute distrust of the popular authority, and making it incapable of discharging the duties that you put upon it. I will not detain the House much longer. I regard this as a bad Education Bill. In higher education it supplies resources which are utterly inadequate. They may be made adequate possibly in some of the great towns. As far as the country is concerned, you will have made no adequate provision, even with the alteration of Clause 23, for enabling those in the elementary schools to get access to higher education. The establishments for higher education in the rural districts will be few and far between, and the children from the elementary schools, whom you have practically excluded by your Bill from higher education, by following the principle of the Cockerton judgement, will not get to the higher educational establishments. The amount of money you have enabled the County Councils to dispose of will not be sufficient for the establishment of extensive buildings and staff, for the training of teachers, and for all the duties which are cast upon these bodies in spite of the Amendments made in Section 23. Complaints have been made of the length of the discussions upon the Bill. The length of those discussions is due to the incomplete and imperfect manner in which the Bill was introduced. If you look at the Bill as it is now and as it was when it was introduced, you will see that the main part—that a great part, at all events—of the Bill had not been thought out or worked out by the Government when it was introduced. It cannot be denied that a great part of the people of this country are not favourable to your Bill. It was a little amusing to hear my hon. friend the Member for Stretford the other day say that the Bill was popular in the North of England. He was at once confronted by my hon. and learned friend the recently-elected Member for Cleveland, which, according to my geographical knowledge, is in the North of England. As far as we are able to test this matter by recent popular elections, whether in the municipalities or electoral Parliamentary districts, the verdict has been unfavourable to the Bill. This Bill will go forth to the country—I regret it deeply—as a signal not of peace but of conflict. There is nobody on the

  1097
  other side of the House who will deny that proposition. The Bill destroys all that organisation which has been most successful in education, and its whole object is to promote that system which has been the least successful. It diminishes public control over education as it exists in the School Boards. A Bill which has those characteristics in my opinion cannot and will not settle the question of national education. There remains nothing in my opinion for those who desire to see a real and sound system of national education established except hereafter to struggle eagerly and persistently to establish a real popular control over the education of the country and to remove the influence of sectarian dogmas from the education of the people.
  (4.40.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I think that what must have struck every man who has been in the House at the close of this protracted debate is the deep repose that has fallen upon the House now that the last stage of the Bill has been entered upon. It has had, perhaps, a stormy youth, but its old age, so far as its career through the House is concerned, seems to be perfectly peaceful. [A VOICE: "Gag."] The House debated all Tuesday, and will be debating all this evening, whether the Bill should be read a third time, and some people may say the debates have been a little dull. If there were the intense feeling which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth has spoken of, it would surely have found some manifestation on the Benches opposite. But I can see little sign in the House of what the right hon. Gentleman seems to expect—that the Bill will go to the country as a message, not of peace, but of war. One hon, Gentleman opposite produced what he said was a carefully-prepared diagram. He held it up, however, at such a distance as only to tantalise us, and he explained that it showed in great detail the rights of popular control and the rights of clericalism, and a number of other things with which I need not trouble the House; but this is not a time for diagrams or the discussion of details. We are upon the Third Reading of a great measure of national importance. The question is whether we are going to give up the problem of English education as insoluble. No one can at
  1098
  present defend the existing state of things in this country with regard to education; but the difficulties of the situation are very largely due to the fact that when the State was absolutely neglecting its duty of popular education, the Church stepped in and covered the ground with schools. She was for some time the only machinery for giving the education which we now recognise it is the duty of the Government to supply. When the ground has been covered in that way we cannot proceed in quite so symmetrical a manner as if we were starting a system for the first time. A learned man once said of the English alphabet that it was defective, redundant, erroneous and inconsistent. All these things could be said, I think with perfect truth, of the educational system of England at the present time. What are we going to do? Some remedy must be applied. Everybody is agreed as to that, but no one has any remedy to suggest except the Bill which is now before the House. Hon. Members who object to the Bill, say with perfect truth that it is not for them at present to prepare an alternative measure, but they might indicate broadly what competing scheme is in the field. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen revealed the fact, of which I myself was aware, that he had a competing scheme; but he said that he had been prevented on two occasions by the Closure from bringing it forward, and that on the Third Reading of the Bill it was too late to discuss its merits.
  MR. BRYCE (): The Attorney General seems to me to be labouring under a defect which has been ascribed to my countrymen in not understanding that I was making what was perhaps rather a mild joke.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: On the contrary, I think the joke a very good one, because I believe the right hon. Gentleman has not any scheme at all.
  MR. BRYCE: Of course I have a scheme. We have all got schemes.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman expose his scheme to the blasts of criticism?
  MR. BRYCE: Because I know you would not take it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell us there is a better way of dealing with this matter? Why does he lock it up in his own breast? He seems to have treated his scheme like Don Quixote treated his second helmet when, without exposing it to further rude experiments, he pronounced it to be an excellent helmet indeed. To reject this measure is really a counsel of despair, and equivalent to saying, "We may as well give up the problem of English education altogether," From time to time a plaintive cry is raised during these debates for the Scottish system. The Scottish system as it exists at the present moment has very many and very great merits; it has not the merit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire ascribed to it. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the interest of the Scotch in, and their passion for, education had all been created by School Boards. I need hardly tell anyone acquainted with Scotland that that passion and interest existed long before School Boards were heard of, and would continue to exist if School Boards should ever disappear. Under any system or conditions, I believe the people of Scotland would insist on having good education for their children.
  The Scotch system in one which whenever it has come under discussion has produced confusion on the other side of the House. If it were proposed to give the Scotch system, the question would at once arise: Are you prepared to take that which is a vital feature of the Scotch system, viz., the complete control of the local education authority over the religious education in the schools? Whenever the question has been raised some hon. Members have replied in the affirmative, but the great majority in the negative. ["No."] Well, a great many have. Will anybody say that the Nonconformists are prepared to abandon the Cowper-Temple Clause? It is perfectly notorious that that Clause is regarded by the great majority of English Nonconformists as the very ark of the covenant, and any man who dared to lay his hand upon it would incur their extremest
  1100
  wrath. We have had said to us: "Give us the Scotch system, and abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): Hear, hear!
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If I understand the interruption of the hon. Member, that is what he wants. It might suit Wales, but would it suit England? I venture to say that, with the views entertained by English Nonconformists, to abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause would be to throw your whole system of local government into confusion. There is the keenest feeling on the subject. I think it an unreasonable feeling, because, naturally, I am in favour of the Scotch system and the complete freedom given by that system to the local education authority. But one must recognise facts. It is no use trying to legislate regardless of the conditions by which the problem is complicated. I venture to think that the Government would have made a huge mistake, for which hon. Members opposite would have been prompt to punish them, if they had brought forward a proposal involving the adoption of the Scotch system and the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause. The problem with which the Government had to deal is not an easy one, owing to the fact that our system of education is so complex, being largely the result of voluntary effort, while, at the same time the State has stepped in and set up. side by side with the voluntary schools, board schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen talked contemptuously of the consideration that the Church schools were there and had to be reckoned with; he dismissed it as the "bricks-and-mortar" argument. But these Church schools are just as much the property of the trustees as the house of the right hon. Gentleman is his property.
  MR. BRYCE: No; they are held under trusts.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It is perfectly true that they are held under trusts; but that trust only embodies the desire, to which legal effect has been given, of those who supplied the money with which the school was built. Does the

  1101
  right hon. Gentleman deny that the trustees have a legal property in the assets available for the purposes of the trust? Does he deny that they are bound to apply the property to those purposes? Does he propose that wherever property is held under a public trust the State may step in, irrespective of any change of circumstances, and confiscate that property, applying it to other purposes merely on the terms of making what they consider to be adequate compensation to the owners?
  MR. BRYCE: I deny that there is any confiscation of property implied, and I say that there have been many cases in which changes far more sweeping than any we have proposed with regard to these trusts have been made, and wisely made, by the Legislature.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No one will deny that where circumstances have widely changed trusts of a public and charitable nature may properly be varied by the State. But the practical proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, as explained last night, is that the State should step in and say: "We are going to take these schools, paying you a rent for them, and apply them to such educational purposes as we think proper, not being those for which the schools were founded."
  MR. BRYCE: If the hon and learned Member wishes to know the nature of my proposal, he will find it in the discussions of about a week ago.
  SIR BOBERT FINLAY: I think I have accurately represented it.
  MR. BRYCE: Not quite.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Well, very nearly. The proposal was to take the schools, pay a rent, and use them for purposes other than those for which they were established.
  MR. BRYCE: Not altogether.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I think I have stated with sufficient accuracy the nature of the proposal. I venture to say that to expropriate all these schools,
  1102
  even though rents were paid, would be doing violence to those principles on which the courts of law and the Legislature of this country have been in the habit of acting. It is no use saying you will pay a rent. The owners of the institutions desire them to be applied to the purposes for which they were established. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire was very severe on the Church with reference to what he called the bargain she had driven as to the duties to be discharged by the present owners of the schools, the repairs, the sums to be received in respect of endowments and fees, and so forth. I have had occasion to look into this matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman went into it carefully he would find that the imposition upon the managers of the duty of executing the repairs will bear very hardly on a great many Church schools. That duty has been imposed because it seemed to the Government to be consistent with the scheme of the Bill, and best divided the matter as between the managers and the local education authority. It Will impose considerable sacrifices on those interested in many of these schools, and I believe those sacrifices will be met by a system of combination throughout the country dioceses. To say that the Bill has given to the Church a great deal more than she was entitled to is a statement which no one could make if they had looked into the details.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said it was a ridiculous thing that the Board of Education should be called in to decide whether a new schools should be a provided or a non-provided school. I think it is a most reasonable provision that—after the local inquiry, after eliciting the opinion of the neighbourhood, and taking all the circumstances into consideration—the Board should be able to arbitrate in the Interests of all concerned. The right hon. Gentleman made another statement which seemed to be calculated almost to incite the local authorities to rise in rebellion against such a proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Some of them have.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I venture to say that all those who are familiar with

  1103
  the extent to which local government is supervised and controlled through the machinery of local inquiries agree that it would be hopeless to attempt to get the local education authorities to engage in any such crusade as that which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to advocate.
  We do not say that this Bill is an ideal solution of all the difficulties of the case. The problem is a very difficult and complicated one, and what we do say is that the Bill is the only practicable solution, having regard to the materials with which the Government have had to work. We have had to deal with two forces—the element of denominational control and the element of popular control. I believe that under the provisions of the Bill those two forces will work together, "not by collision, but by pressure." There will not be a series of sharp collisions between the denominational interest and the local education authority as some seem to anticipate; but the two forces will work together, the one pressing on the other, without friction or trouble, with a result which will express a system of national education, doing no violence to the religious convictions of any large section of the people.
  In regard to the question of popular control, to which the greater part of his speech was devoted, the right hon. Gentleman said that the County or Borough Councils would not really be supreme, because they would have education committees.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said they could appoint their own committee
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman went further. I understood him to say that the Council could only act on the advice of the education committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. What is the fact is that the education committee must be consulted, and before acting the Council ought to have heard the advice of the
  1104
  education committee, but that is subject to this question, that if the Council regard it as a case of emergency they need not wait for the report of the education committee. As regards the powers of the education committee, they are only such as the council think fit to delegate to them. The right hon. Gentleman did say that the intrusion into the committee of outside elements was somewhat derogatory to the position of the local education authority. I do not share that view. I believe that the local education authority will welcome the presence on the education committee of those who have special knowledge of the circumstances of the schools in the district or have special knowledge in education matters.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why not leave it to the Councils?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: We are preparing a scheme for the whole country, and we have thought it right in that scheme to lay down those conditions which seem to make more for the harmonious working of the plan, and I venture to think that it is no use to say "Why not leave it to the Councils?" if the scheme is the best scheme for achieving a successful result. The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the power of appointment of the County Councils in regard to those nominated to serve on those bodies. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was quite accurate, but I will not weary the House by referring to the admirable and clear statement made on this point by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire proceeded to deal with the question of the control of the local education authority over secular education, and he said that it was not a real and effective control. On this point I should like to quote what was said on the 7th of November by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He said:—
  "They had subjected denominational schools to the control of the local authority for all purposes of secular instruction. Therefore, so far as secular instruction was concerned the denominational schools were on a level with other schools,"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But an appeal is given to the Education Department.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen stated, and correctly stated, that as regards the control of secular education the denominational schools were on the same footing as the board schools. The whole fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman's argument on this point is that he very much exaggerates the functions and office of the managers as against the local education authorities. Every one knows who has read the Bill that the managers are bound to obey the instructions of the local education authority in every matter relating to secular instruction, and if they do not obey those instructions the local education authority may step in and themselves see that their instructions are carried out.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But if there is a difference between them it must go to the Education Department, to whom the final appeal is given.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, no!
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It says so in the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I will deal with that point in a moment. The fact that the local education authority have the power of so stepping in will prevent any friction arising. If there had been no remedy at the command of the local education authority it is conceivable that a wrong-headed board of managers might set themselves up against the local education authority, but as soon as they realise that the local education authority can step in and themselves do the act they know that resistance is futile and the apprehended collision will never take place. It will be another case in which the bodies established under this Bill will achieve the desired result, not by a collision but by pressure. The right hon. Gentleman said that what he had in his mind was the appeal to the Board of Education which was given in a case of difference between the managers and the local education authorities. The
  1106
  right hon. Gentleman is really under a complete mistake, as he will find if he will look at the terms of Clause 7, which Provide that—
  "The managers of the schools shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given."
  There follows later in the Clause a section which provides that any question arising between the managers and the local education authority shall be determined by the Board of Education.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That overrules the former provision.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I really do not think that this point had been contested seriously by anybody except the right hon. Gentleman opposite since it was explained. This point has been explained over and over again. The Clause says—
  "The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: They may appeal against it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, they cannot; the Board of Education must accept the law as it is declared by statute, and if the statute says in terms that any direction given by the local education authority is to be carried out by the managers, the managers must carry it out.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (): The only question arising is as to whether they have carried out the directions or not.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That is another matter. If the question is as to whether the direction has been carried out, then the Board of Education might have to decide. but it would be a very barren field, because the local education authority might give another direction and might insist on that being carried out.
  The right hon. Gentleman has also touched on the question of religious education, and, of course, no one can do so without naming that Clause which will render my hon. and gallant friend the

  1107
  Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire immortal. On more than one occasion I have stated my view of the effect of that Clause. If the trust deeds provide for the reference to a bishop on the question of what is appropriate religious teaching, having regard to the tenets of the denomination, that reference will not be interfered with; but, as regards the whole management and control of the giving of that religious instruction, how and by whom it is to be given, the effective power of decision rests without appeal with the managers. My right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University seems to express some apprehensions as to how this Clause may work. I do not share those apprehensions; I believe that the people are perfectly ready and willing to welcome the guidance of the clergy, and that it is only in very rare cases, where the clergman is very extreme or wrong-headed—for there are such cases in all professions—that there will be any danger of collision. In such cases, the managers, of course, within the terms of the trust deed as to the nature of the religious instruction, must have the last word. The right hon. Gentleman says that different views are entertained with regard to the meaning of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, but I would remind the House that no Amendment was moved to the Clause in Committee, or, at all events, was not pressed.
  LORD HUGH CECIL (): On the contrary, I moved Amendments which were much more intelligible than the Clause.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: They were not pressed.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Not to a division, but they were put from the Chair and negatived.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: On the whole, the action of my noble friend was very platonic when the Amendment was before the House. The Amendments were not pressed.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: They were negatived without a division.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That is what is generally spoken of as not being pressed. I agree that our debates since have shown very considerable difference of opinion as to the meaning and effect of this Clause. The fact that such a difference of opinion exists, in my view renders it eminently desirable that when this Clause is discussed in another place such alterations shall be made as will put its meaning beyond all dispute. We know that others may think differently, but it is not as if the difference of opinion on the meaning of this Clause was to be measured by the side of the House on which hon. Gentlemen sit. It is not that the Government takes one view of the meaning of this Clause and that hon. Members on this side of the House agree with them, while hon. Member on the other side take a different view. The differences on this Clause are not coincident with the division of politics. If they were some such suggestion might be made as was thrown out in the remarks of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury the other night as to the division of opinion on subjects of this kind when they are raised in this House. I have always maintained that my right hon. friend would have been a great lawyer—a very great lawyer. The differences of opinion with regard to this Clause are not coincident with the differences of political opinion in the House, and I am bound to say this, that I have been very much struck in the somewhat protracted and very keen debates on this Bill with the fairness of the hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Time after time it has, of course, been my duty to the best of my ability to state my views as to the construction of particular portions of the Bill. Debate had often arisen on the question whether that was the true interpretation or not. On several occasions hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House, dealing with matters as to questions of law, have interposed and expressed their concurrence in the view I have ventured to express as being the true meaning of the Clause, and have in this way avoided the partisanship of the mere politician. I think it only fair that I should acknowledge in this matter what I may call the intellectual honesty of the members of my profession on the other side

  1109
  of the House. It is what everyone would have expected who knows the profession, and, therefore, I think it is not unsuitable that I should express the sense I myself entertain.
  On this side of the House—and this is what I wish to direct attention to—there has been considerable divergence of opinion as to the meaning of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and it is for that reason that I, speaking for myself, think it most desirable that when this measure goes to another place this controversy should be finally settled, and settled in two directions. In the first place, I think I have seen symptoms in some of the speeches of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich of a disposition to contend that the wording of the earlier part of the Clause is somewhat ambiguous, and that the provision that the religious instruction should be given in accordance with the trust deed would really incorporate all the provisions of the trust deed as to the superintendence of the clergy apart from the right of control of the managers. I think it is perfectly clear that construction is impossible. In the second place, I entertain a strong personal opinion that if a trust deed has provided for the decision of a question of what is the religious teaching of the denomination by some ecclesiastical authority, it is much more proper and decorous that it should be decided by that authority than that it should be wrangled over by the managers themselves, with the vision of a revision by a court of law in the background. I certainly should welcome any addition to the Clause which will put it beyond the reach of controversy that the construction of the Clause is what I have already said it must be, if you take it as a whole—namely, that the Power of decision by a suitable authority is not interfered with by the control given to the managers. We have been told by my noble friend who interrupted me just now that it would be perfectly amazing to make any distinction in this matter between doctrine and machinery. I can assure my noble friend that by his remarks on that subject he has made a great deal more of it than I have done. It is unfortunately true that in the history of the Church questions of government, of rites and ceremonies, of
  1110
  procedure, and of machinery have absorbed an amount of attention which might more worthily have been devoted to the weightier matters of the law; but to import matters of that sort as to Church government and as to proper procedure in giving religious instruction in a school is to me an astounding statement. If I may venture to say so to my noble friend, it shows an amount of confusion which is possible only in one who for the moment has lost himself in the mist of ecclesiastical controversy. Where are such pretensions to stop? Is it to be said that no mother is to be allowed to teach her children religion unless she is under the immediate superintendence of a clergyman? Is she to take out a licence for that purpose? I shall not enlarge on that subject, but it is rather a striking thing that claims of this kind should ever have been seriously advanced by the great Protestant Church of England.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: My hon. and learned friend must not suppose that I admit that he understands my point. or that he has correctly represented it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I dare say my hon. friend shrinks from the conclusion.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: No; I shrink from the incapacity of the legal mind to understand the matter.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I infer that my noble friend shares with the lay mind the propensity, when it is convicted of inaccuracy, to ride off on the plea that it is a legal quibble. This Bill will soon pass into law. It will pass from the debates of this House, and we believe that it will go out into the country and will have the effect of securing that for every English child there shall be available the best education that can be given by this country. I do not very much like some of that educational slang with which we have become familiar in the House lately. We have been told over and over again that this Bill establishes the "ladder" system. One would suppose that it establishes some new system of gymnastic exercise. What this Bill does is that it secures a career open to talent; it secures good education for

  1111
  every child born in country. Everyone recognises that ability occurs as frequently among the children of the poor as among the children of those who are better off. The object of this Bill is to secure that every child shall have the opportunity of seeing what is in him, and of rising, if his capacities fit him for it, to even the highest position which is attainable. I need not go into the provision this Bill makes to secure that elementary instruction shall be thoroughly given. Many of the Church schools have been on a level with best board schools with regard to efficiency, but unfortunately it is the case that in a great many other instances, owing to the want of funds they have stood on a lower level. That will be made good by the Bill. Secondary education will be provided, and every child may pass from a good elementary to a good secondary school if fit for it.
  I would just call the attention of the House to one most valuable provision of the Bill which I think has been a good deal overlooked. It is contained in the second sub-Section of Clause 23. By that, power is given to the local education authority, with the consent of the Board of Education, to extend the age limit for attendance at elementary schools "in the case of any such school if no suitable higher education is available within a reasonable distance of the school." I regard that as a most valuable provision. It entirely obviates the remark I have sometimes heard made that there may be a difficulty under the system established in the way of a child who wishes to pass on to a secondary school if that school is at some distance.
  This Bill I regard as a great democratic measure, and I believe it will be recognised as such. I was astounded to hear— "amazed," I think, was the word used by my noble friend—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen say that the working men had condemned the measure because they thought it sacrificed their interest to that of the clergy. What I would say is this, that such ideas might obtain some currency during the autumn campaign. No doubt at that time there was an enormous amount of very gross misrepresentation as to the nature and effect of the Bill. I have been told that a great many working men were under the impression that it was a Bill to abolish the board
  1112
  schools. I have heard hon. Members in this House very often, when they meant to talk of a board school talk of a School Board. The impression received currency on account of the misrepresentations of some who were interested in stirring up the agitation against the Bill; but these misrepresentations have really in many cases been so gross that they could not bear the light, and they have disappeared in the course of the thorough discussion the Bill has undergone in Committee. I believe the working men will appreciate the true character of this Bill. They will take the measure of the Bill, and they will take the measure of those who desire to utilise them for political purposes. The Bill is in all essentials what it was when introduced into the House. I do not believe that there ever has been a Bill of so much importance which has passed through the House less changed than this Bill has done. Reference has been made over and over again to the changes which have been made. The Government have not been deaf to suggestions. We have developed the Bill where it was desirable, and made clear what was already implied. The Bill upon which we have been engaged so long will very soon be tested in actual work. All those "Gorgons, and Hydras, and Chimeras dire," which the imagination of hon. Gentlemen on the platform during the autumn conjured up, have now disappeared before the light of day. The working of the Bill as an Act will be in the hands of the country, and I believe that the practical genius and the sound common-sense of the English people will show that this is a measure which works without friction and worthily achieves those great results for which it is intended.
  (5.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree with the Attorney General that there has been no substantial change in the character of the Bill. It is just as bad now as it was six months ago. There are no improvements in it. There is just as much public control and just as much sectarianism, and perhaps a little more. But I was exceedingly surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that this was a Bill to enable children of capacity to rise to the

  1113
  highest positions. Possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman was not thinking of the Nonconformist pupil teachers, who can never hope to rise beyond the pupil teacher stage. They can obtain assistant masterships, but never rise to the highest positions in the schools. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman makes any more statements I should advise him to read the Bill.
  With regard to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, I am not going to take part in the brilliant ping-pong match between the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the Attorney General; but I thought it was a significant admission to make on the Third Reading, that this Amendment is to the changed in another place. What has happened to induce them to mutilate this Amendment to such an extent? think it has something to do with what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls, not collision but pressure. With regard to the Scotch system. The learned Attorney General said that the Scotch system had been repudiated by the majority of the Members sitting on this side. He was challenged on that statement. We asked him to name one person who in any way repudiated it, and he could not do so. He said it had been repudiated by the majority. That is not my view at all. Then he said this was not an ideal solution. I was glad to hear that statement. At any rate it is not the best. There are two alternatives which would have been better than the present Bill. I agree with the Colonial Secretary that probably the best system is a system where the control is in the hands of the people and the education given in the schools is absolutely unsectarian, and I also agree that there is no chance of the people accepting such a system; but even without that there are two systems which are better. The Scotch system is better. The Scotch system obtains now in some of the most important centres in Wales. In the Rhondda Valley, for instance, where every denomination agreed to develop a syllabus of religious instruction, drafted by the vicar of the parish, and there there is perfect peace. I have seen the Scotch system at work, and it is a success. Then there is the other alternative which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Green-
  1114
  wich suggests, but shrinks from the Manitoba, Ontario, and New South Wales systems. Both those systems have worked well and have eliminated the religious controversy for ever. Everybody who knows the evil which this religious controversy has wrought knows how necessary it is to eliminate it. These two systems, which found acceptance not merely among the moderate men of both sides but among men like the hon. Member for Tunbridge, who is not generally regarded as moderate on Church matters, are put on one side for the sake of perpetuating a system which only keeps up the bitterness and irritation which has been the bane of education for the last fifty years. I believe either of those alternatives would have been more popular.
  The Government's scheme has not the advantage of being really popular. Where is the popular feeling in favour of the Bill? It has been repudiated on every occasion when the test of popular opinion has been applied. Those were remarkable figures published in The Times yesterday as to the results of the municipal contests. Wherever there have been contests on the issue of the Education Bill they have resulted in large majorities against it. Although 109 Unionist Members have been returned as against fifty-three Liberal Members, still, in the municipal contests, there has been a majority of five to four against the Education Bill. That is a remarkable indication of the state of public opinion in the only way in which we can test it at the present moment. And every attempt to get up a counter-agitation has failed. The Albert Hall meeting was not a public meeting, though the clergy acted as recruiting sergeants ad hoc. There was one exception. There was a smoking concert held in support of the Bill somewhere in the South of England. So little confidence had those who organised it in the Bill that they appealed with influences spirituous rather than spiritual in their nature, and thought it best to pass the resolution and to say as little as possible about it. "Captain Cook kindly gave a number of selections on his fine double-trumpet instrument," and he sang to this great meeting in support

  1115
  of the Bill, "Wait till the clouds roll by," and by way of referring to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment he sang "The Happy Family," and ended up with "Good Old Joe." It was a little irrelevant to the Education Bill, but its effect was good, because I see it ended in an "unanimous and enthusiatic" resolution in favour of the Education Bill. With that exception I have failed to find any indication of the opinion of the people in this country in favour of it.
  Why, Sir, any system you could find in force in any part of the Empire would be better than this. It does not really produce a settlement, but quite the reverse. It converts the precarious holding that a favoured sect had upon the education of the children of the land into a freehold, but we shall continue to contest the title, and we shall appeal to a higher tribunal and reverse the decision. The result of this religious element has been that this country is the most backward of all really civilised countries in its educational system, and this is the country which can best afford to do the best for education and least afford to do the worst. We depend more upon education than any of our great rivals, yet compare the educational system of this country, not with the United States, but with a little country like Switzerland. What is the remarkable way in which it works out? I take my figures from the excellent Reports supplied by the Board of Education. I find that while England spends a farthing per head of the population on secondary education, Wales spends twenty times that, and Switzerland spends fifty-five times as much. The country of Gloucester and the Canton of Berne are comparable in size and population. Let us take those. I find in Berne they spend £147,000 out of the common cantonal rates on education, and Gloucester spends £7,000. In Berne there are seventy-three secondary schools, one university, one school of fine arts, one veterinary school, five training colleges for primary teachers, and one training college for secondary teachers; in Gloucester there is one training college for the whole of that part of the country and not only from Gloucester, and no secondary schools set up from public funds. What advantage has Gloucester got? Is its theology better than that of
  1116
  Berne? Are the morals of Gloucester better? Is Gloucester cheese even better? I am very doubtful of it. Take the comparison from another point of view. You find this little country, Switzerland, doing ten times as much for education as these rich counties of England, but, on the other hand, the police rate of Gloucester is four times as much as that of Berne.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON (): Does the hon. Gentleman say the police rate of Gloucester is higher than the police rate of the other counties of England?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I said it was higher than that of Berne.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: It is not above the general average of England.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not saying it is. I suggest that the police rate in Berne is one-fourth what it is in Gloucester.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: What is the police rate in Switzerland? What is it in the pound?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member had known the rating system of Switzerland he would not have asked that question.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: Then you cannot make a comparison.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member challenges me I will give him the exact figures. £50,000 is spent in Gloucester for police—
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: You are nearly doubling the amount.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Member will state the exact sum.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: It is about £30,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is about half. If the hon. Baronet tells me the total expenditure for police in Gloucester is only £30,000, I accept his statement; but I suggest to him that the total for local and imperial police is £60,000, of

  1117
  which the State pays half. I simply instanced this in order to point out how backward we are compared with other countries. This is due very largely to the fact that sectarian controversy has kept us back, I do not say that a denominational system is necessarily incompatible with good education; that is not the question. Where you get a homogeneous people it does not much matter, there is not much harm then, but when you have the people split up into fifty different sects there are only two alternatives which could be adopted. You must either deal with the question as the United States deals with it, by keeping out all religious dogma, or, as some of the Colonies have done, by giving facilities with complete popular control.
  Let me point out one or two instances where I think the perpetuation of this sectarian system damages education. For one thing, it preserves a dual control, if that is a proper description of what will happen after this Bill becomes law, a very bad principle in any kind of management. In some of the functions the managers will be subordinate to the local authority; in others the managers will divide the authority with the Councils; in others the managers will be superior to the Councils; in others the authority will be divided between the managers, the clergyman, and the Bishop, which is the Kenyon-Slaney plot. Again, it would be divided between the managers, the Council, and the Board of Education; indeed, nobody can tell in whom the powers are vested. This is not dual control; it is multiple control, and it is impossible to have an efficient system under it. These sectarian differences which you are keeping alive are very injurious to efficiency. You will have men going on to these bodies purely and solely to keep down the level of School Board efficiency in the interest of the rival concern. It is exactly as if you had a man with a trading concern of his own going on to the board of a rival concern. What would he do? He would resist the sinking of capital for the purposes of improving and increasing the trade of the concern on the board of which he sat, in the interests of his own concern; and when you put a man interested in voluntary schools on the management of a provided school,
  1118
  naturally in the interest of the system in which he is most interested he will use his position to cripple that system he least believes in. On the other hand, what happens? You not only get the non-provided men trying to cripple the provided schools, but the men opposed to the sectarian schools doing their best to keep down the expenditure of those schools. So you get this rivalry, not to raise the level of education, but to depreciate it, and you place religious zeal permanently against educational efficiency in this county.
  There is another element which this Bill introduces for the first time—the distracting influence of religious controversy in local administration. If you introduce religion into any question it is a matter so absorbing in debate that that element must dominate every other minor consideration. If anyone wants to know how distracting this religious element in administration is, let him look at the debates of this House. The Prime Minister complained that education was scarcely heard of in the debates, and that every debate had gone back to the same old religious discussion. As long as religion was mixed up with administration that result can only be expected. It is the most important element, and how can you keep it under? You are bound to get to it; that is what we complain of. Take the Kenyon-Slaney discussion, and in describing it in that way I do not refer to the hon. and gallant Member as a man, but to the hon. Member as an institution. I watched it as an impartial observer, I took no part in the action, I thought it was better to keep out of it, that it was dangerous. There were the High and Low Churches firing at close quarters; there was cross-firing by Nonconformists and Roman Catholics, and for a humorous non-combatant I thought it looked too dangerous, and I took cover. What happened? For two days you felt it coming. There were important Amendments on the paper, but the House had no patience with them, management, control, appointment of teachers; excellent Amendments which ought to have been discussed from a business point of view. But we passed them all over; we wanted to get to religion, and when it was reached we said, "Thank heaven, here is religion at last; now for a row." It was like a whirlpool. You felt its power of

  1119
  suction days beforehand, drawing everything to it with increasing celerity. My hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, whom I expected to see a rock in the rapids, was swept away like a lath, and for hours this House swirled round and round in the vortex of a mad frenzy of theological controversy. On the following day who was here? Not many. The House looked like a meeting of the Corporation after a big City dinner. That is what will happen all through the country. Directly you bring in religion it will be the dominant consideration in every discussion. I speak as an alderman of long standing. What do hon. Members think the Agenda Paper will be like? You will probably see on the County Council Agenda Paper questions affecting roads and bridges and the like, all matters affecting the comfort, business, and convenience of the people very largely, and— after this Bill is passed—probably the expediency of adding a new wing to the county lunatic asylum. But, whatever is on and whatever is off, one thing is certain, that on the subject of education there will be a long list of Motions. From one part of the county there will be a row about the appointment, and in another about the dismissal of teachers; the Anglican maypole will come up for discussion; complaints will be made that one denomination is being unduly favoured in the matter of schools, while another denomination will be complaining that they are not favoured enough, and there will be controversies about the violation of the Conscience Clause. Endless questions will crop up.
  You may say, "Nothing of this kind occurred in Wales," and that is true, because we introduced into our intermediate Education Act, with the consent of the Unionist Government, a Clause that no dogmatic formulary of any kind should be taught in the schools. What is the result? There is not five minutes given to the discussion of religious controversy in the County Councils of Wales from one end to the other. We keep it all outside, and that is what you want to do here if you want to do business for education. Why you should introduce these matters I have never been able to understand. Supposing these items came last on the Agenda Paper, will there be any patience shown to discuss roads and bridges, or other humdrum and dull, but very necessary and important, matters of local
  1120
  administration? County councillors will be whipped up, as the laity of the Church were whipped up by the bishops and clergy for the Albert Hall meeting, and no time will be allowed for the discussion of the really important business of the Council. They will want to get to the religious controversy. There will be closure by compartments introduced in every County Council in the land. That is what you will get. In every County and Town Council the question of the repression of popery in the village schools will be debated, whereas they ought to be discussing the suppression of swine fever. The Thirty-nine Articles will become part of the Standing Orders of every Town Council; you will have Kenyon-Slaneys arising in every county, keeping watch hand ward over village Cecils. This is the state of things that will arise.
  What on earth have these dogmas to do with religion? One hon. Member says it is the right of the parent. What right has the parent to dictate to the State that the State should at its own expense teach any theology? I do not know that the parents have a right to demand that the State should teach anything. It is not a question of the right of the parent, but of the interest of the community, and is it in the interest of the community that it should intervene in these squabbles between forty or fifty different sects? You cannot say the Church has a right and the Primitive Methodists have not. It all these exercise their rights you split up education and shatter it to atoms Lord Salisbury said with regard to India that the Government had a great horror of using its authority as a partisan of one religion more than another. Those were wise words, and I wish the statesmanship which is good enough to be applied to the people of India could be applied to the people of England and Wales. It is altogether a question of the interest of the community. I do not know that the community has a right to teach theology, but hon. Members opposite ought to be logical. If it is the business of the community to teach theology it should not confine the theology to one kind. Hon. Members say "But we have an Established Church," but the same arguments as they use can be used in favour of the

  1121
  unendowed Churches and schools. The hon. and learned Member for Stretford a few days ago said, "Take care that you do not offend the clergy, for if you do, the moment their energies are withdrawn from these schools they will disappear." If they did, What becomes of this great craving of hundreds and thousands of parents for definite Christian teaching if this is simply a Clerical agitation? Hon. Members opposite say dogma is essential. Who at the present moment is their ideal of a great British patriot? The Member for West Birmingham— the right hon. Gentleman who belongs to the least orthodox of the Churches; he is not a believer in the dogmatic religion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and Yet nobody doubts the genuineness of his patriotism. Dogma, therefore, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is not essential to British statesmanship. I am not sure that the Prime Minister is not a schismatic, according to the notions of the noble Lord. Even he is not safe, if it depends upon dogma. He is the sort of man that the noble Lord prays the Good to deliver us from on Sun lays and Feast days.
  After all these are not the things that make a good citizen. Look at the things that are asked to be taught. I am sorry to have to refer to them, but when our religion demands it these things must be mentioned. What is it the Church asks should be taught? It teaches a truncated Creed. Take the two or three things wherein the Churches really differ. They are not things you ought to teach children. Take the doctrine of the godfather and the godmother. Those who have got them are within the sphere of influence of a religious organisation. Therefore, they do not need them. As for those who have not got them, why on earth should they be harassed and tormented for not having them? It is not to them you ought to talk; it is to the parents. The children cannot mend it, so what is the good of talking about it in school? Or take the theory about being humble and lowly to your betters. That is really teaching a political creed. Let me give an example—I am not talking of those creeds which some of the clergy believe in. Take a thing of this sort—we repudiate it and say you have no right to teach it. "Order yourselves
  1122
  lowly and reverently to all your betters." That is all right— but it depends upon who your betters are. Those who are taught in the training colleges, which are maintained at the public expense, are instructed how they are to explain these things. "Who are our betters? Those in a higher position than ourselves, either by birth, wealth, or office." I wonder if the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich acts up to that. How does he treat the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Does he show him that deference which is due to his Catechismal superiority? As a true son of the Catechism I am myself always perplexed how to act. I meet many men; I know nothing about their worldly circumstances, and have no time to look into their family pedigree. What am I to do? Should I say, "I am at a loss to know whether you ought to take off your hat to me, or I to you. Would you mind, in order to assist me, telling me what your balance at your banker's is?" If I get the answer, "It is so much," I am to immediately take off my hat and say, "Sir, your obedient servant." I say they have no right to teach this repulsive snobbery. [Cheers and cries of "Oh."] It is this repulsive snobbery from which the Carpenter's Son suffered. I have seen columns in The Times filled with this: "Undenominational teaching in the Board Schools is obnoxious to Churchmen." To teach kindness, goodness, honesty, purity, temperance, charity—this is undenominational, obnoxious to all good Churchmen! To teach them to cringe before wealth; yes, this is pure religion and undefiled, and therefore you ought to endow it. It is perfectly definite. You are to order yourselves humbly and lowly to wealth. That is not the teaching I would have. I would rather have the words which the American schools teach: "If any man be great among you let him be your servant." All the great Presidents of America have been poor men without a pedigree.
  I have only one word to add. There is a clear issue before the country. Public control—yes, and if you are going to teach religion in the schools, teach it from the Book which is acceptable to all Christians. Give the Bible to the children. It is done by the board schools, and I have seen even bishops commend the way it is explained. There is one thing

  1123
  that always struck me about these tenets of the Church Catechism—how irrelevant they are to the real perils that children have to encounter in life. Give the children the Bible if you want to teach them the Christian faith. Let it be expounded to them by its Founder. Stop this brawling of priests in and around the schools, so that the children may hear Him speak to them in His own words. I appeal to the House of Commons now, at the eleventh hour, to use its great influence and lift its commanding voice and say, "Pray silence for the Master."
  *(6.12.) MR. PLUMMER (): Very early in the Autumn Session, I believe before the Autumn Session commenced, the hon. Member who has just sat down, speaking outside this House with all that delightful contempt for accuracy of description with which he so often entertains us, described the Government and this Bill as a hen sitting on an addled egg, the chicken from which would get lost in the November fogs, but today we see that the chicken has come safely through the November fogs, and is about to be sent forth a thriving bird, destined to become a veritable Methuselah among fowls. Not a few on both sides of the House, I am glad to think, are prepared to a attribute this result, to a large extent, to the skilful leadership of the Prime Minister, of whom the Leader of the Opposition, in these education debates, truly said the other evening, "That if he had to hang a man he would take care to do it with a silken cord." When the country heard the Bill described as "conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity"—a description which I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Oldham repudiate with contempt—when the country heard of "School Boards being butchered to make a parson's holiday"— a phrase easily recognised as being by the author of the other historical phrase with regard to "smoking hecatombs of slaughtered babes"—it soon came to the conclusion that the Bill could not be so bad as it was painted, and it was then an easy step to arrive at—the further conclusion that it was a much better Bill than it at first expected. Now I think it is generally recognised that the agitation is dying down, if it is not already dead, and the task with which hon. Members opposite are face to face at the present moment is that of
  1124
  devising some means or method by which to keep it alive. On that point I cannot expect my opinion to be taken as of much value, but fortunately I have the direct testimony of the Free Church Federation, because the Rev. Dr. Guinness Rogers stated the other day at a meeting in the Farringdon Hall that there was a danger before the Act came into operation of a subsidence of the zeal which was now stirring them, and that every means must be taken to keep it alive, "every means" being pleasantly suggestive of the fact that "the resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted." I can almost imagine the death-bed scene. I think I see Dr. Clifford fittingly in attendance on the dying patient; the Leader of the Opposition present, with some doubt as to whether he wishes the agitation to expire or to recover, and the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs vigorously, but in vain, trying to keep up an artificial supply of oxygen.
  Instead of the agitation having had the anticipated effect in the country, it has entirely missed fire. If I ask myself why it has missed fire, I should answer the question on two grounds. First, because it was based far too much in some quarters on dislike and jealousy of the National Church; and, secondly, because of an exaggerated and misconceived idea of the gullibility of the people in this 20th century, neither of which factors are as potent as they once were. Not even the most frantic efforts to label the new education rate as the old Church rate have induced the country to believe such a false idea, and instead of a surging mass of the Opposition returning to the House immediately the Autumn Session commenced with the ultimatum, "Withdraw, or dissolve!" we have had the spectacle of some half of their number in attendance, trying either to obstruct the Measure or to obtain modifications and concessions. More over the attitude of the Opposition has not always been the same inside and outside the House. It may be considered clever—no doubt it is very 'cute—but I find it difficult to think much politically of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House—who has spent much time here in endeavouring to obtain modifications of the Measure, and has then proceeded to address

  1125
  meetings in the country, and to warn his audiences against the Ministerial concessions "because they are part of the whole trick and business of the Government." There were two main arguments which had been advanced against the Bill—first, that there is no mandate from the country; and, secondly, that in the Bill, even as now amended, there is no popular control. So far as regards the "no mandate" argument, I am content to leave that in the position in which it was left by the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor in the representation of Newcastle, when speaking recently within the sacred precincts of the National Liberal Club. I will trouble the House with only one phase it. Where was the mandate for the Education Bill of 1870? It is notorious that the General Election of 1868 was fought upon one question, and one question only, viz., the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and though it may be said that there was a reference to education in the election address of Mr. Gladstone, similar reference may be found in the addresses of hon. Members on this side who stood at the last General Election. Where, then, was the mandate for the establishment of School Boards in 1870—for the establishment of the system which has so heavily handicapped the voluntary schools ever since?
  As regards "no control," I pass by the statement of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that "all the best educated countries in the world have municipalised education," not because I undervalue his authority, but because I have noticed that whenever we quote him against his colleagues on that side of the House, we are always met with the reply, "Oh, Macnamara he is an educationalist!"—as much as to say that he is no Liberal. I would ask the House therefore to listen to two voices of 1170. The first is that of the late Mr. Mundella, who said that—
  "He was satisfied that no greater mistake could be committed than that of leaving school boards to be elected by the popular vote."
  The other voice is that of Mr. George Dixon, of Birmingham, who was not only a Liberal, but also an educationalist, and who declared, speaking from his place in the House of Commons—
  1126
  "I really do wish my hon. friends, taking the same view of politics, belonging to the same Radical school as myself, would have a little more confidence in what I have always supposed to be one of the chief Radical doctrines, viz., trust in municipal government elected by the ratepayers."
  I venture to think the annoyance, to use no stronger term, manifested from the Benches opposite, has been due to the realisation of the fact that they have—fairly or unfairly, form whichever point they may choose to regard it—been cheated out of what they looked upon as a great opportunity of damaging the National Church. We have been told by the hon. Member for Rugby, in his famous horse story, that when he goes to buy a horse he expects to carry away at the same time and for the same money not only the horse, but also the bridle and saddle. In short, in language with which in his professional association with persons accustomed to stand at the bar of justice he must be familiar, he expected to "collar the lot." In this case I believe hon. Members opposite not only expected they would secure the Church horse, the Church bridle and the Church saddle, but they also thought they ought to have the conveyance and the stables as well, and because they had been disappointed in that expectation, we have—again to use legal phraseology—had that exhibition of "incompatibility of temper" which has been so noticeable in the discussions. The last resort of hon. Members opposite is to throw up their hands in pious horror at the operation of the Closure. It seems to me ridiculous. They have as mush right to complain of the Closure as the man who murdered both his father and mother had to ask for mercy from the judge on the ground that he was an orphan. Whose fault was it that he was and orphan? Why, his own, of course, and he knew it. Whose fault was it that the Closure has operated against hon. Members opposite? Why, their own, of course, and not only did they know it, but, what is of far greater consequence, the country knows it to.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (): I look upon the question affected by this Bill through the spectacles neither of Roman Catholics, nor of Anglicans, nor of Nonconformists, but simply of one who

  1127
  desires to see a sound system of education established throughout the country. I believe that that system will never be established so long as the line of demarcation between the functions of the State and the functions of the individual is not maintained. The function of the State is to look after secular education, and that of the individual—the parent or the pastor—is to look after religious education. If ever you try to evade the function of the individual and place it on the State you will fall into all sorts of difficulties, and education will suffer. My hon. friend has praised the excellences of undogmatic religion. I am surprised that anyone should assert in this House that there could be such a thing as undogmatic Christianity. The words are an absolute contradiction in terms. Nondogmatic morality has been spoken of, but to tell us that you are able to get a religion based upon a supernatural revelation to men, and you can do so without accepting the dogamatisms of that religion, seems to me to be an utter absurdity and a contradiction in terms. What is the consequence of breaking down the barrier? When once you break down the barrier you will have men wanting to go further. The result of teaching religion in board schools is that you have denominational religion in a great many schools, and education becomes the battle-ground of rival sects. Why was this Bill brought in? Was it because of the Cockerton judgment? If so, why did you not limit it to that? Was it for the benefit of secondary education? If so, why did you not limit it to that? The real reason why this Bill was brought in—and hon. Gentlemen opposite must be well aware of it—was that there were 8,000 parishes in England where there was a Church school, and the subscriptions so fell off that, although the education was starved, the schools were in a state of absolute bankruptcy. That is the real reason. This is the richest Church in the world. It is the Church which contains most of the rich men in England, and it does seem to me something mean and contemptible on the part of rich Churchmen that if they believe in the doctrines of their own Church they should not be ready to pay a certain portion to meet the cost of their schools instead of sponging upon others.
  I respect all religions equally, and I have no objection to any man in the
  1128
  world believing in anything he pleases, and inculcating it on others, but I object to him calling upon us to pay for the teaching of that religion. Let each sect sit like a hen on their own eggs and hatch them, and not use the State as a sort of incubator to hatch its own sectional eggs. We know the old proverb that he who pays for the music has a right to call the tune, but when we are asked to pay for this, and when we are allowed to call the tune, I do not think it will be a Church tune. By this Bill the Government have had to invade one of the most elementary principles of control over the money which is found by the State. The Government were trying to blink the whole question. In one Clause of this Bill power is given for the appointment of managers. Six of them are appointed for a school, four of them being put upon the board by the Church itself. I wonder what would be said if it were proposed that the Liberal Party should be allowed to co-opt two-thirds of the Members of this House. It is a mere farce and ridiculous to talk about these six managers, four of whom are co-opted, as being representatives of the parish in which the schools are situated. The first Lord of the Treasury said that although they were called managers they did not manage? I contend that they do manage, because they have the right to appoint the master. If you will only provide that I shall be allowed to appoint the masters of the schools, I will undertake to turn the rising generation into thoroughly sound Radicals without a Conservative amongst them.
  One speaker has said that these schools are an annexe to the Church, and he said they were also an annexe to the family. If so, why do you not allow the heads of the family to interfere in any sort of way? It has been said that the country desires to have this Bill, but if that is so why will you not leave the matter to the country? If the country really desires this system of managers why not leave it to the parishioners and the parents of the children to have a voice in the matter, and to have a supreme voice to decide what is to be done in the schools. There is another elementary principle of self-government as it is recognised in this country which

  1129
  has been trampled under foot, and that is the principle that there should be no obligation upon a civil servant to state his religion, much less to hold any particular religion. You have in these 8,000 schools 8,000 masters who are practically civil servants, and who are only appointed if they belong to the Church of England; in fact they must belong to the Church of England in order to get the appointment. What can a Bill be worth that tramples upon two such elementary principles of civil liberty and civil rights as this Bill does?
  I can understand perfectly well this proposal if the school happens to be situated in a place where other schools are entirely out of the reach of the children, but you must remember that this is not the case in the 8,000 parishes where there is only one school, and in that one school you make it obligatory that every child in the parish shall attend. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth there was a statute obliging everybody to attend the parish church, and what is the difference between that and obliging children to attend these schools? The result of this policy is that the children are forced into a school where there is a Church atmosphere.
  We have talked a good deal about the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and it is not an edifying spectacle to see the Church members quarrelling like cats and dogs over this Amendment. I took no interest in it at all. It was a matter of perfect indifference to me. Not that I object at all to the clergymen, but I object to the Church. If you have Church schools supported at the public expense it does not concern me so much how the money shall be allocated between the clergymen and the laymen, for I object alike to both clergy and laity having anything to do with it. When the First Lord of the Treasury passed his Closure by compartments, I came to the conclusion that I would not take part in the discussions in fetters. I object to being fettered or muzzled, and therefore I did not give one single vote after Closure by compartments was passed either in Committee or on Report. What happened? No sooner was the Closure passed than the right hon. Gentleman began to give sops to the clerical party and the clerical representatives on the other side of the House. He could not give the clerical party all
  1130
  they wanted, and so the right hon. Gentleman tried to make it up by doles, State grants, and in other ways, and he gave them the fees and the school houses. He gave these, I suppose, as a sort of inducement to them to fall into line and to accept his Bill. What occurred in regard to the Amendments? A very large number of Amendments were put down on the Paper by hon. Members of both sides of the House, and how many of them were put from the Chair? I do not suppose that more than half-a-dozen of them were discussed. All these Amendments were put down by hon. Gentlemen who had made a speciality of these particular subjects and who had studied the question, and they were anxious to amend the Bill, but all their efforts were swept entirely away by this Closure by compartments.
  Therefore many of the proposals in this Bill have been carried without any discussion at all, and now the House is called upon to say that that is a proper mode in which to legislate. I think that is a mode of reducing this House to contempt in the sight of the country, and I absolutely decline to have anything to do with it. But sometimes good comes out of bad. Disestablishment, or the desire for it, was a living force at one time in the country, but I do not know whether that matter is one our slate at the present time, because the Liberal slate has been cleaned, and if disestablishment has not been wiped off altogether it certainly has been a little blurred of late. I hope the effect of this Bill will be to write it large again on our slate. The Church, directly it felt itself safe in its own laager, issued forth and raided in our country. Churchmen said "As we have an endowed Church and the country is so foolish as to accept this, they will perhaps allow us to have endowed Church schools," and it appears to me that they been pretty right in that view. I do not blame the Tories for this for an instant. We cannot expect to get grapes from Tory thorns. I blame the country for sending the Tories to this House with a majority. I find, however, one consolation in what has occurred. I think that the Church has proved itself so aggressive in this matter that it is exceedingly possible that Liberals will unite to expel them from the fortress in which they have retired. This was done with the robber barons of the Rhine. They sallied forth and

  1131
  plundered the neighbouring country, and at last neighbouring country became so disgusted that they were not satisfied with defending their own, but they went and levelled the fortresses of those barons. That I hope will be the result of this Bill. I think the result will be that the Church schools in the end will suffer. I think the Church has overreached itself. Why were these schools established in the parishes? It was simply because it was a means of avoiding school rates. Now you have school rates whether they are to be voluntary schools, Church schools, or board schools. Now that you have taken the rates and deprived the ratepayers of control over the money, now that you have gone back to the old principle, that a man to be a civil servant of the country is to be a member of the Church of England, I think you will find, although perhaps you did not absolutely intend it that the end will be the ending of those Church schools, and that is a result I most sincerely desire.
  I think this debate has shown how impossible it is to have any good system of education so long as you do not lay it down that there should be nothing but secular education taught by the State with State money. Have you heard much of education in these debates? Complaint has been made on all sides that instead of education you have had nothing but sectarian bickerings. The children are concerned in this matter. I have heard a great deal about the teachers, and this and that, but the children have hardly ever been mentioned at all. There is no doubt that we are entirely behind other nations in the matter of education, and if we hope to hold our own with foreign countries we must educate our people up to the mark educate our people up to the mark of the inhabitants of Germany, and the United States who complete with us in foreign markets. There is no doubt that if the country had not allowed itself to be carried away a short time ago, and had not rushed wildly into the reckless folly into which it was recommended to rush by a sensational Press, we should not have been spending so much money on war as we are doing at the present moment. What is going on at present in the country? I am not going to transgress by pursuing this subject,
  1132
  which would be out of order, but I may be allowed to point out that, while we in the House of Commons, are quarrelling, and nagging, and bickering over the religious question in connection with schools, in another place we had a noble Lord proposing that the educational deficiency should be met by establishing a public holiday every year at which there were to be speeches made, as far as I understood him, on behalf of Birmingham Imperialism, and the little people were to be bribed into support of this by having a festival. I know that soldiers are needed, but there is something beyond being a soldier, and it is time to protest against this clericalism which has invaded the Benches on the other side of the House, and against the militarism which has not only invaded the Benches on the other side, but to a large and serious extent the Benches on this side. I want good citizens to be made, and I believe that a good citizens can be made without his being converted either into being a member of the Church of England or into a soldier. I recognise that we must have soldiers, and I have no objection to anybody who likes being a member of the Church of England, but I do hold that a sound, large, and broad system of education is infinitely better for this country than if we were to manage to take the other half of Africa at a further cost of about £250,000,000, even if we were to spend double what we are now spending on ships and armaments and soliders.
  MR. TALBOT: So far as I can understand the somewhat discursive remarks of the hon. Gentlemen who has just spoken, he is really in favour of a simply secular system of education. Well, it is not really worth while to argue that question tonight, because the country has long ago made up its mind against the hon. Gentlemen. When I say that, I say that not this House only, but that the whole community, has declared in the most unmistakable manner that secular education, pure and simple, is a thing they will not have, and therefore it would be a waste of the time of the House to reply to the arguments which have been adduced. The argument with regard to militarism is not germane to the question we are discussing

  1133
  tonight, and I may also pass that by. I shall confine my remarks, which will be very few, entirely to matters connected with the Bill which we are now asked to read a third time.
  Two points have struck me notably in regard to the discussions on the Bill. The first is that the opposition to the Bill has been based upon an extraordinary absence of reference to facts. Instead of facts we have had fictions. I am not going to weary the House with quotations, but I should like just to mention one or two of the remarks which have been made by the opponents of the Bill. I have here a statement by Dr. Clifford, the eminent Nonconformist divine. He says:
  "The Cabinet now pledges itself to effect the utter elimination of all the best elements of the present system of State education, and to secure the unchecked sway of the priest."
  That is one of his statements, and another is this:
  "This Bill, according to Mr. Bryce, takes the board schools from the people, and gives them, roughly speaking, to one section of the people—that is, to the Anglican Church. That is the fact. A heavier condemnation of the Bill and of its promoters could not be uttered."
  I asked myself when I read these extraordinary statements, "Who is making these remarks?" I believe Dr. Clifford is an able and a conscientious man but, I must say that are most misleading and absolutely inaccurate statements. It is difficult for me in dealing with such statements that the board schools had been taken from the people and given to one section of the people—those belonging to the Anglican Church—is a absolutely contrary to the whole truth about the Bill. I wondered whether I was dreaming, or whether it was a statement which had really been made by a responsible person. Dr. Clifford is a good and able man, but when he cites the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen as his authority for a statement so absolutely contrary to the truth, I am driven to this dilemma: either Dr. Clifford does not know the facts—in which case he ought not to speak about them—or he does know them, and speaks what are not the facts. If the latter alternative is true, I cannot designate such conduct in language which would be in accordance with the Rules of the House. In a northern part of the country, where an election has lately taken place, one of
  1134
  the arguments used against the candidate who supported the Government was that, if this Bill were passed, the universal payment of school fees would be enforced for every child. [An HON. MEMBER: Who said that?] I am told that was so. I am quoting the handbills which were circulated in the Cleveland Division, the constituency to which I refer. The hon. Gentlemen who represents the constituency is not here at present. He was here yesterday and made and interesting maiden speech to the House, and I wish he had been here now to have repudiated the statement I have made if it is not correct. That is another absolute mis-statement. In former controversies we have generally been agreed on the facts. I take the cases of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, Which is the first in which I was personally engaged. We knew then what was the proposal of the Government. Some of us thought it was a bad thing to disestablish the Irish Church, and others thought it was a good thing. There was a very proper distinction of opinion. but here it is impossible to argue with hon. Gentlemen opposite if they take their stand on statements of this kind, and if we do not agree on the elementary facts of the situation, it is impossible to come to close quarters. I regret as much as anyone can do the introduction of this new element into Parliamentary controversies, Which, if allowed to spread. would make the debates in this House almost useless. We have heard a great deal about the undue advantage to the Church. That is a matter upon which we may naturally take different views. It is perfectly reasonable that one person should think these provisions give undue advantage to the Church, while another person takes a different view; but to say that the Bill takes away the board schools and gives them over to the Church is an absolute perversion of the fact, and I should have expected that it would have been repudiated by hon. Members opposite. I regret that we have to deal with them from that point of view.
  I should like to ask the House to allow me to correct a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen in his speech last night. I have here a letter which has been put into my hand, and I have been asked to make use of it,

  1135
  The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Aberdeen said that the Bishop of London, at the Albert Hall meeting, estimated the cost of repairs for Church schools at £150,000 per annum; and then the right hon. Gentlemen went on to show that the proportion of fees and endowments the Church would receive (which he treated as a gift to the Church) was £162,000, so that the burden said to be laid upon Churchmen was a fiction; the whole cost would be provided for them with a balance of £12,000, and that the Bill was an endowment of the Church. Now, a reference to the report of the Albert Hall meeting will show that that is not an accurate statement of what the Bishop of London said. The Bishop says that he never made the statement attributed to him, and his Lordship has this morning given me authority to say that he not only did not make it, but that what he said was absolutely inconsistent with it. The information supplied to me is that there are nearly 3,000,000 places in Church schools, and that the cost of structural and annual repairs is at least 5s. a head. The London School Board estimates 3s. 6d. a head for annual repairs only.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The cost to the London School Board is only 5s. 3d.
  *MR. TALBOT: The hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to his own opinion. He is an expert in these matters. The information supplied to me is that the cost for structural and annual repairs amounts to 5s. per head, and that that would amount to, on the calculation of 3,000,000 places in the Church schools, £750,000; where as £150,000 would only allow Is. a head for all repairs. Whether I am correct or not in the statement of annual cost, at any rate it will be evident that the statement attributed to the Bishop of London is absolutely inaccurate. There is another thing that strikes me about this Bill, which is remarkably different from most measures with which I have had to deal, and that is, that each side seems to expect that it will grant enormous advantages to the other side. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Bill said it would be of enormous advantage to the Church; my hon. friends connected with the Church who support the Bill say they expect to reap no great
  1136
  advantage from it, but that a great deal of risk will be involved before a satisfactory conclusion has been arrived at. Probably the truth lies in this, as in most things, in the middle, and I trust that in the long run justice will be attained. Although we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite, this, at any rate, we must acknowledge, as practical statesmen, that in a matter of this kind we are dealing not with what might be ideally best, but with the best under the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman, when he spoke of secular education, asked why the Government did not brush aside the whole existing condition of things; but he did not emphasise the fact that this country of England is permeated by a great system of religious education provided at an enormous cost. He said that the Church schools had been supplied in order to escape the school rates; but a great number of these Church schools were established long before there was any school rate by Churchmen, Churchwomen, and other religious people who were anxious for religious education. We cannot get rid on these schools because the hon. Member for Northampton wants a universal system of secular instruction. I am anxious to provide for religious education. We meet the facts of the case; we acknowledge that there are these denominational schools all over the country, and we cannot brush them aside as if they were non-existent. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they think the matter over calmly, will acknowledge that this is the only way this question can be dealt with. From existing facts must a national system be developed.
  Before I sit down I should like to say a word or two about the celebrated Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant friend proposed that Clause not to throw obstacles in the way of what I have described as the object of the Government, but with a real and earnest desire to purge some of the Church schools of some of their defects, and to correct heresies that may exist in the Church. But in trying to do that he introduced into the Education Bill what I cannot but consider a provision of an alien character. In every period since the foundation of the Church there have been attempts to teach false doctrines. There is nothing new in that; but I do not think that an Education Bill is an

  1137
  occasion to establish the purity of the Church; and I know that this unfortunate Clause had introduced a great deal of bitterness into the discussion. However, at all events, there it is, and we cannot get rid of it; but I hope we shall try to get it made less injurious than I think it is likely to be. The Attorney General made a very interesting speech about it, and drew a distinction between the interpretation of two parts of this Clause. There were two reasons why I voted against the Clause. One was that it seemed to me to deprive the clergyman of the proper position he should hold in a Church school, and the other was that it takes away the appeal to the Bishop in a dispute between the managers and the clergyman. In regard to the first, the Attorney General did not think that there was any obscurity in regard to the position of the clergyman and the managers; and in regard to the second, my hon. and gallant friend, after hearing the Attorney General, said that he would be very glad if any obscurity which rests upon the Clause were put right in another place. In such questions it is of the greatest importance that there should be no obscurity whatever in the words of the Clause. These should, at least, say what they mean to say, so that there may be fewer floods of litigation, and less cases of dispute. That will be better for us all. We do not want to spend our time or money in fighting in the law courts. I do hope the Government will see that, when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, this Clause shall be made absolutely intelligible, and that whatever the Clause is intended to mean, that meaning shall be made perfectly clear.
  There is another point I wish to bring before the House. I know I represent here a great deal of opinion outside in regard to it which does not often find articulate volume in this House. I refer to the single-school areas, on which there has been much exaggeration. It has been said that there are 8,000 single-school areas. That is a great mistake; I believe there are only 5,000, and in a large number of these no Nonconformist grievance exists, simply because there are no Nonconformists in the parish owever, I admit that in Wales, and in
  1138
  Lincolnshire, the West Riding of York, and in Cornwall, Nonconformist grievances do exist. Now, I am quite ready to meet a grievance, but I cannot meet one grievance by substituting another. What hon. Gentleman opposite wish is to remove the Nonconformist grievance by making a Church grievance. That would not settle the question in any way. I am quite ready to allow any amount of religious teaching in schools for which there is a real demand; but when we proposed that it was met with opposition on the other side. They said it was absurd, although it seemed to me the very essence of Liberalism. I still believe that the proper solution of the question lies in my noble friend's Amendment, and that in the long run it will be seen that we were right and that that solution must come. When it does come, it will be acknowledged that we were the pioneers of a great educational reform.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I have been informed that while I was out of the House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University stated that in the Cleveland election a leaflet was issued on my behalf stating that fees would be charged in all Church schools if this Bill became law. I have no knowledge of any such leaflet, and must ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce the leaflet.
  *MR. TALBOT: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction, and I will take care that the information is supplied to him. I have not the leaflet with me. I only said I heard of it.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should not have made the statement without being able to produce his authority.
  *MR. TALBOT: When the hon. Gentleman has been longer in the House he will know that we do not always produce documents in support of statements that are made. I merely said that a report had reached me that a statement to that effect was made in the North of England. I did not say that the hon. Member was conscious of it. I say that in supporting this Bill we have

  1139
  been supporting the progress of the cause of education. I ask whether there is any alternative to the proposals of the Government. From my point of view of doing justice to the Church schools, though I by no means regard this Bill as perfect. I cannot say that any other scheme could have been produced with a chance of passing. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, in all fairness and honesty, whether any other scheme presents itself to them which can be reasonably proposed to the country. As regards the secularisation of all the schools in the country, that is out of the question. Nobody could think that the removal of the Church schools is a practical proposal. If that be so, if there is no other alternative, we must give to the Government measure the support which I think it deserves. This Bill has done much to establish a feeling of gratitude in the minds of all of us to the Prime Minister, and I ask for the privilege of a colleague to congratulate the Secretary to the Board of Education on the admirable way in which he has seconded the labours of his chief. This is one of the most difficult subjects, and it was almost impossible to bring it to a conclusion without friction; but when friction disappears and heat cools, the people of this country will, I believe, look back and recognise that in the Education Bill, and in the manner in which it was passed, they have secured a real triumph in the great cause of national education.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (): We all of us must recognise the moderation and good sense which has characterised all the speeches we have had during this debate, including that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. But hon. Gentlemen opposite must forgive me for pointing out that these are question of great principles and that there is a diametrical opposition between the view of the mode in which these question of education are treated by the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him, and the view of the mode in which we, on this side of the House, regard them. We readily recognise that the Church of England has a great position in our educational system. We readily recognise that no popular mandate was necessary for the
  1140
  purpose that some step should be taken by a responsible Government for the co-ordination and consolidation of education. And for elevating the voluntary denominational schools of the country up to the same standard of efficiency as that enjoyed by the board schools. But although we recognise the necessity for these changes, we are irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the methods adopted by the Government are not the methods which should, to the best advantage of the Government, have been pursued by the Government. This question of education must be divided into two parts—one religious and the other educational. On the educational part we, on this side of the House, are of opinion that the School Boards ought not to have been abolished. I do not see the Prime Minister present, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is in his place, and I would ask him on what authority did this abolition of the School Boards rest before it was carried into effect, and by the manner in which it has been done by this Bill.
  In 1895 a Royal Commissions was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into technical instruction, and many persons of the greatest educational authority gave evidence before that Royal Commission. And with one or two exceptions, every witness of authority expressed the opinion that it was inadvisable to abolish the School Boards. but that, on the contrary, it was essential, in the interests of the cause of education, that the School Boards should be maintained. I would remind the House of a few of the authorities for that statement. I suppose that there are few more distinguished men in the cause of education in this country than Sir George Kekewich, who has been so long associated with the public Department of Education, and he gave his unqualified opinion in favour of that point. The same observation applies to the Head Master of King Edward VI. School, Birmingham—a gentleman who was also vice chairman of the Birmingham School Board. Another of the representatives of that School Board also gave his opinion against the abolition of the School Boards. On the same lines was the evidence of Mr. Anthony, chairman of the Liverpool School Board, Mr. Fitch, H. M. Inspector of Schools.

  1141
  Mr. Feron, a most distinguished educationist, and lastly the right hon. Gentleman who was a late Minister for Education, the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent. One or two of them went as far as to say that the School Boards should execute the functions for the administration of secondary education. I shall be subject to correction, but I believe that the only gentlemen who gave evidence during that long and exhaustive Commission in favour of the abolition of School Boards were two Members of the Technical Instruction Committee of the Corporation of Manchester, Mr. Alderman Hoy, and Mr. Reynolds, also a member of the Manchester Technical Instruction Committee. the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Islington, and a member of the Town Council of Derby. Their evidence was in favour of the abolition of the School Boards and substituting for them County Councils or Town Councils. I think myself that the House was entitles to receive from the Ministry of this country some authoritative expression of opinion in favour of the abolition of School Boards before they introduced this Bill, and that they are unable to produce that authority. Why are we asked therefore to agree to their proposal? I admit that there are many School Boards in the country districts that were defective, but the Act of 1870 provided machinery to meet that difficulty, while the Royal Commission said that districts might be chosen, larger than the School Board areas, but smaller than the county, which could deal with primary, technical, and secondary education. I am no enemy of the County Councils. So far as technical education is concerned, the County Councils have done fairly well, but it is manifestly absurd to suppose that in the area of a large county it is possible for the County Council effectively to discharge the duty of the administration of education. Now, we have had no experience of the manner in which County Councils or Town Council are able to deal with education, but I think we can draw an inference from their treatment of the question hitherto, that they are calculated to starve education.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood Adjourned till this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [2nd December], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  (9.0.) MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I have no doubt, Sir, very many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House desire to take part in this debate, and therefore I shall endeavour to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion. I was observing when the sitting was suspended that the tendency of parties elected for general purposes is in the direction of parsimony, and what precedents there are point to the direction that the County Council as a body is likely to restrain expenditure in regard to secondary education. I remember one or two such cases in the Report of the evidence given before the Royal Commission of Secondary Education. A very able gentleman holding a high official position, in connection with education in Scotland, stated that prior to the Act of 1872—which established in Scotland the School Board system—the municipalities starved the burgh schools, which are of a similar character to those known in this country as schools for higher education, but that as soon as the 1872 Act came into operation in Scotland they at once saw a great revival in secondary education, due entirely to the encouragement given by the School Boards in contradistinction to that hitherto given by Municipal Councils as regarded such education. Again, take the case of Manchester. From 1890 to 1895 not a single penny was granted out of the rates of Manchester for the encouragement or promotion of technical or secondary education, but I do not forget how in recent years, acting under the great impetus given by popular opinion to secondary education, Manchester has shown her appreciation of the necessity of coming into line with public opinion in regard to it. With

  1143
  regard to the special grant known as the whisky grant, which was made for secondary or technical education, there are numerous instances in which the municipalities chose to apply it to purposes outside such education. At Yarmouth, I believe, a large portion of the grant was voted for the construction of a cricket and football ground. All this goes to show that municipal authorities elected for general purposes are not likely to be generous, but rather parsimonious, with regard to secondary education.
  We have been challenged to propound an alternative scheme. I do not see that it is obligatory on the Opposition to do that, but your own educational experts in their evidence before the Royal Commission did propound an alternative scheme. What we say is, leave the School Boards in populous districts alone, in sparsely-populated place consolidate the School Boards, and let secondary education be under a separate authority. I believe that such a system as that would have solved the problem with which we have to deal. It would be easy enough to make a union between that separate authority and those who represent elementary education. One word only on the religious aspect of the question. I am a Churchman myself, and am not therefore actuated by anything like a feeling of bitterness towards the Church of England. I quite agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University in this extremely moderate speech—that it is not likely that a majority of the clergymen in the 8,000 parishes where there is only one school will be intolerant in their action. But we have to look at the cases where there is an appreciable minority of Nonconformists. What is contended from this side is that we have no right to have two educational systems, one that is practically secular and the other which is denominational. We want one general system of education throughout the schools of the country. If you give us a secular system of education, if you give us control by our local authority, or by imperial authority, over the education of this country, we are quite willing to allow ministers of all denominations to go into the schools and teach the tenets of their
  1144
  particular Churches or religious bodies. I believe that is a solution of the difficulty which the Liberal Party would accept. It is undoubtedly an absurdity that on the strength of possession of the freehold of the schools, denominationalists are to dictate the particular form of religious instruction, while the State is to find the equipment and maintain the schools. We say that these schools are really national schools, and we decline to admit your right to make them spheres of influence for one particular sect in this country. I cannot help deploring that the Government has not recognised this fact. The Bill does, in a considerable measure, admit the principle of popular control, and we believe that, illusory as it is at present, it will be in our power in good time to make those changes which will transform the schools into secular schools, not with the idea of banishing religion, but with the intention of once for all putting an end to that unjust domination of a sect, whether of a majority or minority, over the schools of the country, a domination which undoubtedly hurts the conscience of the great Nonconformist body with which the Liberal Party is historically associated.
  *MR. JAMES HOPE (): I remember when the controversy about education was raging some four of five years ago, the Prime Minister on more than one occasion declared that if the whole question came up for final settlement, it would be settled on lines which would be wholly agreeable to none of the great parties to the controversy. I think that in this matter the Prime Minister was a true prophet. To offer any criticism on the Bill as it is about to emerge from this House seems a very ungrateful task, when one thinks what the principal author of this Measure has gone through on its account. No one who has not closely followed these debates can realise what this Bill must have meant to the Prime Minister during the earlier part of the session, when opinion had not crystallised on this matter as it now has; the right hon. Gentleman day after day and week after week was exposed to a variety of ingenious attacks from both before and behind. But he fought consistently for the true principles of education and of religious liberty, and I for one am neither unappreciative nor ungrateful. But I must say that the Bil as it emerges is not, and cannot

  1145
  wholly acceptable to many of those who in the past have been most interested in the maintenance and welfare of denominational schools. I firmly believe that this is a good Bill for local government. It sets before those responsible for local government new and greater duties and a new and higher ideal. It is, I believe, a good Bill for the teachers. It gives them a new and better status, and in many cases it will prove of great material as well as civic advantage to them. It is, I believe, a good Bill for the children, because the children in the future will under it get a far better education than they have ever had before. It is a good Bill for education as a whole, because it does really unite all branches of education in one harmonious and equitable system. But it is not altogether a good Bill for the present individual managers of schools.
  I am afraid that in this connection I must say a few words upon what is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and in so doing I should like to guard myself in two respects. In the first instance I have no desire whatever to interfere in any way in any internal differences in the Church of England, and if my hon. friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool should succeed another session in inducing the Prime Minister to bring in a Clergy Discipline Bill I shall take the opportunity for a prolonged indulgence in rural diversions. In the second place I do not wish to argue this question, as it has been largely argued, as a matter between the clergy had laity, which obviously is a matter which must vary enormously as regards different denominations, but I want to express my objection to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment on the solely broad ground that it is a wrongful thing that members of any one denomination should be given a statutory right to interfere with the religious teaching of another. Let me illustrate what I wish to say. In the first place, let me take my own case. Where I live is a small parish, in which I think I may say, without arrogance, I am the principal resident. There is an Anglican school, conducted on Evangelical, or, at any rate, moderate principles, and I pay a voluntary rate for that school without any conscientious objection. Now in that case, if under
  1146
  this Bill six managers have to be found, I think it extremely likely that I may be appointed as one of the two public managers; in fact, I do not see how they can be able to make up the six without asking me. If that is so, I shall certainly do my best with regard to that school in the matter of secular instruction. But supposing some case of religious difficulty should arise, I think it would be absolutely intolerable from the point of view of those who have founded this school that I should have any say in regard to it. Personally, I should be only too glad to run away. But possibly my colleague, the other elected manager, might not take the same view, and in any case it would be open to either of us to do great mischief to the future of the school, and from the point of view of the foundation managers, the latter would have every right to ask us both to stand aside and have nothing to do with matters with which we are in no sense concerned. Take again the case of a Jewish school in the East End of London. It is a matter of common knowledge that the religious views of those members of the Hebrew faith who come from the East of Europe to this country in such large numbers, differ materially on various points from those who have long been domiciled here, and such matters of difference might easily affect the curriculum of a Jewish school. If that were so, and if this Bill were extended to London, is it tolerable that two Christian ratepayers should serve on the management and have a voice in determining that dispute? I have always looked on this Bill as a logical and equitable measure, because it clearly followed the principle of rendering upto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, but in this particular instance it seems to me that a raid has been made by the public authority on a domain which is not its own, and I trust that even at the eleventh hour the Prime Minister will not mar the organic unity of a great creation by assenting to a principle that is as illogical in theory as it is irritating in practice.
  I now come to another matter, perhaps of less theoretical interest, viz., the burden thrown on the managers of voluntary schools. Several hon. Members have sought to minimise that burden, and he

  1147
  referred to the relief afforded by allowances for endowments fees, and rents of teachers' houses. In each of these matters I think the Government provision to be just. In regard to endowments, it is only right that the wishes of deceased benefactors should be respected, and that the provision they have made for the support of religious schools should accrue to those on whom the burden of religious teaching is to fall in the future. As regards the question of fees, these have been in the past practically a voluntary contribution to the schools, and it is only that the cost of the purposes for which they have been used hitherto should be defrayed out of them in the future. As to teachers' houses, they necessarily form part of the teachers' salaries, which the local authorities are to pay in the future. Passing from these considerations, however, I would ask the attention of the House to the schools which have neither endowments nor teachers' salaries, nor have charged fees. In a great number of these cases the future state of the schools will be worse then it is at present. If it is argued that this Bill affords relief to existing managers, I think, on examination, it will be found that in many cases the objects which were paid for openly and freely from the aid grant in the past, such as providing heating apparatus and asphalting playgrounds, will come on the managers in the future, and will constitute a burden on the denomination which in the past they did not feel. But in the case of a great number of these schools, the pressure which was brought to breaking point in 1897, will be continued at the present time, and no relief will be found by the managers, and no benefit will accrue to the denomination. That, I think, is a most serious disadvantage, and, at any rate, it is a most conclusive argument against what has so often been alleged, that this Bill is an endowment for the use of a particular denomination. I think I may answer for one religious body, which has never surrendered any school to rate competition in the past, and will not surrender any school under the operations of this Bill. But with regard to many other classes of schools, I should wish to believe that those who support them will be equal to the strain,
  1148
  but I confess I am not altogether sanguine. Many managers of these schools will, in the future, have to pay rates where before they did not pay them. They will have to maintain the buildings in repair; and their personal authority and personal pride will receive a damaging blow. I hope, however, that they will not be influenced by such considerations; but I am not sanguine of the result. I have seen it stated that many managers of Church of England schools are prepared to close these schools owing to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. I would put such managers on the same plane as those who would refuse to pay rates for the purposes of national education. I think for those managers to close their schools, not because they are hurt, but because they may be hurt, would be an unworthy policy; and I confess, if such a policy were adopted by the managers of Church of England Schools, I should be ashamed at the action of my friends.
  It has been stated by Members on the other side of the House that there is no general desire in this country for dogmatic teaching. Some hon. Members have gone further, and have said that we ought not to impose dogmatic teaching on young children. I well remember that at the age of 11 years I was taught certain dogmas of a portentous character which have left an indelible mark on my mind ever since. The first of them was that a point is that which has no parts and no magnitude. Another was the whole is greater than its part; and a third was that two straight lines cannot enclose a space. I remember these, and kindred propositions of a like alarming nature; and I was subjected to a series of most tormenting mental exercises—I think they were as many as twenty—before I was allowed to reach the point of proving to demonstration that two sides of a triangle are greater than the third. That fact could have been proved to any child by a practical empirical demonstration; and it might be thought that it would have been better to take a child out into the open air, and to show him that the shortest way from one point to another was in a straight line, without wearying his juvenile brain with a number of mental exercises. I venture to say that if education is to be simplified dogmas of another kind than

  1149
  religious dogmas will have to be wiped off the slate of national education. I will not deny that, at any rate to those who still rejoice in the path of youth, there is something attractive and stimulating in the atmosphere of strife and conflict which attended the debates on the Bill. The countenances of hon. Members opposite were illuminated, and I might almost say etherealised, by the joy of battle. I am not unwilling to take part in a fight when fighting is necessary; but it is pitiable that on this question of education we should have to fight at all. I was greatly struck with the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham yesterday. I was heartily in agreement with him in many of his propositions; and more especially in what he said as to the profanation of the Sunday by so many of the upper classes; though I confess I draw an inference from that different to the inference drawn by the hon. Member. But I desire most heartily to say that it is a matter of real grief to me that the earnestness and devotion and real religious zeal to be found among many of the opponents of this measure should not be joined to the equally deep religious convictions which we feel on these subjects. There is not too much earnestness in the world at present that we can afford to lose any of it. The danger is not too much zeal but the general atmosphere of indifference around us; and from the bottom of my heart, I wish we could enlist in the same cause of civic growth and religious freedom all that earnestness and sincerity which I fully recognise in many who, on this question, are our strongest opponents. We can only arrive at an eirenicon by a frank recognition of our differences. I welcome especially the remark of the Secretary to the Board of Education yesterday that when these differences are better understood a true working agreement will be more nearly arrived at. In conclusion, I would express my conviction that in this matter peace is only to be had by a recongnition on the part of all parties that they must respect the right of every man to interpret for his own children, and in his own way, what I believe is still a national conviction, that the path of civic duty starts only from the fear of God.
  (9.38.) MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The peroration of the hon. Member sets forth
  1150
  exactly what this Bill is not. That shows the danger of preparing a peroration beforehand. As I understand it, what this Bill does is not to allow a parent to say what religious education his child may have. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into reminiscences of his youthful days: I do not quite see how that would be relevant. As I understood the hon. Member, his argument is that the teaching of dogma is as useful as the teaching of Euclid—
  MR. JAMES HOPE: What I said was that in Euclid dogmatic principles were involved quite as much as in religious instruction.
  *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Then I understand that according to the hon. Member religion and Euclid are on the same dogmatic plane. I will do the hon. Member the justice of assuming that his remarks were relevant to the discussion. He said he learned Euclid at 11 years of age, but he now thinks that his youthful learning was a complete failure, and I am bound to say I am inclined to agree with him, because, so far as I am concerned, he has given me no information to enable me to arrive at a contrary conclusion. For obvious reason I have been a constant listener to this debate during the last two days, and I notice that a great variety of subjects have been touched upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University made what I think is technically called by the Attorney General an "amazing" speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to distinguish fact from fiction; and although he had that laudable object in view, there was hardly ever a speech which confused fact and fiction more successfully than his. He made a quotation from Dr. Clifford. I am not entitled to speak for Dr. Clifford, but I think the right hon. Gentleman, speaking with his authority, ought to have verified that quotation. For my part, I have not the slightest doubt that there is a serious mistake in the version the right hon. Gentleman gave. I think the right hon. Gentleman was confusing fact and fiction to such an extent that he was not entitled to open his speech with the statement that he wished to distinguish between them. This Bill has had a very serious effect on two Leaders in this House. The Irish Leader—we all know what has happened to him. He went

  1151
  home not to return again; but so bitter is this religious controversy, and so powerful is the priesthood in Ireland, that after a letter or two from the bishops, we have the pitiable spectacle of the hon. Member abdicating his position as Leader of an independent Party in Ireland. In Ireland the Leader poses but the priest deposes, and we have the spectacle of the Roman Catholic party in Ireland being now represented by my hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim, who has been constant and faithful amid all the tribulations of the Party to which he belongs. I congratulate him. I do not think the Irish Party have yet elected a Leader—there is plenty of time for the hon. Member. I have no doubt, however, that this Bill will not only serve to unite the Liberal Party, but, curiously enough, to dissever the Irish Party in this House. The real point I wish to submit is this. It seems to me we must accept the principle which was carried on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the denominational system is to be part of the educational system of this country. I am not going to quarrel with that now. Some time ago, in the debates in Committee. I used the word "bargain," and the First Lord of the Treasury strenuously resisted it. I am sure the First Lord of the Treasury will be the first to recognise episcopal authority, and I think I can give him some quotations which will show him that, in the negotiations or dealings in connection with the Bill, the bishops understood that there was a bargain between themselves and the Government. I do not say there was.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was not.
  *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That just shows how bishops can be misled. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I congratulate him on having been able to mislead the whole Episcopal Bench, from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, or upwards. The bishops were all under the impression that there was a bargain, and how astounded and amazed they will now be to learn that, after all, there was nothing like a bargain, and that the right hon. Gentleman, having listened to their views, went his own way unheeding
  1152
  their protests. The Bishop of London. who has taken a very prominent part in this controversy, speaking as lately as November 4th, said that "they offered the State property worth £750,000 a year, while the cost of their own special denominational teaching was only £175,000 a year," and he added, "That is the weak part of the bargain." There was no bargain, of course. There was only a supposed bargain. It was an episcopal delusion. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would not, of course, be a party to anything so sordid and commercial as a bargain. It would not appeal to his ecelesiastical mind; but the noble Lord said that it was proper for the State to give a guid pro quo in exchange for the school buildings. The school buildings were the quo, and we know where the "quids" are to come from. The Archbishop himself—I really thought there was some sort of divinity that hedged an archbishop against mistakes of this kind—said he thought that the Bill drove rather a hard bargain with the Church in some respects. I feel sorry for the Archbishop, but I am bound to accept the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury implicitly that there was no bargain. I think the Church was well within its right in thinking that it ought to be consulted before a Bill of this kind was introduced. It is very interesting to look at coincidences, although they may not prove anything. Convocation met some time before the Bill was introduced, and said that they were willing to meet the Government by allowing one third of the managers to be outside the Church. By a marvellous coincidence, in this Bill one third of the managers are outside the Church; but there was no bargaining, of course—no cause and effect. It was simply the view of Convocation and of the right hon. Gentleman, and they agreed upon it; but there was no bargain. Quite frankly, I look upon the position of the First Lord of the Treasury as holding the balance fairly and evenly between the Church and the State in this transaction. He is the arbitrator between the State on the one side and the denominations on the other, who was to settle the terms of partnership between them in carrying on the work of education. The principle which ought to have guided the right hon. Gentleman was to regulate public and private control in the proportion

  1153
  of public and private expenditure. I think that is a fair way of putting the case to the House. The Church gives something, and the State gives something; and it was for the Prime Minister in this supposed bargain to see that the interests of the State were not sacrificed to the interests of the sects or the interests of the priests. The matter we have to determine is a very simple one. We have to ask what does the Church contribute towards the elementary education of this country. It gives the school buildings rent free. There is considerable dispute as to the value of these buildings. In the report of the National Society it is stated that the sum spent on these buildings was fourteen millions odd sterling, say fifteen millions. The right hon. Gentleman in one of his speeches put the value at twentysix millions. I will divide the difference, and put the figure at twenty millions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman says that the National Society put their buildings at fifteen millions; but when talked of twenty-six millions—I confess I have not closely investigated the matter myself—I was referring to ali the elementary schools in the country.
  *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am dealing only with Church of England schools, and I think I am putting it fairly when I say that their capital value is not more than twenty millions, or, at 3 per cent., £600,000 a year. Therefore, the contribution of the Church of England to education per annum amounts to that figure. That is not all. There are the repairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University made a most amazing statement on this subject. He said, on the authority of the Bishop of London, that the cost of repairs would amount to 5s. Per head per annum for the 3,000,000 children for whom the Church schools had accommodation. Surely there must be some mistake about that. It is perfectly ridiculous. The Bishop of London said that they offered to the State property worth £750,000, and that the cost of their denominational teaching was £175,000 a year. I think the Bishop meant that the repairs would come to £175,000 a year.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY (): That £175,000 is arrived at by taking the proportion of the time in a week devoted to religious teaching of a purely denominational character.
  *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is a very dangerous principle for the Bishop to go on. We will see how far the schools are occupied for religious and how far for educational purposes. Anyway, the figure is somewhere between £150,000 and £175,000. It is now common ground that in the course of the progress of this Bill the clergy have had concessions made to them to enable them to meet this claim upon them. They have had the rents of the teachers' houses, amounting to £70,000 or £80,000 a year; half the endowments, £60,000, and half the fees, £60,000, making in all £200,000 a year, which is at any rate sufficient to meet the cost of repairs. Therefore we again come back to this, that the Church contribution for education is £600,000 a year. There is only one other subject to be considered: What is the State contribution? Last year there was spent in the voluntary schools of the Church of England £4,399,000. If you level up these voluntary schools to the level of the board schools, which I understand is the real object of the Bill—and a very good object it is—that would mean the difference between £3 Os. 2d., the cost per child in board schools, and £2 6s. 8d., the corresponding cost in voluntary schools, or a matter of 13s. 6d. per child. Multiply that 13s. 6d. by the 2,000,000 children educated in Church of England schools, and you have £1,350,000, making in all nearly £6,000,000. Therefore, the Church, on the one hand, gives £600,000, while the State, on the other, gives £6,000,000—that is, they give towards education in the proportion of ten to one. I submit this as a really serious argument against the Bill. How in the world the proportion of two-thirds of the management has been arrived at I do not know, unless it is that it gives a convenient majority by which the Church may have the practical control of the schools.
  We have been told that "the Church stepped in," and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division, yesterday compared the state of education in this country with the position of Egypt before the intervention of England. We are not rewarding the Church for the past; we have to look at her present contribution. But what more does she get? She gets relief from subscriptions, and nearly £3,380,000 a year in salaries for positions held in the

  1155
  main by Churchmen and Churchwomen. Is not that a splendid contribution to the Church? Only Churchmen need apply for these posts. The Church gives £600,000 on the one hand, and gets posts worth over £3,000,000 a year for her own adherents. Can anybody be surprised that we say, and say truly, that this Bill is practically an endowment of wealth, influence, and patronage for the Church of England? Can there be any question at all as to this clerical control in the schools? The clergyman, under the schedule, is ex officio chairman of the board of managers; he has a vote not only as a member, but also as chairman. Is not this clerical control? On 24th March the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said—
  "I desire to insist strenuously that by religious teaching I do not mean clerical control."
  If you do not mean clerical control, why do you make clerical control a part of the Bill? I do not think the Prime Minister was much intimidated by the Albert Hall meeting; at any rate, he did not change the Bill; but I do think it had a little influence on the mind of the Attorney General. I am not going to say a word against the hon. and learned Member; he has often splendidly vindicated the profession of which I myself am a humble member. Perhaps I ought not to say that that meeting had any influence on his mind, but I think it had a little influence on his industry. As a result of the Albert Hall meeting he applied himself with industry and energy to the consideration of this Kenyon-Slaney Clause to see what it really did mean, and, merely as a coincidence, he discovered there was a great deal more in it than he had ever suspected. Another coincidence was that it happened to accord in the main with the views of the Albert Hall meeting. I do not put it any higher than that. I say that clerical control is of the very essence of this Bill. Although not so intended, there can be no doubt that the Bill does in fact mean clerical control. We are told that in another place steps will be taken to make the Kenyon-Slaney Clause mean what the Attorney General says it does mean. That will be a very important Amendment, for it will certainly require a number of words to make it
  1156
  mean all that the Attorney-General means. The other night the hon. Baronet representing the Irish Party appealed to the House of Lords for all it was worth against this Clause. I think the Irish Party have come to a pretty pass when they have to appeal to the House of Lords.
  There is one other point I wish to submit to the Prime Minister. I may be very sanguine, but I believe it to be a new point. As I understand it, the basis of the claim of the Church of England to special and separate treatment is that she gives the schools rentfree. But the Church is not the only donor of school buildings. Clause 19, sub-Section (2), provides for School Board areas where there are already School Boards, and it says that the county authority may impose upon the School Board area a proportion between one-half and three-fourths of the capital cost. Therefore the School Board area gives you one-half or three-fourths of a school, just as the Church gives you a whole school in another place. Halfway between one-half and three-fourths is five-eighths, so that the Government say to the School Board areas. "In future you must give five-eighths of a school to the local authority free of charge." The Church for its whole school gets two-thirds of the management, but the School Board area for its five-eighths gets nothing. What does the five-eighths mean? Every year the repayment of principal in these areas comes to £835,519; interest on capital, £1,045,568, making a total of £1,881,087. Five-eighths of that is £1,200,000, so that really the School Board areas will contribute to education £1,200,000 a year, while the Church gives £600,000. To put it in another way, the outstanding capital due in respect of school buildings is £32,000,000. Five-eighths of that is £20,000,000. Is not this really an almost irresistible argument? Here the Church, with its £600,000, gets four-sixths of the management, while the School Boards areas, giving twice the amount as donors of schools, get nothing, and even on the public authority they get only one-third. Why do you not give them, as donors of schools, something in proportion to that given to the Church?

  1157
  The Bishop of London the other day said the undenominational system of teaching was a "rotten system." Those are strong words for a Bishop to use; there is not that refinement or that ecclesiastical flavour about them which refined and sensitive people would expect from a Bishop, even when dealing with education. But if it is such a rotten system it is very peculiar that clergymen should have been so anxious to get on the School Boards; I should have thought they would be contaminated by contact with such an unsavoury system. My complaint against the Government is that in rebuilding the educational system of the country they have abolished the better part, and taken the worse as a foundation on which to build. Reference has been made to the way in which the Bill will be met in the country. I think hon. Members opposite are mistaken if they think the matter will be over tonight, or even after the House of Lords have passed the Bill. There are men with conscientious objections. People may laugh about conscientious objections, but the Government have provided for them in regard to vaccination, and surely they could have provided for them in this Bill. I have great sympathy with the people who take a strong view upon this matters, and, as I have said outside the House, there are two stages of resistance to the Measure. Now, we furnish you with arguments; later, the people will argue you with furniture. The point we are discussing whether it is fair and just treatment, and my complaint against the Prime Minister is that he has not held the balance evenly between the Church and the State, that he has given too many favours and advantages to the Church, and too few to the State and to the people, as regards whom he stands in the position of trustee. For my part, I had the pleasure of voting against the first and second readings of the Bill, and tonight I hope for the third time to record my vote in the same Lobby.
  *(10.15.) MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire): I desire to say a few words in support of the Third Reading of this Bill, and I think I shall be the more readily excused when it is remembered that no other Scottish Member has spoken on this side of the House. Several have
  1158
  taken part in the debate from the other side, including two or three on the front Bench, but I think that my remarks will represent a larger section of Scottish opinion than those which have come from the other side. Many of us have not gone into the minute and insignificant points raised in the debates, but we really understand its main scope and principles, and to those I shall confine my remarks.
  In the first place, the Government are entitled to credit from the Opposition for having entered on this education question with the greatest honesty of purpose and in a non-party spirit. The Bill for the education of children in Scotland, introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeen, would never have become law but for the support of the Government and Members on this side, and exactly the same may be said of the corresponding Bill for England, the good genius in the latter case being the late Vice-President of the Council. The Government has taken up the present matter in the same spirit, and the result is the admirable Measure now before the House. In addition to the intrinsic merits of Measure, we must take into consideration the fact that the Anglican Church comprises about 70 per cent. of the population. ("No, No!") I think I am quite within the mark in making that statement, and that the Bill would be supported by about three-fourths of the people. I know objections have been raised to such statistics in view of the results of recent elections, but those elections are the natural swing of the pendulum, and the pendulum will swing back again.
  The constituencies, more especially in Scotland and Ireland, should take into account this preponderating majority in favour of the Education Bill. I believe that if this Measure were to be submitted to the people as a distinct issue it would be supported by at least three-fourths of the people of this country. The Bill has not only the support of the great bulk of the population, but I believe it will facilitate the progress of education in this country. We must take into account the progress made by the children of England in the past in

  1159
  elementary education, which during the last thirty years has been relatively greater than in any other country in Europe. All honour to the educationists who have contributed to this result. In the year 1870 the children of England were very much inferior to the children of Scotland, but now they have been brought up very nearly to the same level. A great deal of the progress which has been made in the past is due to denominational schools in which the majority of the children have been educated. I believe this Bill will greatly accelerate this progress and will very much improve primary education, and in lesser degree higher education. It will increase the resources of voluntary schools and will add to the amount of popular control over them. And last, but not least, it will encourage a systematic religious instruction in those schools. The great majority of the people of England have wisely determined that systematic religious instruction shall form a part of elementary education.
  The majority of the people in favour of systematic religious instruction includes not only almost the whole of the Churchmen, but also a very large proportion of Nonconformists. These Nonconformists hold the views which were so well expressed for them by the great Nonconformist divine, Dr. Parker, the late able and eloquent pastor of the City Temple Church, who said that "all religious instruction must be sectarian, not in the narrow sense of bigotry, but in the philosophic sense of definition. This view is held by a very large proportion of the Nonconformist people. During the last thirty years there has been the most determined effort on the part of Churchmen and a large number of Nonconformists to maintain systematic religious instruction in the schools. These efforts have been carried on at a great sacrifice. In the very poor diocese presided over by the Bishop of Rochester over £500 per week is being contributed for this purpose. Since the year 1860 the English Church has contributed £50,000,000 sterling, of which £20,000,000 has been invested in the schools the use of which is now being granted to the nation free of cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen asked what evidence is there that the people of England want denominational instruction? What better evidence can you have of this than the liberal payment and the great
  1160
  sacrifices which Churchmen have made for the support of these denominational schools?
  This contest has hitherto been waged under very unequal conditions—the denominationalists in many cases having had to pay rates besides supporting their own Schools. Fortunately the majority of the people of England have, by their liberality and determined effort, preserved systematic religious teaching in the schools, and it is well for England that they have done this. Had it been otherwise I believe the moral condition of England, upon which our prosperity in the future must depend, would have been on a much lower level. These efforts are now about to be crowned with permanent and welldeserved success by this Bill which will also confer enormous advantages upon primary education, and to a lesser extent on higher education. In conclusion, let me express the earnest hope that all Nonconformists, many of whom have so stoutly and ably opposed this Bill, and a few of whom outside this House have expressed their intention of doing everything they can to render it inoperative, will consider that the future education of the children England and a very great deal of the future prosperity of the whole of the people of England are bound up in the successful working of this Bill, and will set themselves resolutely to make it a success, as the Scottish people did thirty years ago. There are thousands and tens of thousands of Churchmen, broad-minded, open-handed, and self sacrificing, who have done splendid work for the Church in the past, and who are still willing to work for the Church in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said that the religious controversy now smouldering under this Bill would leap up into a flame, but I believe that, that, if entered upon in a common sense, not to speak of a Christian spirit, its success, even in its first two or three years, in advancing education will be so great that hon. Members opposite will wonder why they opposed it. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.
  *(10.30.) MR. ASQUITE (): If I ask the indulgence of the House for a very few moments—and I promise to be extremely brief—it is not with the belief or in the hope that, as far as the

  1161
  general principles, as distinguished from the detailed provisions of the Bill, are concerned—and it is with general principles only we have to deal on an occasion like this—it will be possible at this stage of the debate to contribute a new idea, or even a new phrase, to the discussion. If that is to be done, it must be done elsewhere. Possibly, it may be done in another place, where we hear that tomorrow night the ardent spirits who have been waiting so long for this Bill will at last be confronted with what will seem to them, at any rate, to be the fresh and many-sided attractions of a virgin subject. We have spent so many months in almost daily companionship with it that, although our feelings, whether of love or aversion, are, I imagine, unchanged, we should be more than human if we could any longer use the vocabulary of passion; and I shall adopt that subdued and sober tone which is appropriate to a valedictory occasion. If we on this side of the House—and I believe I speak for the whole of the Liberal Party—could honestly think that the effect of passing this Bill into law would be to raise the standard of education, or to get rid of administrative friction and waste, I venture to say that we should not only be ready, but eager and anxious, to shut our eyes to many of its blots, and to swallow much in it that would otherwise be unpalatable.
  But that is just what we cannot bring ourselves to believe. It appears to us that for every anomaly which this Bill removes it creates another, and that for the additional assistance—which I myself agree to be much needed—which it gives at the public cost to national education, it exacts from he public in the sacrifice both of principle and practical efficiency an unreasonable and unjustifiable price. I will confine myself to two or, at the outside, three points which appear to me to be of capital importance in order to make good and illustrate the proposition I have laid down. And first of all as regards the new authority, or rather the new family of authorities, which this Bill is going to call into existence. I adhere to the opinion which I expressed at the very earliest stage of our debates, that it is a blunder of the first magnitude to disestablish the great School Boards of this country. We are fully alive to the defects, and they are many, of out existing School Board system. The effect of
  1162
  the cumulative vote is to make the School Board in many places an imperfectly representative institution. Over considerable tracts of the country, from the smallness or from the sparseness of population of the parochial areas, and the consequent poverty of resources, both in men and in money, the School Board is an inefficient educational instrument.
  The Cockerton judgment again, by lopping off the whole of the continuation work, and by making it unsafe to give instruction in elementary schools to children over fifteen years of age, has largely mutilated and paralysed some of their best activities. And, finally, with a view to the proper relationship of elementary and higher education, I do not believe there is anybody among the opponents of this Bill on this side who does not agree that it is urgently necessary that you should secure a real simplification and co-ordination—which, I beg the House to observe, is a totally different thing from an artificial unifincation—both of authorities and functions. All those defects might have been remedied, all those necessities, great and urgent as they are, might have been met, without this wholesale and indiscriminate massacre. By a better arrangement and distribution of areas, by leaving the great School Boards intact, by establishing not a mere modus vivendi, but what might easily have been brought into shape, a real concordat between the School Boards on the one side and the municipalities on the other, and above all by having regard to the infinite variety of local conditions as between different parts of the country and not endeavouring to stereotype a cast-iron and uniform system on nation—by following lines like these you would have found yourselves on the road to a national solution of the problem of education.
  I can say for all of us that we have no enmity whatsoever to the educational ambitions, and we have no desire to narrow the educational province, of these great municipal councils. But by casting on them in name and ostensibly the whole burden of elementary education you are thrusting upon their shoulders functions, for which they have shown no desire whatsoever, and which your own scheme shows you distrust their competence to discharge.

  1163
  Otherwise we should never have heard of this hybrid committee, which from the very necessities of the case—at any rate, in a large majority of instances—will be, as between itself and the County Council in all matters of elementary education, practically autonomous. What will be the result? I am looking at the matter, I beg the House to observe, entirely and exclusively from an educational point of view. In the first instance, you will have put an end to the existence of the best, the most fruitful, and the most beneficent educational agencies that at present exist in this country; and you will leave the members of those agencies, the old School Boards, men and women who have equipped themselves, in many cases by years of training and devoted and strenuous activity, and have thereby acquired special aptitude which you will find in no other class of local administrators, for educational work—you will leave them to the precarious chance of being nominated or co-opted on this hybrid committee, or appointed to the subordinate rank of managers.
  What are you going to put in the place of the agency which you propose to destroy? Even at this the eleventh hour I must once more summarise the extraordinary arrangement which the Government propose in the name of unification and popular control. You will have in the first place nominally in front, where the School Board used to be, the County Council or the Town Council—a body which, as my hon. friend the member for Carnarvon showed in his brilliant speech—has its hands already full with its more appropriate work, and which, if it is to do its duty to its constituents in regard to its primary functions as a municipal authority, will only be able to give a very slight and perfunctory attention to the work of education. Everybody agrees that the County Councils and the Town Councils cannot do the work of the School Boards. Next you have got a committee, an imperfectly representative body, and a body upon which you have been careful to provide for the representation of the non-provided school—a committee which in a county of any considerable area, inhabited by a large population and with difficulties of communication between its different parts, will be
  1164
  absolutely unable to exercise effective superintendence and control over the fortunes and management of individual schools. Lastly, you have got, as regards the non-provided schools, a board of management which in no true sense of the term is representative at all, with the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, with no responsibility to the ratepayers of the parish or the county, in daily contact with the actual work of the school, and, according to all past experience, certain to become in time practically supreme. In other words, you put in place of the School Boards a system which has neither administrative unity, educational efficiency, not popular responsibility.
  Now I pass to my next point, and I am still looking at the matter entirely from an educational point of view. If we are to have a really efficient system of elementary education in this country, there are two fundamental conditions. The first is that the administrative authority should be, as I have shown your authority is not going to be, at once competent, representative, and responsible, and in the next place those who do the actual work of instruction—the teaching profession—must be the best equipped and placed in a position to make the most of their abilities and career which it is possible for Parliament to secure. These two things—a good administrative body on the one hand, and, on the other, a teaching profession for which there is an open career—that is to say, a profession in which capacity and character can make their way and obtain their reward—these are the pivots on which will hinge the entire future education of the children. I have shown how you have done with one—the administrative body. Let us see how you are dealing with the teachers. I am not speaking of them as a trades union or a class, but of the grievances of the teaching profession looked at from the point of view of the public. In the first place, you have in the denominational schools teachers of inferior status, of inadequate numbers, and with insufficient pay, and, in the next place, you have what is a still more formidable obstacle to the efficiency of the profession—the practical exclusion from a vast number, indeed, I may say the majority, of the rural schools, if not from the profession, at any rate from all

  1165
  except its lowest ranks, of the whole of the Nonconformist children. How has the Government dealt with this matter? I agree that the Government have done a great deal to improve the status and remuneration of the denominational teachers. But just in proportion as they have placed teachers in these denominational schools upon the same level, in point of remuneration and professional prospects, with the teachers in what used to be called the board schools, just to that extent have they multiplied and intensified the grievances of the Nonconformist child who desires to become a teacher. It is no exaggeration to say that from the very time at which this Bill passes into law, the teaching profession becomes as much and as truly a branch of the Civil Service as any one of those branches for which we vote estimates every year. And when you have converted the teaching profession into a branch of the Civil Service, how are you going to defend, in view of the sense of justice, equity, and equality which has always characterised out policy and legislation with regard to our public service, the complete exclusion from the higher prizes of that profession in the denominational schools of a vast number of the most talented of those who belong to that profession? I say that is not only unjust to the teachers, not only in total violation of all out best traditions and practice, but looking at it from the point of view of the children, and the point of view of the efficient education to be given, you are deliberately impoverishing the resources of the country.
  I pass now to the last stage of my argument. I have shown, I think the two great blots, from the educational point of view, of this proposed settlement. They are both due to the same thing—to the interests or the supposed interests of the denominational system. There are many ways—there are right ways and there are wrong ways—of dealing with the denominational system, but of all the ways you could possibly have selected, in my humble judgment this is the very worst. When I speak of the denominational system I am supposing you are going deliberately to retain the power of giving denominational instruction in State-aided schools. I am not going to discuss the abstract question of the best
  1166
  system of education. As my hon. friend pointed out earlier in the evening, there are two systems actually at work at this moment within the British Empire, both of which can be tested by results—namely, the Scotch system, under which it rests with the School Board to give or to withhold denominational instruction as it pleases, and the Colonial system under which facilities are given at the wish of the parents for denominational instruction. Both these systems have on the whole worked well, but neither could stand for a day without the principle of popular control. That is the principle to which you have deliberately given the go-by in this novel experiment, which I venture to predict with the utmost confidence is, in the long run, doomed to failure. I say, with as much certainty as one can hazard in a prediction of the future in a matter of this kind, to the Government and to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported this Bill that in my judgment this Bill will prove the severest blow which the denominational system in this country has ever received, because it associates with the maintenance of that system, in the minds of large numbers if not of the majority of the people of this country, the denial of the fundamental conditions of justice and equity.
  We have already travelled a long way from the principles of the Act of 1870. It is quite true that what Mr. Forster contemplated was to allow to co-exist side by side the so-called voluntary schools, and the schools managed by School Boards; but what was the fundamental basis of that arrangement? Why! that which was to be the criteria, the differentia, of the voluntary schools was that they were to put down on the table an equivalent to the contributions given by the State. Step by step the equivalent contribution has been eaten away, and when this Bill is passed into law it will have completely disappeared in the limbo of the past. The present Archbishop of Canterbury has said many wise things on the subject of education, but never did he say a wiser or more statesman like thing than when, a few years ago, he warned his fellow Churchmen and the supporters of denominational schools in this country that if they wanted to keep the control

  1167
  of their schools they must pay for them, and that if once they ceased their efforts and sacrifices the management must be transferred to the hands of the public, who would be responsible for the cost and the manner in which the money is expended.
  How do we stand under this Bill? We all know how it works out. Practically it comes to this—that the cost of the fabric and of repairs will be the only contribution made by the voluntary school managers, and we all know that the burden of repairs will be more than compensated for by the various pickings which, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, have been secured by the denominational managers. How will that strike the public? Because in the long run the stability of this system will depend on the way in which it conforms to the judgment of the people. They will see the slender remains of the old contributions, and they will see, on the other hand, the predominance in the management of those to whom it is to be entrusted. They will contrast the proportions and choice contribution and control, and this will give rise to a constantly growing sense of injustice. As my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon has pointed out, it will introduce a new, a disturbing, and a most baneful factor into the whole of municipal life, and, what is worse, it will divert the stream of educational zeal into the shallow and muddy channels of ecclesiastical and sectarian controversy.
  There is one other aspect of the future of the denominational system which I should like to commend to the earnest attention of hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote for this Bill. I refer to the Clause which now goes by the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire. Before I state what I think will be the clear effect of that Clause, may I point out that its history and the situation in which we are now placed constitutes one of the most curious performances in the legislative annals even of this House. We have been asked by the Government to pass this Bill tonight. We may never see it again, and I devoutly hope myself that we never shall see it again. At any rate, we are asked to part with it tonight, though it contains provisions as to the importance
  1168
  of which we are all agreed, but as to the meaning of which we are all at sixes and sevens. Is there a single man in this House from the Prime Minister downwards who has at this moment an assured conviction as to what is the meaning of this Clause or as to what interpretation will be put upon it if it reaches the gates of a court of law? Parliament has often by inadvertence put obscure and ambiguous provisions on the Statute-Book, but this is the first time that we have been invited by the Government of the day deliberately to pass into law an enactment which admittedly is not an intelligible guide to those who have to administer the law, but is a series of complicated conundrums for interpretation by the courts. The Attorney General told us tonight that the Government contemplates amending this Clause, and I am not surprised at this somewhat belated announcement. The process is to be carried out in another place. So long as this Bill is here we are responsible for it. The Prime Minister the other night made himself and the House merry on this subject at the expense of a humble, and, I hope, meritorious, although imperfectly appreciated, profession, which some of us are driven by the necessities of life to earn or attempt to earn out daily bread. The Attorney General, although I am afraid the Attorney General is in this matter a somewhat suspected witness, vindicated the disinterestedness of the profession of which he is the distinguished head in language which I am sure went to the heart of every lawyer in this House. But unfortunately in this matter I am afraid we must look to the language of the Prime Minister; and he disposed of the diversity of opinion that had been expressed in reference to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause with the easy observation that he had commonly found that political lawyers expressed the opinions which happened to correspond with those of the party to which they belonged. [An HON. MEMBER: "How very shocking."] It is very shocking; but political lawyers are, I think it is worth remembering, not the only class in this House whose expressed views have a tendency to coincide with party exigencies. I have observed of late years when an hon. Gentleman opposite sitting behind the Treasury Bench has indulged himself in the perilous luxury of uttering views not

  1169
  altogether in harmony with those for the moment in fashion on that Bench, no one has been more swift to mark the iniquity or to chastise the offender than the Prime Minister himself. For this purpose, if I may do so argumentatively—I should be sorry to do it in any other way—I will make the Prime Minister a present of all the lawyers on both sides of the House. Let us suppose—if the Prime Minister's imagination is equal to the task—let us suppose them swept out of Parliamentary existence. Let us suppose that you are repeating the experiment made by out ancestors in days gone by of summoning a House of Commons, a Parliamentum indoctum, from which are excluded all lawyers, and of which Lord Coke—like the Attorney General, not altogether an impartial witness—said that the whole of its legislation was no worth two pence. Yet even in that purged and idealised Parliament, which I am sure, would commend itself to the taste of the Prime Minister, the question would still arise. What is the meaning of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause? I am afraid that is a digression, but I will venture to say to the House this—and that is why I make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are supporters of this denominational system—whatever else the Kenyon-Slaney Clause may do or not do, it clearly does two things. In the first place, it affects in the most vital and trenchant manner the provisions of the trust deeds of every denominational school in this country. I agree that it is not the only Clause in the Bill that does so, but it is the most striking of them, and for my part I hold it—and I hope hon. Gentlemen understand the full intent of the vote they are going to give—as an assertion of the title of Parliament to treat those schools as State schools, and upon that footing to abrogate or remould any provisions of the trust in the interests of the public. That, at any rate, is one effect of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. There is one other thing it does. It gets rid finally of the notion—even if it is going to be amended in the sense in which the Attorney General has interpreted it—that the parish priest is the supreme or only authorised religious teacher in the school of the parish, for if there is anything clear about the construction and the operation of that Clause it is this—that it is in the power
  1170
  of a lay board of managers to lock the clergyman out of the school, and to prevent him from giving any religious teaching in it at all. [Cries of "Oh."] It is one of the points on which lawyers disagree. I am only giving the construction of the Clause which the Attorney General himself gave.
  What is the sum of the whole matter? This Bill, which is intended to keep alive the denominational system and to place it on a more sure foundation, may probably turn out to have the exactly opposite effect. You may say in that case, Why do you vote against it? My answer is a very simple one. I am not going to support a measure which I think educationally unsound and politically unjust, because the very evils which it brings about may become so intolerable to the nation that they will work their own cure. No, Sir; I oppose this Bill on a totally different ground. It is because this is a Bill which unsettles a great deal, while it settles nothing; a Bill which destroys much that is good as well as some things that are evil; a Bill which flies in the face of the principles of popular government; a Bill which is leavened throughout, as we believe, with the spirit of inequality and injustice—in the interests of education, which I agree is the first, the greatest, and the most capital of all the interests of the nation—in the interests of education, we claim that it is unworthy of the acceptance of the House of Commons.
  (11.8.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is with almost pathetic interest that I make my last speech upon a Bill on which I fear I have wearied this Houes—[Cries of "No, no"]—in Committee and for eight months of hard fighting in all its stages. The House itself has almost become weary of this endless discussion, and though the right hon. Gentleman has had the satisfaction of addressing a full and interested audience—even he, who I think has not listened to the whole of this debate on the Third Reading—even he must be aware that during the long hours of yesterday and most of the hours of today speeches of great interest and great eloquence have been addressed to audiences very sparse and entirely composed of rival orators. But, Sir, our long labours have come to an end, or have nearly come to an end, and I suppose it is my duty, I will not say to sum up an eight months debate, but, at all events,

  1171
  to utter a few valedictory words on the Bill which has so long occupied our time, and which is, for good or evil, I hope and believe entirely for good, but for good or for evil—without prejudging that point—to have so great an effect upon the education of this country. No, Sir, it is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it has not been denied, so far as I know, by any speaker at any stage of this debate, that an Education Bill was a primary necessity. There have been speakers—I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was one of them—who seemed to think that all the necessities of the case would have been met had we brought in a Secondary Education Bill, which, I admit would, as compared with the present Bill, have been relatively an uncontentious measure. But I am perfectly certain that no real educational reformer in this House or out of this House would think that the education of this country could by any possibility be brought into a condition which would be creditable to the nation, or which would have enabled us to compare our educational condition with that of our great friends and rivals on the Continent and in America, unless the Education Bill to be dealt with was one which gave a combined treatment, not merely of primary, but of secondary education also. I do not stop to argue the point, because really it is unarguable. If your object is to co-ordinate education, if your object is to give what my learned friends described tonight as an educational system which will enable a boy of talent or of genius to rise from stage to stage of education until he can make the best of his abilities for himself and his country, why then it is perfectly clear that to deal with secondary education as distinct from primary education, was to ignore the very elements of the problem with which you had to deal. Then, we had to deal with the whole country; and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we did not enter into this great controversy without anxious and even painful forecasts of the difficulty which any Ministry bold enough to deal with this great problem must necessarily have regard to. We had presented to us, in the first place, a vast body of vested interests. We had great educational interests; we had great religious interests; we had great
  1172
  local government interests—School Boards, Town Councils, all the great machinery of local government. They were all touched, they were all affected. Each in turn was prepared to find in this Bill some great danger to a cherished desire or a cherished policy. And certainly, Sir, nobody who has had the advantage for seven months of a free and uninterrupted correspondence by post with the clergy of all denominations is likely to minimise the difficulties with which any educational reformer in this country has to deal.
  Well, then, Sir, if it be admitted, as I think it must be admitted, that a great reform had to be undertaken, what is the objection that is raised to the particular plan which has been proposed by the Government? For we must recollect that all these things are comparative. We may not possibly have devised the best scheme in existence; but I have listened to these debates month after month and I have failed to find, to put it crudely, what rival plan was in the market which could for one moment be compared with the scheme which we have introduced. Recollect that everybody admits that the existing scheme or system of education is rotten. Everybody admits that it is incoherent and antiquated, bad and ineffective—that it is open to every species of criticism to which antiquated machinery is open.
  Well, what are the alternatives? I have listened, as I have just said, in vain to learn from any quarter what the other alternatives are. But do not let me be misunderstood in this matter. I understood the hon. Member for Oldham, who spoke yesterday, went the length of saying that it was unconstitutional to ask the Opposition for an alternative plan. I do not think that it violates any recognised principle of the constitution to ask the Opposition whether they have got a plan dealing with a notorious difficulty; but I quite agree with those who say on the other side that it is not their business to find an educational plan. But then, it is unfair to criticise our plan as it has been criticised unless they can show that our plan is worse than the existing system or that it is not a great improvement on their plan—if they have anything whatever to show. If they have a beautiful scheme, harmonious in all its

  1173
  parts, coherent, logical, which will commend itself to my noble friend below the Gangway and to Dr. Clifford and the country—if they have a plan which settles the religious difficulty and harmonises the whole of English society with regard to it—if they have this one coherent, unexceptional plan for dealing with education in all its branches, then let us hear of it. But I have heard no adumbration of any such scheme whatever. One hon. Gentleman said that you are murdering the School Boards; that you are committing an educational atrocity in destroying bodies which have done such admirable work. We hear, indeed, I think from the Member for West Monmouth, of a scheme of universal School Boards. Very good. But are you going to propose, if you were in office, a scheme of universal School Boards all over the whole country for counties and for boroughs? And if you proposed it, would you carry it? The idea of trying to have a system of national education covering primary and secondary education covering pall over the country districts in really grotesque. Recollect that we have been listening to Gentlemen opposite for eight months, firing their tirades for what they are worth, and we have not had a chance of retaliating. If we had—I will not say eight months, but eight weeks—I should like to have had the chance of criticising any scheme sketched out from the other side and one which would give us a great reform of our education system. And that is only on purely educational lines, leaving out the religious-side altogether. There is the side, as we all know, of the real difficulty. If there was no religious resistance, no question of religion in the country, I believe the present Bill would have been passed without a division on the Second Reading and carried through the Committee in a week. There is the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, who through these debates has played, in my judgment, a most distinguished part, though I confess I wish he had left unsaid, even from his own point of view, a great many things which he sometimes said. If he had omitted a certain class of observations I think he would have greatly gained in authority inside and outside the House. I believe that in the opinion of both sides of the House and of the country that the hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be an
  1174
  eminent Parliamentarian. What does he suggest? What does he say about this Bill? He says that the scheme is the worst scheme you can imagine. There are two schemes, he says, both of which he would have greatly preferred to that before the House. One is the "facility" scheme, supported by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and the other is the Scotch scheme, and either of these schemes, he said, is incomparably better than the plan of this Bill in dealing with the religious difficulty. But, after all, the hon. Gentleman and the House must know perfectly well that either of these plans, whatever their abstract merits may be, are really not practical. About the Scotch plan—or, to put it in language more intelligible to an English audience, about the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause plan—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And the universal School Boards plan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To that plan you have, I venture to say, two great objections. With all its merits—and I am the last to deny that it works extremely well in my country—it has two immense objections to its adoption in this country. In the first place, you could never carry it. The hon. Member for Carnarvon seems to think that he and his friends are in favour of it. I challenge any one to look through all the controversial speeches and pamphlets issued against this Bill during the great campaign carried on during the Autumn months by the militant Nonconformist bodies, and to find a single sentence or hint that those great Nonconformist bodies would have accepted the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause. I make that challenge with absolute confidence. You will not find it. That is one objection. The other is an objection which the hon. Member for Carnarvon would be the first to admit, because he dwelt upon it himself. The hon. Member said that one objection to this Bill was that it would introduce into every Borough and County Council religious difficulties and controversies about denominational formulae. I hope that the Bill will not have that effect. It has been carefully and deliberately framed to avoid that

  1175
  disastrous result. But with the present division of religious opinion in England, what would be the result of adopting the Scotch system here? We should have plunged into the very evils which the hon. Member describes; and in every Town and County Council we should have had the question raised whether you were to support denominational teaching out of the rates; and, if so, what denominational teaching. The idea that religious peace and harmony is thus to be reached in England, as England is now divided into this infinite variety of sects, many of them quarrelling, as I think, over very secondary matters—but still quarrelling—the idea that religious peace is to be so arrived at is quite illusory.
  I hope the House will see what I am coming to. If this Bill is bad, it is bad in comparison with the existing system, or else in comparison with some other system proposed. No other system is proposed, and I am therefore reduced to asking, and asking alone, whether this Bill is bad as compared with the system which it replaces. Is this, or is it not, as compared with the system under which we live, a great reform? I do not ask whether it is a great reform as compared with some plan which the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen has in the recesses of his conscience. I do not ask whether it is a great plan as compared with a scheme half suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, because those schemes have not been developed developed and cannot be compared. I ask one question only, and on the answer ought to depend the vote of every man who votes tonight. Is this scheme of the Government a great educational reform compared with the existing system which it is destined to replace? At the present moment our elementary education is carried on by isolated schools unconnected with each other, unconnected with the locality in which they exist; unorganised into any coherent whole to serve the interests of the population. That is, at any rate, changed. All schools are now put under a co-ordinating authority, and, so far, a great reform is established. Secondly, the great majority of these schools, or a large number of them—I do not wish to put it too high—are ill-equipped for want of funds. Is this Bill or is it not a
  1176
  great reform in that? Nobody can deny, and nobody does deny, that it is a great reform. In the third place, under our existing system a large number of these elementary schools are imperfectly staffed, and the staffs which have to work them are imperfectly and inadequately paid. Is that denied? It is not denied, nor can it be denied that that evil is remedied by the present Bill. In the fourth place, there is at the present time a competition, in many cases a ruinous competition, between two kinds of schools, under wholly different management, yet carrying out the same great objects, and educating the same classes. That competition is put an end to by this Bill. Can it be denied by any educational reformer that that also is an enormous educational improvement? In the fifth place, there is under our existing system a most imperfect machinery for educating the teachers of the rising generation. Many of them get no proper training at all. Those who do get a proper training are very commonly persons belonging to one denomination which has had the public spirit or the power to obtain training for them. Is that an admirable system? Is it a system which we ought to permit or which any other civilised country in the world would permit? But if you carry the rejection of the Third Reading, you will permit it, and permit it indefinitely. Is it not a great thing to have provided, at all events, the machinery by which this great defect can be remedied? In the sixth place, as has been admitted on every side of the House, there is no provision at all under our existing system for secondary education properly considered. There is provision no doubt for technical education, but for secondary education in its full sense our educational machinery at the present time is wholly and utterly inadequate. Is that not a great defect, and is that not remedied? It is, if the public authorities do their duty, absolutely remedied, and that, again, I claim as a reason why the House should accept the Third Reading of this Bill. These are great educational interests. But there is then the co-ordination of education, the combination of primary, secondary, and higher education in one general scheme; and there is, last of all, a matter on which I confess I think the present Government have received but very scant gratitude from

  1177
  those who in this House profess to represent the Nonconformists of this country—I mean what is known as the pupil teacher grievance and the general teacher grievance. I remember well enough, many years ago, when I was newer to these educational problems than I am now, the Member for Carnarvon drawing my attention in this House to the pupil teacher grievance. We have remedied that absolutely. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no.] The pupil teacher grievance is absolutely remedied. There is no child of a Nonconformist now who -desires to enter the teaching profession who will be precluded, because he or she is a Nonconformist, from obtaining the requisite training of a pupil teacher. That grievance having been entirely swept away, we are now told that that is a matter which nobody need thank us for, because, after all, when you train these Nonconformist pupils they will not find a place anywhere. Yes, but that was not the Nonconformist teacher grievance, The Nonconformist teacher grievance was the one which I have described and the one which we have swept away. But even this secondary grievance which has now been discovered and added to the old pupil teacher grievance—even that has been largely mitigated, because the teacherships other than the head teacherships in denominational schools are now thrown open, if the management are prepared to use the powers given to them by the Bill, to Nonconformists. Of course I do not want in the least to exaggerate. I have no doubt whatever that the great majority of teachers in denominational schools will remain denominational—I do not in the least wish to pretend or suggest to the House that any other result will ensue—but it does make a difference, and there will be a large number of schools in which another policy will be pursued.
  I do not say that I have completed the list of changes in our educational system, which are great and admitted changes for the better, produced by this Bill, but I think every candid man will find it impossible in his heart and conscience to deny that, in every one of the great examples I have mentioned, we have made a revolution, and a revolution for the better. If this revolution were not carried out, if the Amendment
  1178
  of the Leader of the Opposition were to find a majority in the Lobbies, what would be the result? Every one of these great reforms would be postponed, and, as I venture to think, indefinitely postponed. It is perfectly easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite, criticising our Bill, to say, "Oh, how much better it would be if you could do this, that, or the other thing." If they came into power tomorrow, if we had that General Election from which they hope so much, next week, and if the most sanguine estimate of the most sanguine of hon. Gentlemen opposite were carried into effect, is there a single serious politician on that side who thinks that the Government that would then be formed could come down to this House and go to the country with great scheme of educational reform with any hope of carrying it? Why, it is nonsense, and everybody knows it is nonsense. I remember reading a document, called the "British Weekly" Catechism, which was directed against this Bill, in which the hope, the avowed expectation, was that if this Bill could be defeated then the educational system of the country would go no until by the mere difficulty of getting subscriptions, by the slow starvation of the voluntary schools. We might gradually, year after year, see the board schools increase, the voluntary schools diminish, until there was what they were pleased to term a national system of education entirely founded on the board school system. And I believe that is absolutely the only policy that would be open to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, not because I believe them to be insincere in their desire for educational reform, but simply because the difficulties of this task, and Heaven knows every one who has tried to deal with it must be prepared to admit them, are so great that it would be absolutely out of their power to carry out any of the schemes which they so airily suggest in the irresponsibility of opposition.
  Let the House and the country realise that we have this night to choose whether we accept a great educational reform, which in the opinion of some may have defects or demerits, which in the opinion of some may give too much to this sect or to that, and which may not deal with all the speculative questions

  1179
  which some would desire to see treated according to some theoretical plan of perfection; and that it is the only practical scheme that has been placed before the country for putting our educational system upon a national basis. I admit that it has many opponents, I admit that is looked at with suspicion by large classes in the country, I admit that the militant Nonconformists have denounced it with extreme, and I would almost have said with unscrupulous, violence. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I am not talking of anybody in this House on previous occasions what I think of the manner in which the opposition to this Bill has been here conducted, which I think does on the whole great credit to this House—I am talking of speeches and pamphlets in the country. It has been assailed, as I say, by extreme persons who think that some cherished ecclesiastical view is interfered with by the provisions of the Bill; and the ratepayers, have looked at it with suspicion, because they have been afraid that additional burdens may be thrown upon them, as they will be thrown upon them by this Bill, but much less by this Bill than by any scheme which I have heard suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I quite acknowledge that if all the great interests and all the great classes that I have enumerated are going to combine to defeat this educational Measure they may do much to impair its utility; but I hope and think better of my countrymen. I ask no man to change his opinion upon this Bill; I ask no man to give up what he regards as a conscientious conviction; my demand is simply this—living as we do in a free and constitutionally governed country— that they should attempt to make the best of a measure passed by the Legislature of this country, and that if that measure fails, and in so far as it fails, they should devote their attention to amending it. I do not ask them to approve it, I do not ask them to approve it, I do not ask them to say that if they had been in power they would not have found some much better plan for dealing with the infinitely difficult problem; but I do ask them, I do make this demand on the patriotism and public spirit of every class, clerical and non clerical, in this country,
  1180
  that when this Bill becomes law they shall do their best to work it while it is unamended, and if it requires amendment, that they shall use constitutional means to amend it in conformity with the declared will of the people. I have hopes that when it is brought into operation, when it is actually in working order, it will be found that on religious interest receives any unfair advantage [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]; that at all events is my hope, that no religious interest is unfairly benefited or unfairly depressed. I have hopes that, with due regard to every existing right and privilege, and with due regard to all the theories of local government, which are gradually developing in this country to the great advantage of public life, this Measure will be found not merely one which is consistent with our whole theory of local government, not merely one which will strengthen and dignify the great assemblics which we hand over to the management of our local affairs, but it will be, in addition, the greatest reform of all kinds of education which this country has, for thirty years, seen adopted; and that, if it requires change, as everything requires change in the progress of time it will not be because we have been the slaves of an ecclesiastical clique or the advocates of any narrow scheme of national education, but because as time goes on, and as national needs change and advance, so alterations are required in every scheme, however well devised, however honestly intended, which this House and this Legislature may pass. In that hope, I earnestly trust that every friend of education in this House tonight will give his vote in favour of this Bill, reserving, of course, every freedom as regards the future; but, as regards the present, recognising that this scheme, and this scheme alone, holds the field, and that if this scheme is rejected we are bogged for years to come in the present utterly indefensible system of primary, secondary, and technical education, under which we have so long laboured and groaned.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 605.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Higginbottom, S. W

  Allhusen, AngustasH'nry Eden

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Digby, John K. D. Wingtield

  Hobhouse, Rt. HnH(Somerset, E)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir JosephC.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Disraeli Coningsby R'dph

  Horner, Frederick William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Austin, Sir John

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John F.

  Howard, John(kent, Fav'rsh'm)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doughty, George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir WilliamHa't

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Kemp, George

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Allwyn Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Bigwood, James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r)

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kesrick. William

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Brassey, Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence. Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, ArtharH.((Han's, Fareham)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwich, S. W)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bull, William James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Garfit, William

  Llewellya, Evan Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City ofLond.)

  Lockie, John

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgio&Nairn)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gore, HnG. R. COrmsby-(Salop)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gonlaing, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Worc.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury)

  Maalver, David (Liverpool)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rysEdm'nds)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Groves, James Grimble

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Milvain, Thomas

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hain, Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walth'mstow)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. LordG(Mid'x)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. RobertWm.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cust Henry John C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Myers, William Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Dewar, SirT. R.(TowerHamlets)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tully, Jasper

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Percy, Earl

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Saunderson Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Wanklyn, James Leslic

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(lsle of Wight)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E.(Notts.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Ramford)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne)

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rankin, sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Wors'ey-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Remnant, James Farquharsen

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  St utt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Renwick, George

  St rt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thernton, Percy M.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  NOES

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue.,Stroud)

  Grant, Corrie

  Partingtos, Oswald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Asquith, Rt. Hon HerbertHenry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Perks, Robert William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humpherys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundec)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Jones David Brynmor(Sw'nsea)

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Labonchere, Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maarice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R(Northants)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dewar, John A. (Invernes sh.)

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  ThomasJ. A(Glamorgan, Gower)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose)

  Thomson F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toalmin, George

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wallace, Robert

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  1184

  1185

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd)

  Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Wood, James

  (11.59.) Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 606.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Anson, Sir William Reybell

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kemp, George

  Austin, Sir John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenna way, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dyke, Rt Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Kimber, Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fergusson, Rt HnSir J.(Manc'r)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bigwood, James

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Leigh-Beanett, Henry Currie

  Bond, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griflith-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lockie, John

  Brassey. Albert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe. Francis William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gibbs, HnA. G. H.(CityofLond.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

  Lucas. ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gordon, MajEvans-(TrH'ml'ts)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Falw. H.

  Gore, H. G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Green, Walford D(Wednesbury)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS. Edm'nds)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A(Worc.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Charrigton, Spencer

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Groves, James Grimble

  More, Rebt. Jasper(Shrop-hire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walth'mstow)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hain, Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Hdsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. LordG(Mid'x)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Myers, William Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cranbarne, Viscount

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claade George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Cust. Henry John C.

  Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hugginbottom, S. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H(Somers't, E)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dewar, Sir T. R(Tower Hamlets)

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Horner, Frederick William

  Powel, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Rankin, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. AGE.(Taunton)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Welby. SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton and. Lyne)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ridley, S. Ferde(Bethnal Green)

  Sturtt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wortlley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Rt. HonJG(Oxf'dUniv.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rolleston. Sir John F. L.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham-Qain, Major W. H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Turnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tully, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Austruther.

  Sasson, Sir Edward Albert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Seely, Mal. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  NOES.

  Alian, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, CharlesP (Gloue.,Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Russell, T. W.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Speneer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leese, Sir JosepaF. (Accrington)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

  Camphell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Legan, John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, JA(Glam'rg n, Gower

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M. Kenna, Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Toulmin, George

  Crombie, John William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)Wallace, Robert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose)

  Wa ner, Thomas Cour enay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott. Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norflok, Mid.)

  Fenwicks, Charles

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wood, James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Perks, Robert William

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Grant, Corrie

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. HerbertGladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Price, Robert John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October
  1188
  last, adjourned the house without Question put.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

THE EARL WALDEGRAVE
Sat Speaker.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX, considered (according to order), and suspended for Tomorrow's sitting.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 192.)

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a afternoon. (No. 191.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a. m. till half-past Ten o'clock.