Sitting of 5 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Fraserburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) RULES (JERSEY).
  Return (presented 4th December); to be printed. (No. 388.)
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No.374 (Leeward Islands, Report for 1901–2) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in his Memorandum, dated August, 1881 (printed in Paper 229 of 1881, Sugar Bounties), Mr. T. H. Farrer, then Secretary to the Board of Trade, stated that it had been decided by the highest legal authority that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sugar would be contrary to the most-favoured-nation Clause in existing commercial treaties; whether the legal authority thus referred to was that of the Law Officers of the Crown; whether the opinion of the present Law Officers of the Crown has been or will be taken on the point as it now arises upon the Brussels Sugar Convention and its effect upon the Treaty of Commerce with
  126
  Russia of 1859; and, if such opinion has already been taken, can he state generally the effect thereof?
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It is quite true that, in 1881, the then Secretary to the Board of Trade made the statement attributed to him in the Question. We have no record of any opinion by the Law Officers given at that time upon the subject. The answer to the third Question is in the affirmative; but it is contrary to practice to quote the confidential advice given to the Government by their legal, advisers.

  Hyderabad Administration.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether an understanding has been arrived at between the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Viceroy of India with reference to the finances of Hyderabad; and whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the reforms which, in the opinion of the Government of India, are required in the administration of that Indian State.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no knowledge of any understanding between the Government of India and the Nizam as to the finances the Hyderabad State, but an agreement has been arrived at as to the Hyderabad Assigned Districts, Papers relating to which I hope soon to be able to lay upon the Table.

  Coronation—Pay of Indian Volunteer Contingent.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has made inquiries and is now in a position to say whether Government servants who took privilege leave in order to join the Indian Volunteer Contingent which came home for the Coronation, have been informed that they will not receive any pay for the extra period of their detention at home in consequence of the King's illness; and, if so, on what ground this decision has been arrived at.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George, Hamilton.) An inquiry has been addressed to the Government of India respecting this matter, and I expect to receive their reply very shortly.

  Waziri Expedition.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what was the original cause of the expedition against the Waziris, and what are the conditions to be imposed with a view of preventing such outbreaks in future; whether he can give the approximate number of troops engaged in the expedition; and whether these hostilities will necessitate any permanent addition to the military expenditure of the Government of India.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The cause of the expedition is that serious attacks, three of which have occurred in the last six months, have been made on militia and police posts along this section of the border. The conditions to be imposed on the tribes are: Prohibition of towers which they use for offence and defence, fines, expulsion of outlaws, and the construction of a road through the territory concerned. The force employed aggregates about 2,900 men and 10 mountain guns. The operations will not involve any permanent addition to military expenditure.

  Island of Lewis—Fever Outbreak at Tolsta.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the cause of the epidemic of typhus and typhoid fever at Tolsta, Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Local Government Board inform me that, in the opinion of the local medical officer, the disease was imported by the Militia Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders from Egypt.

  Island of Lewis—Sanitation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether arrangements can be made for Mr. Millar, the Local Government Board's Inspecting Officer under the Public Health Act, to visit the townships in the parishes of Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs, and Uig, Island of Lewis, for the purpose of reporting as to steps to be taken to improve their sanitary condition.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Mr. Millar cannot be spared for such a purpose without detriment to his ordinary
  128
  duties, but if the local authority want expert advice beyond that of their own officers, any representation to that effect from them will receive due consideration.

  Post Office—Promotion of Officials Over Sixty Years of Age.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): To ask the Postmaster General if an officer of his Department who has attained sixty years of age, but who has not completed forty years service, is eligible for promotion to a higher class, provided that he is certified by his superiors as qualified to fill the position.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There is nothing to prevent the Postmaster General from promoting such an officer if he thinks it desirable to do so.

  Post Office—Special Leave Regulations.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster General whether he can state when he will give a reply to the deputation of Members of Parliament who waited on his predecessor in the summer on the question of the new special leave regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have been carefully considering the representations made by certain Members of Parliament to my predecessor, as well as a memorial addressed to him by some members of the postal staff, and I hope to give my decision before Parliament separates.

  Postal Circulation of Betting and Lottery Circulars.
  COLONEL WELBY (): To ask the Postmaster General whether inland letters containing betting and lottery circulars are received by post offices for prepayment in money; if so, whether he will forbid their being received to prevent people believing that the prepaid stamp gives those circulars official recognition.
  (Answered by Mr. Auslen Chamberlain.) I do not think it is desirable to institute inquiries into the contents of closed letters presented at post offices for prepayment in money. Nor would any precaution of this kind be effectual in preventing illegal documents being sent by post. I do not understand how the

  129
  prepaid stamp can be thought to give any official recognition to the contents of the letters.

  South Africa—Land Settlement Scheme for the New Colonies.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers giving a description of Lord Milner's new scheme of land settlement for the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of state for the Colonies.) The greater part of the information available on this subject has been published in the Blue-book [Cd. 1163], and Lord Milner's plans have not sufficiently matured since the date of that publication to render it desirable to lay further Papers.

  Naval Dockyard Workmen Selected for Cape Service and not Sent.
  MR. LOCKIE (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain shipwrights and machinemen in His Majesty's service were lately selected for service at Cape Town; that after they had purchased their outfits their appointments were countermanded; and whether, under these circumstances, they will be compensated for the expense to which they have been put.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold - Forster.) Twenty - one workmen in the Home dockyards were recently selected for service at the Cape of Good Hope naval yard, but as the result of further communications with the Commander-in-Chief on the Cape Station the numbers to be sent out were reduced to eleven. The Admiralty have no information to the effect that the other ten men had already purchased their outfits. If it be the case that they have been put to expense in this way, the proper course is for them to represent the facts through their superior officers, in order that each case may be considered on its merits.

  Education Bill—Rating of Parishes Maintaining Private Schools.
  MR. MORRELL (): To ask the Secretary to the
  130
  Board of Education whether the rate-payers of a parish who, asking no aid from Government Grant, maintain at their own expense a certified efficient school in their parish, will be called upon to contribute to the full extent to the general education rate, or only to such extent as that rate is in excess of that required to meet expenditure on the public elementary schools.
  (Annswered by Sir William Anson.) The ratepayers of such a parish will not be exempted from any part of the general education rate.

  Belfast Re-Valuation.
  MR. TULLY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now furnish a Return setting forth the names, qualifications, and salaries of the revising officers engaged in the re-valuation of Belfast.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Return is in preparation, and will be forwarded to the hon. Member next week.

  Ranking of Volunteer Officers who served in South Africa.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that in a War Office circular letter to general officers commanding volunteers, dated l5th May last, it was stated that the names of Volunteer officers upon whom honorary army rank had been conferred for their services in South Africa, and who subsequently resigned, would be shown as officers with honorary rank in the alphabetical list of officers retired from the Army in the Quarterly Army List, he will explain why, in the Quarterly Army List for October, no names of Volunteer service company officers are shown in the list of retired officers, although many had resigned before it was published; and whether he will take steps to have this omission rectified in future quarterly lists.
  (Answered by Mr. Secertary Brodrick.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. The officers concerned are shown in the Quarterly Army List on pages 2072-2074(b), to which the circular specially refers.

ADJOURNMENT—RIGHT TO RAISE URGENT QUESTIONS ON MOTION FOR WEEK-END ADJOURNMENT.
Point of Practice—
(12.10.) Motion made and Question pro-posed, "That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire on this Motion to raise an urgent and important question. This Motion, I may point out, is only necessary because of the exceptional circumstances under which we are met. When Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means is open, the House under Standing Order 18 adjourns automatically from Friday to Monday, but it not being now open, standing Order 18 does not apply, and we come back under the old Rule which enables Members to call attention on the Motion for adjournment to any matters they deem of importance or urgency. I am not, however, going to detain the House at any length. The matter to which I wish to call attention—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am not aware of any Rule under which the Motion for adjournment from Friday to Monday may be made the subject of discussion. It is not like a Motion for adjournment over Easter or Whitsuntide, or any unusual period. But this is quite an ordinary proceeding.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to point out, Sir, that Sir Erskine May, in his own last edition, dealing with the Standing Order of 1861, says—
"Considerable laxity has prevailed in allowing irrelevant speeches upon questions of adjournment, which are regarded as exceptions to the general rule. In 1849 the Speaker endeavoured to enforce a stricter practice, and called upon Members to confine their observations upon such Motion to the question properly before the House—viz., whether the House should adjourn or not. But the House has not since acquiesced in any limitation of the supposed privilege of Members to speak upon every subject but that of the colourable question of adjournment. In moving an adjournment, however, during a debate upon any Question, a Member must confine his remarks to that Question. Until the discontinuance of the weekly question of adjournment from Friday till Monday, in 1861, an inconvenient latitude of discussion was also permitted. Nor did the House deprive Members of this opportunity of raising general debates, without an equivalent; but required the Committee of Supply to be the first Order of the Day on Friday, when there is the like freedom of discussion."
132
Will you allow me to say that, in addition to the Standing Order which I have read, there was Standing Order 11, now repealed, which was as follows:—
"That, while the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means are open, the first Order of the Day on Friday shall be either Supply, or Ways and Means, and that on that Order being read, the Question shall be proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.'"
I submit as a point of order that while during continuance of order that while during continuance of the Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, the House is, under Standing Order 18, automatically adjourned from Friday to Monday, yet, when, as now, Committee of Supply is not open, we are still under the old Orders of the House and under the old practice, which there is nothing to impair or affect. That being so, I submit that I am within my rights in calling attention to a matter of importance on this Motion.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (): On the point of Order, may I suggest that the power of raising debate on the Motion is similar to that of calling attention to questions on the Motion for adjournment at the conclusion of the day's sitting? We often do that.
Mr. SPEAKER: My impression was that this was an obsolete practice. But I am very anxious not to interpose where any doubt can exist with regard to any opportunity of debate which may belong to the House, and therefore I will call on the hon. Member.

BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the House will agree that this which I am about shortly to raise is an extremely important subject and precisely one of those matters which show the extreme value of the privilege that has fortunately been retained by the House. I sent word this morning to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of my intention to raise a question on this Motion at noon, and I had hoped that he would be in his place to hear what I had to say, because it mainly concerns his Department. This is my point. Ten days ago the House approved of the policy of the Sugar Convention, and practically gave power to the Government to ratify the Convention. Since then new facts of the most alarming and unexpected nature have been revealed, as is indeed avowed by

133
His Majesty's Government. These facts, I submit, ought to cause the Government to reconsider their position; and it behoves them to dispose finally of all the grave doubts that have undoubtedly arisen in regard to the Convention, before ratifying it. It is admitted, first of all, that the translation is incorrect. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has had to admit to the House, for the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, that a Wrong translation has been issued. I submit that this alone should cause the Government to pause before they ratify the Convention. Now, the binding text of the Convention is in French, and, therefore, whether the translation is good or bad, we are bound by that text. The noble Lord has had to admit that in a most important Article of the Convention —the Article which concerns its duration, and the method of putting an end to it—the translation is incorrect. It is to be regretted that there does not seem to be any one at the Foreign Office who knows either French or English; for I could show that in many other respects the translation is incorrect. I have reason to believe, however, that mistranslation is not so much the fault of the Foreign Office as it is the fault of the Treasury, which refuses to supply experts for these translations. But the effect is that the House has decided the question on a false translation and an incorrect statement of the facts before it. But there are two other points far more important even than that. Doubts have arisen since the debate as to the effect of the Sugar Convention on other treaties containing the most - favoured - nation Clause. The noble Lord told me the day before yesterday with regard to Russia that the affair had been settled in l899, that the question was raised by Russia, and that we had then taken up the position that in our view such a Convention as this was not affected by, and did not affect, the most - favoured-nation Clause. He also said that Russia had made no reply to our representation, and it followed, consequently, that we retained our opinion and Russia hers. But yesterday the noble Lord told the House an entirely different story. He said, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that Russia had protested that this Sugar Convention was a violation of the treaty of 1859 with her. When did she protest? She had not
134
done so on Tuesday, because the noble Lord did not mention it in reply to my Question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARy ofSTATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRAN-BORNE,): I never denied it.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Really, that is too bad.
Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (): But you suppressed it.
LORD CRANBORNE: I was never asked the question.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not anxious to detain the House, but if the noble Lord persists in his denial I must quote his words. I asked the noble Lord—
"Whether, in view of Article II. of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12-th 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 Maesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in 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 12 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."
In reply the noble Lord said:—
"The Russian Government were informed in 1899, when the Government of India had imposed countervailing 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."
I am sure the noble Lord-intended to be candid, but was it a full statement in reply not to state the fact that though there was no reply to the communication of 1899 there nevertheless had been the statement quite recently on the part of Russia that this Convention was an infringement of the most-favoured-nation

135
Clause in the very treaty of 1859 to which he had been referring? It was not until yesterday that this information was given to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. It is, therefore, a new fact which has transpired since the debate on this Sugar Convention, that Russia not only declares that the Convention is an infringement of her treaty, but it is so important that she actually proposes that we should go to arbitration upon it.
But it is not a case merely of Russia; there are other nations, not parties to the Convention, with whom we have a most-favoured-nation Clause. If it is true of Russia it is also true of all these other treaties as well; and it is clear, therefore, that most serious doubts hang over the effect of the treaty in this respect. On referring to the procès-verbaux, I find that even before signing the Convention the Government were aware that doubt hung over the question. On January 23, 1902, Mr. Phipps, the delegate for Great Britain, declared that the British delegates could not definitively adhere to Article IV., which imposes the obligation of countervailing duties without an understanding being established as to its application to this most-favoured-nation Clause. But, notwithstanding that declaration, when the delegates came to Art. IV., although they raised other questions upon it, they did not raise this question again; they signed the Convention on 5th March without any such understanding being arrived at, and recorded in the procès-verbaux. That is not all. To the two points of serious doubt and question already mentioned, I have to add a third, even more serious. The Finance Minister of Holland declared two days ago that in his view—and, if I may say so, it is my own opinion also—the Convention does oblige Great Britain to put countervailing duties, not only on sugars, but on all sugar products, such as biscuits containing sugar; it does oblige great Britain to put a countervailing duty on these products when coming from any one of our self-governing Colonies—I am not speaking of our Crown Colonies—which gives in any way a bounty on the manufacture or export of sugar or sugared products. Yesterday the noble Lord admitted to me in answer to a Question that it is not Holland alone that takes that view, but that it is also held in other quarters. Other Powers have declared the same thing, according to the avowal of the
136
noble Lord. We, however, flatly deny this and take the contrary view, and he admits that a correspondence on this disagreement is proceeding; but he does not say with what Powers. I ask, therefore, with whom is the correspondence going on, and with how many Powers? I am quite certain from what is in the procès-verbaux that Belgium, and I think probably Germany also, holds the same view. But since this is the case, are we to proceed with the ratification of a Convention of this kind, on which there is so much disagreement and which is so vital to us and to our Colonies? It would be absurd to do so; no man fit to be out of Bedlam would ratify such an agreement if he were told before doing so that the other signatories were in entire disagreement with him. It is quite clear that there is a complete disagreement as to the meaning of a most important article between some of the signatories to the Convention. Will the noble Lord lay the correspondence on the Table of the House? Will the Government undertake to arrive at an agreement before it ratifies the Convention? Will it find out whether there is an obligation to impose countervailing duties upon sugar coming from our Colonies? Queensland gives a bounty; Ontario also gives a bounty by lending capital for the building of refineries at five per cent, interest. It may be said that that is only a temporary arrangement, but still it maybe renewed. Any Colony may give a bounty in the future, and this Convention is made for the future. These facts must be borne in mind. Ten days ago the House was induced to pass a Resolution approving the Convention, and to pass it after a debate which was almost entirely monopolised by the Government and those of its supporters who are capable of making long speeches, and which debate was then ruthlessly closured without hearing many who had claims to speak to it. But in view of the new facts, the doubts and disagreement that have since transpired—it would, be monstrous to ignore the gravity of the position or to proceed to ratify a Convention as to the effect of which both signatory and non-signatory Powers wholly disagree with us. I therefore ask the Government to give an undertaking that before the

137
Convention is ratified on the 1st February next they will resolve all the doubts which have arisen concerning it, and that until agreement is reached on them they will abstain from ratification. Unless I get an assurance to that effect, I shall feel I ought to vote against this Motion.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I consider that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman is one not only absolutely without precedent, but one most improper to be taken on such an occasion. Let me remind the House what precisely is the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman has selected for raising those delicate international questions. The House is perhaps aware that among the obsolete survivals in the Rules, which in face of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman I have been attempting to amend, there is one which lays down that when Supply is set up the House shall adjourn from Friday till Monday without Question put. That means that for the greater part of every session the adjournment till Monday is automatic, but during the debate on the King's Speech and in an Autumn Session when Supply is not set up, the Motion comes on; but in the whole of my Parliamentary experience it has invariably been treated as an absolutely formal Motion. The hon. Gentleman did not even give notice.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I could not give notice, because some of the facts to which I have referred did not transpire till last night.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not discussing objections to the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken, although I think that is open to the gravest an animadversion. I think he might have sent notice to my noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the President of the Board of Trade.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is exactly what I did. I sent notice to the noble Lord this morning as soon as I was able to do so.
LORD CRANBORnE: At what time?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This morning.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that is not the gravamen of my complaint against the hon. Gentleman. The complaint I make is that he has chosen to use this survival in our Standing Orders to raise a subject of debate, absolutely, as far as I know, without precedent.
MR. LOUGH (): We often make precedents.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precedents should not be made in this way. Nothing can be worse than that it should be in the power of any hon. Member to interrupt the ordinary business of this House by raising, on a purely formal Motion, a Motion which has been regarded as formal for at least a generation, a debate on any subject, however important, however difficult, and however delicate.
MR. CALDWELL (): The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have this privilege every night on the Motion to adjourn.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no analogy between the two cases. I certainly should suggest to my hon. friends, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade, that they should not lend themselves to this most unfortunate proceeding by taking any part in the debate which the hon. Gentleman has initiated.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the admonition or expostulation of the First Lord is addressed to anybody, I am afraid it is to Mr. Speaker, because he has ruled that this is a perfectly proper opportunity for the hon. Member to seek the information he desires to have. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark that this is absolutely analogous to the daily Motion that this House do now adjourn. It would, of course, be absurd if on frequent occasions that Motion were used, but it is sometimes used for the purpose of extracting information from the Government. The Sugar Convention is a most

139
urgent matter, and one of very great importance to this country, not only within, the narrow limits of the immediate matters with which it deals, but in its effect on the general policy and international position of this country. There has been only one night's discussion on the Sugar Convention, which was terminated by the Closure, and since then—to show that there was no great pressure—there has been an Evening Sitting when the Government had nothing to do, and did not occupy the time at all. I said at the time that one night was not sufficient for debating this great subject, and since then many new points have been exposed by the assiduity of the hon. Member for King's Lynn—points which throw fresh light on the matter. Here is a case where the Government is rattling through business in order to wind up this unusual and protracted session, but this great question of the ratification of the Convention is before us, and we have got to know whether the House of Commons has really given a substantial and final approval to that instrument in the light of all the facts that have come up. The hon. Member takes the opportunity of bringing certain new facts before the House; it is not a chose jugee, because we are in a position to take any line we choose upon it, and I am not at all surprised, seeing the gravity of the interests involved, that the hon. Member should have taken this opportunity, which the forms of the House permit, to call attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid because it is open to his colleagues to say that they have not had sufficient warning. They can promise a reply later on to the question put by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to raise the question, and if there is substance in his point—that I cannot say, because I was not present when he raised them—but if there is substance in them he has done a public service in bringing them before the Government and the country.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): I confess that I am unable to follow the Leader of the House in the censure he has passed on the hon. Member for King's Lynn. In my humble judgment my hon. friend deserves the thanks of the House and of
140
the country. I say, with some knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, that I never heard such a doctrine laid down as that, on a Motion for Adjournment, it is not competent for a Member to raise a question if he thinks fit. It is notorious that in the debate on the Sugar Convention a large number of hon. Members who desired to take part were arbitrarily precluded by the Closure. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman closure the House, but he closured his colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the Closure cannot be discussed.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg pardon. But the point apparently needs no further comment. I apologise, however, for having to that extent infringed the Rules of the House. I think, Sir, that I am entitled to complain that a great and important international question has been hurried through the House of Commons, and will, in the natural course of events, be settled finally, without the House having a reasonable opportunity of discussing it. I strongly feel that the few old forms of the House remaining ought not to be abandoned, and that my hon. friend was perfectly right in availing himself of the privilege which every. Member possesses of drawing attention to the matter. As to the merits of the question itself I admit that I do not approach it from the same point of view as my hon. friend. I think there is one extremely objectionable feature of it, and that is that it ties the hands of this country behind its back, and prevents it from dealing as it thinks fit with its trading and commercial arrangements throughout the entire Empire.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! On this Motion for Adjournment the range of debate is limited, and the right hon. Gentleman will not be in order in re-discussing the question which was debated and decided by the House when it approved the Convention. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has called attention to certain matters which have occurred since that debate took place. He spoke of them as "new" and "urgent" matters. On that point I utter no opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman is treating now of matters which

141
might have been discussed by him in the debate had he had an opportunity of speaking. He must confine himself to something new and not now attempt to re-discuss matters which were then debated and decided.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: It is not a question of my repeating my speech, since I had no opportunity of laying my views before the House when the debate took place. I must apologise for not having made it sufficiently clear that it was the fresh information which has oozed out, since the hurried debate the other night, that necessitated, in my judgment, my hon. friend calling attention to this subject. It was the revelation as to the alleged disagreement on an essential point among the high contracting parties to this Convention, information which has reached this House since it parted with the subject last week, which justified the action my hon. friend has taken, and I think we have a perfect right to protest against the doctrine which has been laid down by the Prime Minister. I am glad my hon. friend has raised this question, and, for so doing, I think he deserves the thanks of the House and of the country.
MR. THOMAS LOUGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us another opportunity, before the session closes, of discussing this question—of course before the ratification of the Convention? If so, I am sure that the House will agree with me in thinking that this inconvenient Motion need not be persisted in any longer.
MR. GLBSON BOWLES: It is not my Motion; it is that of the Government.
MR. LOUGH: I wish to call attention to a new fact, which seems even graver than those referred to by the hon. Member. He has told ns that in the Dutch Parliament the Finance Minister threatened us that we would be compelled to impose countervailing duties on sugar coming from our Colonies. But something else took place in the Dutch Parliament, for, immediately after that statement was made, the treaty was accepted and ratified by a unanimous vote. What is the meaning of that? The meaning is that we have not only to impose countervailing duties against our Colonies, but we are agreeing to give preferential treatment
142
to foreign nations. Other countries see the advantage of this, although apparently our Government do not realise it. Continental nations realise the great advantage they are going to get from this convention. They see that the sugar tax provided under Clause 3 gives them preferential treatment in this country—it gives their manufacturers' products a preference. This is a matter of the greatest gravity to manufacturers in this country, who see that their great enterprises here are likely to be ruined. They come to me and to other Members. [Cries of "Order."] Well, I have been studying this subject for seven years, and I did not have an opportunity of saying a single word upon it in the debate. Nothing qualifies a man more to take part in a debate than the fact that he has devoted years of his life to the study of the particular question under discussion. I appeal to the Prime Minister if he will not reconsider the situation and give us some moderate opportunity, before the session closes, of calling attention to these new facts.
Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill without Amendment.

LONDON WATER RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Mr. JEFFREYS ()in the Chair.
Clause 1:-
Amendment, as amended, proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'appointed, to insert the words 'as follows:-Ten by the London County Council; two by the Common Council of the city; two by the Council of the city of Westminster: one by the Council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs; one by the County Council of Essex; two by the Council of the Borough of West Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of East Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Leyton; one by the Council of the Urban District of Walthamstow; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of (Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross,

143
Wanstead, and Woodford; one by the County Council of Kent; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Beckenham, Bromley, Chislehurst, and Penge; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Foot's Cray; one by the County Council of Middlesex; one by the Council of the Urban District of Tottenham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Willesden; one by the Council of the Borough of Ealing and the Councils of the Urban Districts of Acton and Chiswick; one by the Councils of the Urban districts of Brentford, Hampton, Hampton Wick Hanwell, Heston and Isleworth, Sunbury, Teddington, and Twickenham; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Edmonton, Enfield, and Southgate; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Hornsey and Wood Green; one by the County Council of Surrey; one by the Council of the Borough of Kingston and the Councils of the Urban Districts of East and West Molesey, Esher and the Dittons, Ham and Surbiton; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Barnes, the Maldens and Coombe, and Wimbledon; one by the County Council of Hertfordshire; three by the Conservators of the River Thames; one by the Lee Conservancy Board.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
Mr. LOUGHsaid that in moving the omission of line 11, he should explain that the effect would be to deprive Walthamstow of its separate representation. He had, however, a consequential Amendment which would add that urban district to the group of other Essex urban districts which was given one representative on the Board. Something must be done with regard to Essex before they passed away from that part of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had already promised to re-consider the position in regard to the outside districts. Some reduction of the representation proposed to be given to them could not be resisted. The Committee on the previous day decided that London was only to have forty-one representatives on a Board of sixty-eight members. It had been stated that the representation was based on two grounds—population and ratable value. On the basis of population London would be entitled to 75 per cent. of the representation of the whole Board, or, in other words, to fifty-two of the seats. As a matter of fact, however, only forty-one of the seats had been so allotted. Then on the basis of ratable value, London would be entitled to fifty-six of the seats, so that, whichever of the tests laid down by the Government was
144
relied upon, London had been given a number of seats far short of that to which it was entitled. Now the only way that remained to correct the disproportion in the representation of London was to reduce the representation of the outside areas. To these twenty-seven members were allotted, although on the basis of population, they were only entitled to eighteen, and on the basis of rateable value to fifteen. It was absolutely necessary therefore that some change should be made. It might be suggested that his proposal would make the urban districts some-what unwieldy in size. But he would like to point out that in London the districts had populations ranging from 50,000 to 340,000, and they only had one representative each. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, for Essex could well spare one of its seven representatives.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"To leave out line 11."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr WALTER LONG,)said he thought the hon. Gentleman was trying to do what he desired to do in a wrong way. As he understood him, his wish was that the number of members given to outside London should be reduced, and a proprotionate number be added to the representation of inner London. Surely he could secure that end by some better plan than that proposed in this Amendment. It appeared to him that if this proposal were carried it would only make matters worse. If Walthamstow were dealt with in this manner, it would seem to be very unfair, seeing that it had already been decided that East Ham and Leyton, with populations of respectively 96,000 and 98,000, should each have one representative. Walthamstow had a population of 95,000, and the Committee would see at a glance that it would be most unjust to deal with it in special manner simply because it was desired to reduce the representation of outer London. This basis of representation which had been adopted in the constitution of the Water Board was the result, to a

145
large extent, of a compromise between the various localities interested. He might have failed to secure a satisfactory arrangement, but at any rate it had not been from any want of trying. He sought to obtain the views of everybody concerned, from the Water Committee of the London County Council down to the representative of the smallest urban and rural areas. His object had been to find out what would satisfy them. He had tried to constitute a Board which would command their confidence, and his whole work would be undone if the Committee were now to make a change in the particular part of the scheme under debate. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would realise that, however good his object might be, he had adopted a very bad wav of attaining it.
MR. CORRIE GRANT ()thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they were now dealing with a small matter of purely administrative detail, which need arouse no Party feeling. They were endeavouring to arrive at an adjustment as between inner and outer London. He was perfectly ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman could deal with it in far better manner than any private individual Member, because he had all the necessary sources of information at his command. No one would deny that he had devoted a large amount of time and energy to the carrying out of the idea; with which he started. But then they did not accept his ideal, and they had always occupied that position. What the hon. Member for West Islington was trying to do by his Amendment was to suggest some change whereby the representation of inside and outside London should be made more proportionate to population and rateable value. No doubt the change proposed was not altogether satisfactory. But could not the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself suggested that the necessary alteration might be brought about in some better way, give them an idea of what the better plan was? Let him take this matter into his consideration as part of the scheme which, in the course of the previous day, he had promised to review. All they wanted was to get some reduction in the representation of the bodies outer of London, and they would be
146
only too glad to hear what suggestion the right hon. Gentleman had to make on the point.
MR. D. J. MORGAN (), said he hoped the Committee would not listen to any proposal to deprive Walthamstow of its representation on the Board. Ho would like to remind hon Members that the East London Water Works in the parish of Walthamstow covered 431 out of the 4,350 acres of which it was constituted. Again, the rateable value of that property was, £22,600 out of a total rateable value of £348,000. He thought it would be excessively wrong, under these circumstances, to decline to give Walthamstow direct representation on the Water Board.
(1.0.) DR. MACNAMARA ()pointed out that the balance of representation laid down in the Government scheme had already been upset, by reducing the number of representatives of inner London by five, it was therefore, essential that they should revise the scheme for outer London. He confessed he was at some loss to understand the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had based his scheme of representation. But it having been entirely revolutionised as far as inner London was concerned, they had no alternative but to reconsider the case of outer London. The Member for Walthamstow naturally did not desire that his constituency should lose its representation. That was a proper spirit of patriotism. But the grounds upon which he had put forward his claim were somewhat extraordinary. He personally could not see why the fact that the East London Water Company had some works in the parish of Walthamstow justified t he demand that that parish should have special representation. Admittedly they could not deprive Walthamstow of representation unless they also considered the cases of Leyton and East Ham. To touch one without dealing with the other was to create an injustice, and, therefore, the whole plan would have to be revised. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that, before the Report stage, he would consider whether some better scheme could not be devised, which would redress the

147
balance between outer and inner London. If so, then the Amendments could be withdrawn.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had no hesitation in responding to the first practical suggestion which had been made for the solution of the whole question. He admitted that the reduction of the number of representatives for inner London altered the proportion between the inner and outer areas. As he had thought the original proportion, fair, it must be taken that the present proportion was not fair. It was now proposed that the disproportion should be redressed by depriving a populous part of Essex of its representation. He could not possibly entertain that proposal, but the question remained, Could they rearrange the general grouping of the outer areas in such a way as to obtain from them a certain number of representatives who could be given to inner London? If they were allowed to regard the scheme of representation as complete, subject only to revision by the Government between the Committee and Report stages, he would be prepared to give the assurance asked for.
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON ()said they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having given them a clear statement, which he accepted as a pledge that he would deal with this matter by some form of grouping. Some of his hon. friends around him had considered this question very carefully and had put down Amendments which would enable them to lay their suggestions before the right hon. Gentleman. There was this difficulty, that, by at once sweeping away all these Amendments, they were depriving themselves of the opportunity of laying their views before the right hon. Gentleman. It might be of some advantage to him to listen to some of their arguments. It was admitted that the representation of inner London was considerably below its proper proportion, when compared with outer London, on the basis of either ratable value or population. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the re-grouping of the outer areas, would endeavour to make the final representation more equitable than it now was.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he desired to be perfectly frank with the Committee, so that there might be no misapprehension as to the course he proposed to take. He thought it would be possible by some simple rearrangement of the outside areas to secure the release of four members. Those four members might, with advantage, be added to the representation of the London County Council. That would bring their representation up to the number proposed in the Amendement of his hon. friend the Member for North-West Wiltshire, and would redress the balance between London Within and London Without. He could not absolutely commit himself now to any particular plan, because in grouping they were compelled to have regard to something more than numbers. There must be community of interest. He did not think, however, that such an arrangement as he had indicated was beyond the power of the Government; but he must ask that if this concession was made it would be in the spirit indicated in the closing remarks of the hon. Member of North Camberwell, viz., by the settlement for the time being of the present scheme of representation.
SIR H. CAMBELL BANNERMANthought the Committee, and especially his hon. friends behind him, would recognise the very reasonable spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman had made a very substantial advance towards what was aimed at on both sides of the House. There would still remain what in the view of the Opposition was an overgrown governing body; but that, he was afraid, was beyond redemption. The right hon. Gentleman was very proud of his huge bantling, and he was afraid they could not induce him to abandon it. Without committing himself or anybody else to particulars, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate an arrangement which would meet a good many of the objections of his hon. friends, and if it was understood that kind would be considered and proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would get rid, to a large extent, of elaborate argument.
MR. WHITMORE ()said he welcomed very heartily the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, because he believed it provided a most hopeful solution of the difficulty of securing a proper balance of representation.
CAPTAIN NORTON ()said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of community of interests. Might he point out to him it frequently occurred that a greater community of interests existed between two districts in different counties than between two districts in the same county, and so far as the outer circle of London was concerned, there was no reason whatever why there should not be a grouping of districts in different counties.
DR. MACNAMARAjoined in thanking the President of the Local Government Board for the statement he had made. When he suggested that they should drop all their Amendments, he did so on his own responsibility; but he would like to draw attention to the fact that he very much disliked the proposal to give representation to the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy. He thought that proposal, at any rate, would have to go. Still, hon. Members might under the circumstances hold over their Amendments until the right hon. Gentleman brought up his revised scheme.
MR. HARRY SAMUEL ()said he also would like to express his gratification with the statement of the President of the Local Government Board.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had met them in a very liberal spirit. The change he had foreshadowed would, he believed, greatly improve the Bill. Of course, they would have to discuss the question of the representation of the Conservancies.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the representation of the Conservancies formed an important part of his scheme, but obviously, under the new proposals, that part also would have to come again under his consideration.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, which he looked upon as most important, to reconsider the representation of the Conservancies, he did not propose to press his Amendment.
MR. JOHN BURNS ()said he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, in putting tile Conservancies into the melting-pot along with the representation of the outside areas, would bear in mind the fact that the Royal Commission on the Port of London had recommended that, so far as the water way was concerned, the Thames Conservancy should be abolished.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. REA ()said he would like to make one or two observations with regard to the representation of outside London.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. There is no question before the Committee. Does the hon. Member intend to move his Amendment?
MR. REA: No. I shall withdraw it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Then there being no question before the Committee the hon. Member is not entitled to speak.
Mr. REAsaid he would formally move his Amendment, in order to explain his own position and to ask whether the President of the Local Government Board would be willing to consider the principle which was embodied in his various Amendments.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 12, after ' Chingford,' to insert Ilford.' "—(Mr. Rea.)
Question proposed "That the word 'Ilford' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he understood that the object of the hon. Member in this and the following Amendment was to bring into the scheme of

151
representation some places which were now excluded. But he was bound to point out that a proposal of that kind would necessarily add largely to the size of the Board, whereas he had just undertaken to reconsider the scheme with a view to the reduction of the number of seats allotted to outer London. He had no reason to believe that the localities to which the hon. Member's Amendments referred were not perfectly satisfied with the general principles he had laid down in his scheme. But, in addition to that, he would point out that these districts had certain statutory rights which were protected by the scheme of the Bill, and, if at any time their position was so altered as to render it desirable to give them representation on the board, such a procedure was provided for in the Bill. He intended with all loyalty to carry out his promise to the Committee with regard to re-arranging the representation, and, under the circumstances, he could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the cases dealt with in the Amendments of the hon. Member were covered by the Clause alluded to. If at any future time they should become entitled to representation, power was given them to obtain it.
MR. CORRIE GRANTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would allow any of the outside authorities who wished to communicate with him before he produced his revised scheme.
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
MR. REAsaid that after the concession on the more important point made by the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite willing to leave the less important question raised by his Amendments to his consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CORRIE GRANTasked what course the President of the Local Government Board proposed to take with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North West Durham
152
dealing with the date of appointment of the Water Board. Would that have to be dealt with on the Schedule?
MR. WALTER LONG: Yes; it is a matter which appertains to the Schedule.
MR. CORRIE GRANTinquired if it would not be more convenient to deal with it when the right hon. Gentleman, brought up his new scheme on the Report stage.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could have no possible objection to deferring all these matters to the Report Satge. It was obviously to his advantage.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not propose to insist upon his undoubted right to generally discuss the Amendment of the Government, although he held that, by applying the Closure after three hours debate on the preceding night, the Government had deprived themselves of any title to consideration in that direction.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Words [of Mr. WALTER LONG'S Amendment as amended] inserted.
MR. JOHN BURNSrose to move the following Amendment—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end, to insert ' A member appointed by a constituent authority shall cease to be a member of the Board if he cease to be a member of the authority appointing him.' "
The DEPUTY CHAIRMANstated that this would come more properly as an Amendment on the Fourth Schedule of the Bill.
MR. JOHN BURNSappealed to the President of the Local Government Board to take the proposal into consideration between now and the time when the Fourth Schedule would come before the Committee.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end, to insert 'Provided that the term of office of chairman, and vice-chairman appointed by the Local Government Board shall be one year and no more.'"

153
The hon. Member was proceeding to speak in support of the Amendment, when—
MR. GRANT LAWSONinterposed and said this referred to a matter which was dealt with in the Fourth Schedule.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the proper procedure would be to move this as an Amendment on the Fourth Schedule.
MR. REAmoved to leave out sub-Section (4) of Clause I., which provides—
"The Water Board shall pay to the chairman and vice-chairman such salaries as the Board may determine."
He said this proposal would, in the first place, add neither to the dignity nor efficiency of the Board, and in the second place it was opposed to all the best precedents in such cases. On the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Local Government Board stated that if they wanted good work they must pay for it. This appeared to him to be a fallacy under the guise of an aphorism, if by payment was meant simply and only a money payment. If it were true, then England must be the worst-governed country in the world, because clearly our local government was in the hands of the unpaid, from the magistrates down to the parish councillors. The principle was fundamentally wrong. The elected representatives must be masters, and the paid should be their servants. The condition of payment not only failed to increase the efficiency but it diminished efficiency by practically restricting the range of choice. The best men and the most desirable to enlist in the local public services of the country were not those who would accept a paid position. Suppose, for example, that this condition had been imposed upon the London County Council when it was established, would that body have been able to secure the services of Lord Rosebery as its first chairman? And, if instead of Lord Rosebery, it had been presided over by a salaried official, would not the whole tone and character of that body have been altered, and was it likely that the many distinguished members of that Board would have sought election if they had been ruled and dominated by twos salaried officials? Still less if those two
154
salaried officials had been imposed upon them by the Local Government Board, as was now to be the case in the first London Water Board. He said officials, because the fact of a salary tended to differentiate those who received it from the members who did not receive it. A salaried chairman was likely to become a permanent chairman, and his re-election at the end of each term to follow as a matter of course, and the real control to remain in the hands of those who were expected, by virtue of their salaries, to devote all their time to the work for which they were paid. The true principle of all local government was that the salaried official should be the servant, and the unpaid elected representative the master, and this proposal tended to reverse this order. There was a sense in which it was true that if you wanted good work you must pay, but there were other payments than money payments, and it was these other rewards—the reward of public influence, and respect and consciousness of good work done—that would attract the best men, who were altogether superior to the attractions of a salaried office. He maintained that this proposal tended to lower the dignity, and not to increase, but to impair the efficiency of the Water Board about to be established. Further, although it would not be correct to say that this proposal was unprecedented, the good precedents were against it, and the precedents for it were the bad precedents. The precedents for it which would occur to the minds of all hon. Members was that of the Metropolitan Board of Works under the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. The Metropolitan Board was required to
"elect the Chairman of the said Board, and to decide upon the amount of salary to be paid to such Chairman, such salary not to be less than £1,500 and not to exceed £2,000 per annum."
But in following the precedent of the Metropolis Management Act, the Government had not only repeated, but exaggerated its defects, and had not only proposed a salaried chairman, but also a salaried vice chairman. For the latter proposal he believed there was absolutely no precedent whatever. It was dangerous to state, and difficult to prove a universal negative, but he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a precedent for a paid vice-chairman of a representative local authority.

155
Against the proposal could be quoted not only the practice of all the more important Councils—Local Government, County, Municipal and others—but there were some definite precedents, very much to the point. About the same time as the Metropolitan Board of Works was created, another body of equal importance was set up—a Board upon which seats were sought as eagerly as were seats in this House—the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It was impossible to believe that a statutory salary attached to the office of chairman of that Board would have attracted the services of the series of distinguished commercial men, who had so ably presided over that most successful and influential body. The London County Council was given power, under the Local Government Act of 1888, Section 2, and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, Section 15, to pay its chairman "such remuneration as the Council might think reasonable, "but a salaried chairman was never imposed upon it by authority; it was a matter of choice, and the Council had never paid its chairman any salary or remuneration; if it had it would never have had Lord Rosebery as chairman. It was also empowered to pay to its deputy-chairman "such remuneration as it might think fit," and when the Council was established, it did pay a deputy-chairman during the time occupied in settling the Council's organisation. But the deputy-chairman was not the president and the head. He was the head of the staff, and formed a link between the Council and the staff, and the last payment was made to him in 1895. Since that date the Council had not paid any member, and even those members of it who were appointed as representatives of the Thames Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Board were required to pay over to the Council any fee or consideration received from either of those Boards in respect of their services, so careful was the London County Council to avoid a suspicion of self-interest on the part of its members. The London School Board had power under the Elementary Education Act of 1870 to pay its chairman "such salary as they may from time to time, with the sanction of the Education Department fix." But they had been far too
156
wise to take advantage of the permission accorded to them, and no one who knew the present able and distginguished chairman could imagine him either consenting to accept a salaried position, or to act under the rule of two paid officials. This proposal sturck the keynote of the whole Bill. It was the note of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Such popular and representative elements as the Board might seem to possess were so indirect, so complicated and so cumbrous, as to be practically of little value, but this proposal, if carried out, effectually extinguished them. There were many citizens of character, influence and ability, who would be willing to accept such positions as those of chairman or vice-chairman of this Board without fee or reward; these were effectually repelled and excluded. Such men would not consent to serve on a Board, the highest positions in which were witheld from them. The sub-Section had nothing to recommend it from any point of view, except that of the two fortunate gentleman to be nominated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
Amendment proposed—
"In page2, line 1, to leave out sub-Section (4)."—(Mr. Rea.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONappealed to the Government, if they could not accept the Amendment, to leave the payment of salaries to the option of the Board. He was sure his hon. friend would consider that a satisfactory settlement. In his view this body ought to have power to pay salaries if they liked; but it should not be put upon them as an obligation. Certainly all the precedents were in favour of giving the option to the Board in regard to the matter of salaries. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could cite a single case in which the payment of salaries to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was forced upon a public body as an obligation. The right hon. Gentleman professed to trust this new body, and, that being so, the hon. Member did not see why they should not have the option of paying the Chairman or

157
not. as they might see fit. In connection with a large body there was a tendency for the work to fall into the hands of officials, and if the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in this case were necessarily paid, the work would get still more into the hands of officials, and thus the interest of others in it would be reduced. One of the evils of the Metropolitan Board of Works was that the Chairman was a paid official. That was the real difficulty. When a Chairman was paid he got a sort of vested interest in that particular berth, and it became very difficult to put a new person in his place. The right hon. Gentleman had been so conciliatory in these matters that he appealed to him to give at least the option to the Board to pay the Chairman and Vice-Chairman or not.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that this was a more serious matter than some hon. Members might be disposed to admit. There were many very able and distinguished men who had enjoyed greater privileges than he could command, and who had a strong disposition—having leisure and ability—to devote these to the service of the community. Now, such men would refuse to take office if it were made compulsory for them to accept payment. He would, therefore, suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he should allow his mind to remain in a state of flux on this question, and postpone the acceptance of either view put before the Committee until the Report stage. He submitted that suggestion because he did not want any payment for any public office in London to rule out the very best men—whether they were rich or poor. Many men who had made or acquired a fortune would make most excellent chairmen of public bodies, but if payment of a salary were made obligatory they would refuse to accept office. For instance, the London School Board had, as a rule, very able, distinguished, and devoted Chairmen, and the London School Board were in a position to pay them a salary if they thought fit. He was glad to say that all the Chairmen had been rich enough to dispense with pay. On the other hand the Metropolitan Board of Works had a paid Chairman. Now, he had had a great regard for dear old
158
Lord Magheramore, but the effect of making the payment compulsory was to keep in the Chair a man who was brilliant when appointed longer than he should have been. The London County Council did not pay its Chairman: it was not in the mode. On the other hand, he ventured to say that it was a great misfortune that the pay of the Deputy-Chairman was abolished. A very distinguished man might be induced to accept the Chair who could afford to do so without pay, and if the Deputy-Chairman were paid he would have all the technical and routine range of administration in his hands, and by consultation with the Chairman the advantages of both systems would be secured with the disadvantages of neither. He respectfully suggested that they should allow the President of the Local Government Board to consider this matter till the Report stage, and probably the right hon. Gentleman would then be able to bring up a suggestion that would be acceptable to both sides of the House.
MR. WALTER LONGthought that there was no real difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government on this subject. The Government, of course, could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester, but they might accept that of the hon. Member for Poplar. The Clause said that a salary should be paid, but it was to be such a salary as the Board might determine. As the actual amount rested with the new body there could be no objection for following the usual course of substituting "may" for "shall."
MR. REAasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—"In page 2, line 1, to leave out 'shall,' and insert ' may.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."
MR. LOUGHsaid that his objection to this Amendment was that it did not go far enough. There was a distinct

159
suggestion in it that both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman might be paid.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he wanted to move an Amendment which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would accept at once—viz., that instead of the words "Chairman and Vice-Chairman" in line 1 in the 4th sub-Section, they should read "Chairman or Vice-Chairman." As the sub-Section at present stood it might be construed that if the Board paid the Chairman they would be bound to pay the Vice-Chairman.
Amendment proposed—"In page 2, line 1, to leave out 'and' and insert 'or.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, of course, he was no lawyer, but it appeared to him that this change of language might lead to another misapprehension. It might mean that the Board must pay one or other, but not both. The sub-Section as it stood would leave it to the option of the Board to pay one or the other or both.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he wanted to raise another point. The sub-Section at present read that the Board should pay to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman "such salaries as the Board may determine." He suggested that it should read "salary or salaries." If the right hon. Gentleman accepted that Amendment he would withdraw his first.
MR. LOUGHsaid he objected to the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman's first Amendment, because one salary was enough. If they were to have two highly paid officials, the utility of the Board would be imperilled. He objected very strongly that it should be open to the Board to pay both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he thought his hon. friend was pressing the matter too far. What was wanted, after all, in Acts of Parliament was to lay down a principle. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed that the Water Board should
160
have a free hand; why should that not apply to the Vice-Chairman, as well as to the Chairman?
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he joined with his hon. friend the Member for the Rugby Division in asking the President of the Local Government Board to accept the two lines in the form suggested by his hon. friend, viz., that the Water Board might pay either the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman such a salary as the Board might determine. That would give a free hand. They wanted to give the greatest freedom to the water authority, and to get the best men possible.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he entirely agreed with what had just been said by his hon. friend.
MR. LOUGHsaid that if the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were coupled together, the strict interpretation of the law would be that however one was treated the other should be also treated. The matter would not be absolutely clear.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made—"In page 2, line 1, by inserting after the word ' Chairman,' the words 'or either of them'; and by inserting after the word 'such ' the words 'salary or.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out 'the Board,' and insert 'in the case of persons appointed by the Local Government Board, that Board, and in any other case the Water Board.' "—(Mr. W. F. D. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'the Board' stand part of the Clause."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and to the Committee, especially after what had occurred during the last few days, to restore the Clause to its original form. Towards the end of the proceedings in Committee, when hon. Members were not so wary as they might have been, and were rather weary, they allowed the Amendment to pass. Matters had altered a good deal since, and the Committee had decided to leave the question of salaries to the Board

161
itself. It would be a great reflection on the business capacity and administrative ability of the new Board, if it was to be thought that out of sixty-eight members it did not contain two righteous men capable of acting as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Unless that power were given to the Board, it would have no voice in the election of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman during the first four years, which would be the most critical period of its existence. Purchase would have to be carried out, and the administrative policy of the Board would be put on a proper footing. For these reasons he asked the Committee to restore the Bill to its original form and reject the Amendment.
CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he thought it would be rather a reflection on the Board if it were provided that it could not elect two of its members to act as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. There would be several very able gentlemen on the Board, members of the County Council and of the Borough Councils who were acquainted with the subject. Moreover, members of the Board would naturally aspire to the chief position, especially at the first onslaught; and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would put back the Clause in its original form.
MR. W. F. D. SMITH ()said he had moved this Amendment on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea, in whose name it stood on the Paper, but he confessed that he could not altogether disagree with what had been said. It was quite clear that when the option was given to the Board to pay or not to pay its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the Local Government Board would find it difficult to get hold of a capable man who would be ready to sacrifice his present occupation for another with a problematical salary. In these circumstances, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Committee was practically unanimous in the matter; and he would therefore appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and above all, to stimulate the
162
desire of the very best men to serve on the Board, by agreeing to the Amendment being withdrawn. He was perfectly convinced that if the hon. Member for Chelsea, who had a very practical mind, were present he would concur in that.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment. They would then revert to the original proposal in the Bill. The change was made hurriedly, and since it had been made a very different position had arisen. As the Board would now have the power of fixing the salaries, he thought it would be far better to leave the appointment of Chairman and Vice-Chairman to it. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn; and on the Report stage he would move an Amendment restoring the Bill to its original form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, (2.15.)
Amendment made—
"In line 4, by leaving out 'fourth' and inserting third.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. LOUGHsaid that although some steps had been taken to meet their objections, Members on that side of the House could not view with complacency the setting up of a Water Board. Concessions on points of detail had been made, but the essential principle of the Bill was now being passed, and that was a matter against which all who sympathised with the great progressive majority in London local affairs ought to protest to the last. Clause I set up a Water Board, but no Water Board was wanted. The water supply might very well be left in the hands of the municipal authority, just as was done everywhere else. The London County Council, which was constituted the water authority ten years ago by Parliament itself, and had spent a great deal of money in preparing Bills and acquiring information, could have dealt with the matter extremely well. He had never been able to recognise the substance of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that

163
the outer areas required representation on the body controlling the supply. No doubt a considerable amount of the population resided outside the limits of the County of London, but the proportion was not nearly so large as in other great cities which controlled their own water supply, for whereas in London the proportion was 23 per cent., in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds and Glasgow it was nearly 30 per cent. Therefore, the difficulty created by the supply of outside authorities existed elsewhere, but had never been taken as a reason why the municipal authority should not have the control of the water supply. Even if it were granted that some kind of Board should be set up, that proposed by the Bill was an extremely bad one. If representation of outside bodies was to be, it should be confined to County Councils, just as inside the control should be given to the London County Council. Under the fantastic proposals of the Bill, electoral colleges were to be set up; several outside areas with local governing bodies of their own were to be grouped, and then elect one member to the Board—a scheme which no more satisfied the areas concerned than it pleased the people of London. Already a Bill had been prepared by Kent, and other counties would probably follow, to secure severance from this arrangement. Unless care were taken, the so-called "Mother of Parliaments" would lose its faculty of creating even municipal bodies capable of discharging the duties entrusted to them. This Water Board, even as amended, would be the worst and most impracticable body Parliament had ever created. It had the worst constituency; the framework was ricketty, the body was too large for its work, it would not be animated by any common interests or guided by any distinct and clear principle. He should, therefore, vote against the Clause.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the conciliatory attitude of the President of the Local Government Board on the question of amending the constitution of the Board in detail did not affect the objections he entertained to the whole principle of the Clause, and he therefore joined in the protest against its adoption. He also protested against a Bill of such importance and complexity being taken at this stage of the session. The autumn sittings were held for the
164
purpose of discussing, not a London Water Bill, but the Education Bill, the debates on which were closured to secure the passage of that measure by a certain date, and not to make time for the Bill now under consideration. He considered it a great abuse of the power of the majority to force such a measure through the House of Commons,
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he must confine his remarks to Clause 1.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcontended that the constitution of the Board was contrary to the principle on which municipal government was founded, viz., that questions of central administration should be put in the hands of a central body, local matters being managed locally, and that such a body should be directly representative. Some hon. Members seemed to think that because the Opposition opposed the inclusion of the Borough Councils, they were casting a reflection on the members of those Councils. That was not the case at all. The sole point was—For what purpose, and on what basis were they elected? It could not bo contended that a single borough councillor was elected because of his knowledge of, or interest in, the water question, whereas the bulk of the members of the London County Council were elected largely for that reason, the question of the water supply having been one of the principal matters on which the last election was fought. The President of the Local Government Board had said that even if borough councillors did not know much about the subject now, it would be a matter of interest at future elections, and they would be able to acquire knowledge. That might be so, but the question of whether the Board would be successful—by which he meant whether it would purchase and manage the undertaking of the companies economically—would really depend on the first four years of its existence, and it was during those years that borough councillors would be elected without any special knowledge of the subject. He cast no reflection on the Borough Councils, but it would have been far better that a matter of such importance should be entrusted to a body more or less elected for the purpose, rather than to persons not so elected. The question

165
of the size of the Board had already been debated at considerable length. It was generally admitted that as a working body the Board was far too large. The Water Board was to take over a going concern. The Water Companies, if amalgamated, would not dream of keeping all the present directors; they would certainly effect a large reduction, and probably a Board of thirty or oven less would be considered sufficient. In reply to the argument that the water supply in other towns was managed by a comparatively small committee, it had been urged that a larger body was necessary here because London was so much larger. But a larger duty did not necessarily require a larger committee. The Chelsea Water Company, with nine directors, managed the affairs of 250,000 consumers, whereas the East London Company, also with nine directors, managed the affairs of 1,250,000, so that on the basis of the Chelsea Company the East London Company ought to have a Board of forty-five instead of nine directors. He desired to enter a strong protest against the principle upon which this Water Board was to be constructed, because it gave the go-by to what in every other town would be the natural authority, namely, the central authority. He also objected to the proposal on the ground that the new body was such a large one that the result would be that instead of the Water Board being to the advantage of the ratepayers and consumers, it would be a great charge upon the former and no benefit at all to the latter.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would only trouble the Committee with a very few remarks. The hon. Member for Poplar had stated that the Water Board was too big, and that the members of the metropolitan boroughs were not elected upon any understanding that the management of the water supply would become any part of their duties. The hon. Member also said that by its size and constitution it constituted a departure from the recognised principle of municipal government. He joined issue absolutely with the hon. Member upon this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked about disregarding the central authority, but the London County Council was given a much larger representation than any other area, and he had undertaken to add to that representation
166
the members who might be released by any alteration in reference to any other body. It had been said that this Clause gave a dual representation to certain parts, and then it was immediately claimed that the representation of London was to be regarded only from the point of view of the London County Council. When the hon. Members opposite stated that London had only one-fifth of the representation they ignored altogether the representation which was given to the metropolitan boroughs, the members of which represented London just as much as the members of the London County Council. The hon. Member said that the Borough Councils were not elected to deal with water. He did not know from his own knowledge exactly what took place at the elections, but he had been assured that in many cases the water question did form a very considerable part of the discussions which attended those elections. How did hon. Members who opposed this proposal deal with the fact that in many cases the gentlemen who were members of the metropolitan Borough Councils were also members of the London County Council? Surely these gentlemen ought to be exempt from the general condemnation which the hon. Member sought to pass upon the Borough Councils.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: They have had two elections.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not care whether they had had two or twenty elections. What he was seeking to point out was that a man who was thought good enough to be a member of a metropolitan Borough Council was thought in some cases to be good enough to be even a member of the London County Council. To those gentlemen the hon. Member's criticisms are to be applied. They were asked to believe that London was in a state of hopeless poverty in regard to municipal administration; that the administration of the water supply was so abstruse and so different from any other form of local government, and so difficult in its nature to any other part of municipal work, that a man must be born in the middle of a lake to be able to understand it. How did the members of municipal boroughs obtain their knowledge and experience? Were they specially trained for the work? Was it to be seriously put forward as an

167
argument that before they created any new bodies they must have some special training in the work they were asking them to perform? If that argument held good it meant that they were never to bring into existence new bodies for special work unless they had had some special training. There was no reason why the metropolitan boroughs should not provide as good and capable members for the new Water Board as the London County Council or any other body. Hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely ignored the fact that Water London was not the London of the London County Council. They also ignored the fact that the London County Council had produced schemes and Royal Commissions, and Joint Committees had made recommendations not one of which had ever found acceptance in London or in the surrounding areas. They might abuse this scheme as much as they liked, but it was the first measure which had found general acceptance amongst all the bodies concerned with the exception of the London County Council. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the criticisms and the attacks made upon this Clause came in the main, not from those representing the districts, but from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who made them because they were entirely opposed to the whole of the Government proposals. They said the Bill was unworkable, and doomed to failure because it was a bad scheme, but from the point of view of practical politics it was the best scheme they could produce. He did not share the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the size of the Board, for he believed that they would find plenty of men of public spirit in London ready to join this new Board who would do the work intelligently, and with a devotion to the public interest. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] If they believed that, why did they indulge in these melancholy forebodings as to this new authority? He acknowledged that the discussions on Clause I had not been in any way unduly prolonged, and in the main they had been of a practical character. He hoped they would proceed to discuss the other Clauses in
168
the same spirit. He was glad that hon. Members had laid stress upon the fact that the main questions in regard to this Bill were to be found in Clause 1, and he hoped the rest of the Clauses would make even a smaller demand upon the time of the House. In conclusion, he wished to say that in his opinion any other proposal different in principle from the one the Government had submitted would have failed to find general acceptance in the areas affected.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he entirely dissented from the view taken by the President of the Local Government Board. He was not opposed to the principle of purchase, or the terms of purchase in the Bill, and least of all was he opposed to the three distinguished men who were to constitute the Board of Arbitration. What they were opposed to was the constitution and the number of the members of the Water Board. He thought the President of the Local Government Board had met them very fairly and handsomely in dealing with this Board. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to increase the number of representatives of the London County Council and to slightly reduce the number of members of the Water Board, but they still contended that the size of the Board would be too large and unwieldy. It would number sixty-eight. The right hon. Gentleman said that its constitution was in accordance with precedent, but it was not in accordance with the recommendations of any Royal Commission or Committee which he had studied for the special ease of London. There was not, as far as he was aware, a Water Board in the country which numbered more than twenty-six, and the number went down to as low as nine in the case of Birmingham. As to the constitution, he was entirely opposed to the representation of the Borough Councils at all. There was no justification for it. The constituencies of the Borough Councils were already represented through the London County Council. He did not say anything against the personnel of the Borough Councils, for he believed they were composed of as good men as the members of the County Councils from an administrative point of view. The issue he was most concerned with was the financial

169
issue. On the financial question, London, as a whole, was concerned, and the fiduciary of London's financial interests was the County Council and not the Borough Councils. He objected to the secondary system of election as being a thoroughly bad one as far as London was concerned. It might develop financial scandals which brought so much discredit on the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself once stated that no system of delegated elections would by any means prove satisfactory. The Prime Minister, speaking on the London Government Bill in February, 1899, upon a proposal that the London County Council should be constituted by selection from the then existing Vestries and Boards of Works, said that such a proposal would be a revival, to a certain extent, of the principle adopted, tried, and finally rejected, in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say in the same speech that this principle would introduce in the London County Council an element of secondary election, and although he thought there were many cases in which secondary election worked extremely well, still it had not a very good record behind it in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that in the London Water Bill the Government had adopted the sound democratic principles put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister upon the occasions he had alluded to.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (): Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with the aldermen.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid they did not mention aldermen, and he did not quite understand the hon. Member's interruption. He had read to the Committee all that was germane to this point. Having regard to the remoteness from the electorate which many of the members of the Water Board would stand in, they might have some of the financial scandals, which had left behind such a bad odour in the nostrils of London people generally in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. THORNTON ()said that as one of the representatives of a London constituency he desired to point out
170
that there was some evidence in the record of what happened before the Joint Committee which considered this water question which had not been duly appraised during these debates. They had been told that facts were over whelmingly in favour of minimising the number of the body to control the water supply, and it had been said that there was scarcely anything to be said on the other side. Hon. Members opposite must have overlooked the evidence on this point given by the Mayors of the Borough Councils, and others connected with the smaller districts outside London, as to the number of the Water Board. The first Mayor of Wandsworth, Mr. Lidiard, was asked what he thought in regard to the number proposed, and he replied that he did not think the number was too large, and believed that the reason why the Metropolitan Board of Works failed was in consequence of it being too small, and they had not enough to do the work. He had consulted many others connected with local government, and he found they were quite in unison with. Lidiard's opinion that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had been larger, confusion and corruption would not have been so prevalent. The business was left to a few members, with the result that it fell into the hands of those who were guilty of corruption. As to the Borough Councils, some of them were not only riparian, but also possessed water supplies of their own in the shape of wells. Indeed, this was true of the two boroughs he represented, Battersea and Wandsworth. The borough had a right to representation, and he was sure the Bill would not be so welcome if they were omitted. The Government had been very wise in bringing the. Borough Councils into their scheme, and he was perfectly certain that this measure would not have been so popular if they had not been included. He thanked the Committee for allowing him to give his experience.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he should be extremely indebted to the Member for Clapham if, instead of going outside of his own constituency for evidence in support of this measure, he would confine himself to the views expressed by the Borough Council in his

171
own Parliamentary Division. The hon. Member invariably quoted the case of Wandsworth, but why did he not quote the Battersea Borough Council? The hon. Member would find that on the water question the Borough Council of Battersea was strongly opposed to the view which he now expressed, had frequently, by resolution, asked that the County Council should be the authority, and had strongly condemned some of the inequitable provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Clapham ought to be more cautious when quoting Mr. Lidiard, who belonged to the Conservative Party. [An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Lidiard is not a Conservative at all.] Mr. Lidiard was the most reactionary Conservative that ever cursed the south-western district by his activity.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing Clause 1.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for Clapham had quoted Mr. Lidiard with approval. He could only say that if he had read the evidence further he would have found a contradiction of the view he wished to convey. On the question that Clause 1stand part of the Bill, it was not necessary for him to add anything to what had been said in opposition by the hon. Member for North Camberwell and the hon. Member for Poplar except this. The President of the Local Government Board might think it rather ungracious for the London Members on this side of the House, after the concessions which had been made today, to have made certain speeches. He did not wish to say anything unpleasant after the genial and conciliatory way in which the right hon. Gentleman had acted. The right hon Gentleman had done much to facilitate the passage of the Bill by the attitude he had taken up in giving the County Council four new members, and making various other alterations in Clause 1, which, after all, was the governing Clause of the Bill. If anything had been said that grated upon the ear, either of the President of the Local Government Board or, the other London Members, it was due to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, he
172
and others believed that the principle underlying this Clause and the whole Bill to some extent filled them with doubts, misgivings, and apprehensions for the future. They would be unwise as opponents of the Bill unless they put it permanently on record that they sincerely disapproved of the measure, that they believed it to be unworkable, and that they thought it dangerous. What was more, they believed, though they did not hope, that it would be disastrous. But why did they say this? The hon. Member for Peckham and himself were, politically, wide as the Poles asunder, but if the hon. Member was on the County Council he would probably be made a member of the Finance Committee and if they had to send fourteen members to the new Water Board, notwithstanding that the hon. Member had been too much in favour of the Water Companies' views with respect to this Bill, he himself should be one of the first to nominate him as one of the County Council representatives in order that this business might be conducted with financial knowledge and commercial probity. He should rather have the hon. Member for Peckham, in association with the members of the Finance Committee of the County Council, to negotiate for the purchase of the water undertakings than a body of sixty-eight Radical and Tory County Councillors, without financial and commercial experience, in a large room, for Mr. Pcmber, Mr. Littler, and five or six other gentlemen representing the Water Companies, to experiment with. In getting this ship ready for launching, arranging its manning, and indicating its course, the Local Government Board had a serious responsibility on their shoulders for the next two or three years, and he appealed to them to remember that this Bill must mean a heavy increase in the very high rates of London, unless it was successfully and economically worked. He would advise the Local Government Board in the first two years not to be too stiff-necked, but to be adaptable and assimilative with regard to the interests of London in this matter, and if any of their preconceived ideas should show signs of going wrong, or if there was the least sign of extravagance, perhaps maladministration, due to inexperience, want

173
of knowledge, or to the fact that the Board was being exploited by vested interests, he would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he should come to the House with an amending Bill to remedy the defects or abuses. He appealed to the President, of the Local Government Board to watch the earlier stages with the closest attention and a full sense of responsibility. He could promise that, though the London County Council had opposed the Bill strongly, and disagreed with Clause 1; they would do everything in their power to make the Bill work smoothly and economically, and to make it as good as it possibly could be made. The London County Council had asked to be entrusted with this work, and it was not their fault that the House and the Government declined to accede to that; it might be London's misfortune. Having pointed out the defects of the Bill, they hoped its working would prove that their apprehensions were unfounded and their suspicions groundless, and that the members of the Water Board would show that devotion and capacity in the performance of their work which the London County Council for thirteen years had displayed in the discharge of their multifarious duties.
SIR GEORGE FARDELL ()said he was sure the London members one and all concurred in what the hon. Member for Battersea had said at the close of his speech. They hoped the Bill would work well and for the good of London. He understood that the hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for Battersea objected strongly to the constitution of the Board on the ground that it was very much on the lines of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had, he dared say, alarmed some Members of the House by producing a voluminous Blue-book and suggesting that it was one long indictment against that Board. He had the honour of being elected a member of the old Metropolitan Board of Works, and he could say, most emphatically, that no body ever did its work better than that Board. Might he refer the hon. Member to the following statement in the Interim Report 0f the Royal Commissioners—
174
"There has hitherto been no evidence that corruption or malpractice has affected or marred the greater part of the work which it has accomplished. The same may be said, too, in relation to the conduct of the vast majority of the members of the Board.… but against the vast majority of them not even a suspicion of corruption or misconduct has been breathed. We believe that many members of the Board have cheerfully given for the public good much valuable time, and have rendered most important public services."
He would not trouble the Committee with other extracts which he might quote, but he hoped they would accept the statement he had read as showing that there was a general acquittal of the Board. He believed the Board had left a good record behind it. Since he had been a Member of this House he had always taken the opportunity of contradicting any statement which implied a slur on that old body.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Metropolitan Board of Works.
SIR GEORGE FARDELLsaid this was a personal matter, and if he had transgressed he hoped he would be forgiven.
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought they Were agreed that the hon. Member for South Paddington was entitled to say something in defence of a body of which he was a member, but the argument he had addressed to the Committee did not bear on the point now under discussion. The point under discussion was not whether a minority of the Board of Works were corrupt—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I stopped the hon. Member for South Paddington when he was discussing the Metropolitan Board of Works. 1 hope the hon. Member will now confine his attention to Clause 1.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was not going to pursue the discussion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but as that Board had been used as an illustration in regard to the question whether indirect representation was a good thing or not, he thought he was addressing himself to that point. All he wanted to

175
say was that they were very anxious on the Opposition side of the House to make it clear that they did not accept the principle which was laid down in Clause 1 of the Bill, namely, the roundabout indirect representation proposed. It was not entitled to be described as popular control. This measure of the Government was going backward and not forward. They should have been very pleased if the Government had seen
their way to give direct control to the electors. That was what they had been fighting for; but they had not succeeded in attaining it, and they wished to make this protest before the Clause went to a division.
(3.48.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 610.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Forster, Henry William

Pierpoint, Robert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

Plummer, Walter R.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Purvis, Robert

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

Greville, Hon, Ronald

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Reid,James (Greenock)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Harris,Frederick Leverton

Ritchie,Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Bignold, Arthur

Hermon-Hodge,Sir Robert T.

Royds,Clement Molyneux

Bigwood, James

Higginbottom,S. W.

Samuel,Harry S.(Limehouse)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Bousfield, William Robert

Hudson,George Bickersteth

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

Scott,Sir (Marylebone, W.)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Kimber,Henry

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

Bull, William James

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Sharpe,William Edward T.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Law,Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Smith,James Parker (Lanarks.

Coddington, Sir William

Lawson, John Grant

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Legge,Col. Hon. Heneage

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Collings, Rt.Hon. Jesse

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stone,Sir Benjamin

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sturt,Hon,Humphry Napier

Cranborne, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Talbot,Lord E. (Chichester)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Long Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Taylor,Austin (East Taxteth)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Perey M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lowe, Francis William

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. SirJosephC.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Valentia, Viscount

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Walrond, Rt, Hn, Sir William H.

Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maconochie, A. W.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Elliot, Hon, A. Ralph Douglas

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r

Mantagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham (Bute

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sir Alexander Acland-

Flower, Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Hood and Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, John

Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

Rea, Russell

Burt, Thomas

Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hayter. Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Roberton, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brymor (Sw'nsea

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cremer, William Randal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Crombie, John William

Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Weir, James Galloway

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Mr. Causton and Mr.

John Sinclair.

Clause 2:-
MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport, viz., to leave out of the second sub-Section of Clause 2 the words "as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking," and insert "in consideration of the undertaking so transferred." The object of this Amendment was to restore the sub-Section to the shape in which it was originally introduced. The word "compensation" did not appear in the Bill as originally drawn, and he could not understand how the word had got into the Bill. It had been agreed that the arbitration should not be strictly under the Lands Clauses Act, and that compensation for disturbance should not lie in this case. The idea of compensation came in where a private individual held some property which was compulsorily taken from him for a public purpose against his will. No such consideration came in in the present case. The Water Companies had exercised the functions which should have been exercised by the public, and they had gained the advantage of the increase in the value of property at every quinquennial valuation. He was assured that when the Government originally introduced the Bill, in Which the word "compensation" did not appear, they felt that an exceptional arrangement should be made in this case, and that the extra amount for compensation over and above the value of the property should not be given.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2 line 14, to leave out the words 'as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking,' and insert 'in consideration for the undertaking so transferred.'"—(Mr. Lough)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought that as a matter of strict interpretation it would have been better that this
178
Amendment had been moved to the Arbitration Clause rather than to this Clause. He was quite willing, however, to take the discussion on the matter of principle now. For his own part, he did not attach the same importance as some hon. Gentleman did to the distinction between the two words "compensation," and "consideration." Those who advocated before the Joint Select Committee the substitution of "compensation" for "consideration," which was originally in the Bill, held very strongly that where there was a compulsory purchase from an unwilling vendor, the words ought to be wide enough to secure that the price paid should be the full value of the property taken in the public interest. While the government adopted the Lands Clauses Act, they thought it best to fellow the suggestion of the Royal Commission, and enact that the additional ten per cent. should not be specifically paid for these purchases. He was inclined to think that the course adopted by the Joint Select committee in substituting "compensation" for "consideration" was the right one, after having heard the evidence and carefully weighed it. He therefore would ask the Committee to adhere to that decision.
MR. HALDANE ()said it seemed to him that the Government had originally used the word "consideration," to which no very definite meaning could be attached, in order to get out of the difficulty of the controversy; and the right hon. Gentleman now told them that as exception had been taken in the Committee upstairs to the word "consideration," the word "compensation" had been put in because it meant something different from "consideration." He took the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the case of an unwilling vendor selling a going concern; but the word "compensation" was so vague in this connection that no one knew what it meant. That was a deplorable way of meeting the case, and would give rise to great uncertainty. The Government should have some definite meaning in their minds in this matter.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had stated times out of number, both on the Second Reading and on the Committee

179
stage, what the views of the Government were. They had stated clearly that in their view the purchase should be conducted on the lines of the Lands Clauses Acts, in which a property was compulsorily acquired in the general interest, but they had exempted the special addition of ten per cent.
MR. HALDANEsaid that his comment on the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the word "compensation" conveyed nothing of all that. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he wished that this property should be assessed by the arbitrators on the footing that it was a property sold by an unwilling vendor; but the word "compensation" left the question which the Committee were now discussing undetermined. The law courts would not give a brass farthing for any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee when they came to interpret an Act of Parliament. Language with some meaning should be put into the Clause. The word "compensation" was merely a way of covering up the point. Surely it was possible for the Government, either now or at some subsequent stage, to define exactly what they meant, so as not to leave the matter in unfathomable seas of doubt.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that for his part he doubted whether there was any difference between the words "compensation" and "consideration," but the word "compensation," might have been put in with some ulterior intention or motive. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, as a short cut out of the difficulty, that both the words should be dropped, and the Clause would then read exactly what was meant. The sub-Section would then read: "The Water Board shall pay each company for the transfer of their undertaking such sum as may be agreed on, etc." What was the use of importing into the Bill a word which caused uneasiness in anybody's mind, and which carried with it, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, no specific meaning?
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought that that would be a satisfactory compromise.
180
There was a simplicity in the suggestion, and it improved the sense as well as the grammar of the Clause. He was quite willing to accept the hon. Member for Dundee's suggestion in place of his own Amendment.
MR. LYTTELTON ()said he hoped that the Government would adhere to the Clause in its present form. The word "compensation" was perfectly familiar to those who had experience in this class of case. He most strongly submitted that unless there were conclusive reasons that at this stage of the Bill for the insertion of new words the Clause in its present form should be allowed to stand. This was not a very suitable tribunal to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES ()said that the words made use of by his hon. and learned friend had inspired fears in his mind which had not been inspired by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The word "compensation" did involve something different from the ordinary purchase price which would be paid by a buyer to a vendor. He understood from what fell from the President of Local Government Board that he did not wish to give the vendors the full benefit of the Lands Clauses Act.
MR. LYTTELTON: All but the 10 per cent.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the 10 per cent. was something given over and above the value of the property because it was a compulsory purchase. It was very difficult to divine the origin of this 10 per cent., but it had been given from time immemorial.
MR LYTTELTONsaid that it had not been the custom of recent years to give this additional 10 per cent.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESentirely concurred. But even supposing the 10 per cent, were eliminated, there remained a great deal more. There was the prospective value of the holdings of the Water

181
Companies in view of the increase of the population and many other attributes. One could well see that the amount which might be awarded by the arbitrators under this Clause might be altogether outside that contemplated by the Government in introducing this Bill. Surely it was the general object of the Government that a good bargain should be made for the public, and that these properties should be acquired at a fair price as a going concern; and, if so, they should use words to define their meaning, and not leave it in doubt.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he personally did not attach importance to these words, but his hon. and learned friend the Member for Warwick did, and he spoke with great authority on the subject. He should have thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee would have settled the difficulty; but there seemed to be a difference of view. The case had been argued with great care before the Joint Select Committee, which had the benefit of the opinion of a room full of eminent lawyers, and the Joint Select Committee unanimously decided that the word "compensation" should be inserted instead of "consideration". In these circumstances he could not take the responsibility of assenting to the restoration of the word "consideration".
MR. LOUGHsaid he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and to move simply the omission of the words "as compensation."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word 'as compensation." '—(.Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether one point had not been lost sight of in this matter. There was a distinct difference between "compensation" and "consideration." Compensation was given, as a rule, when the property of an individual was taken over for a public purpose; but in this instance it was not the property of an individual that was being taken over—it was a public service. Seeing that these public companies had made enormous profits out of the unearned increment of the community, he maintained that it would be unfair to fix on the community a further charge.
(4.23.) Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 611.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dickson. Charles Seot

Higginbbottom, S. W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arkwright, John Stanhope,

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Heary

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

Durinign-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, Edmund B. (Han's, W.)

Lawrence. Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lawson, Joan Grant

Bersford, Lord Chas. William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

Bignold, Arthur

Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Lockwood. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bigwood, James

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finch, Rt.Hon. George H.

Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham

Bond, Edward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Bousfield, William Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Fletcher, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bull, William James

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'm'its

Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Coddington, Sir William

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Malcolm, Ian

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Goulding Edward Alfred

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.

Collings, Rt.Hon. Jesse

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Davenport, William Bromley-

Harris. Frederick Leverton

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hay, Hon, Claude George

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Purvis, Robert

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromaich)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wyndham. Rt.Hon. George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Taylor, Au-tin (East Toxteth)

Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thornton, Percy M.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Robert-on, Herbert (Hackney)

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Walrend, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Sir Alexander Acland-

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan Sir William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Grant, Corrie

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

Soames Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale

Thomas Davie Alfred (Merthyr

Burt, Thomas

Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Wallace, Robert

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Caldwell, James

Lough, Thomas

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Craig, Robert Hunter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Cremer, William Randal

Moulton, John Fletcher

Crombie, John William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Donglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Rea, Russell

Mr. Herbert Gladstone

Dunn, Sir William

Rigg, Richard

and Mr. Causton.

Fenwick, Charles

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Question put and agreed to.

MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to move in Clause 2, page 2, line 15, to leave out "as may be agreed on between the Board and the Company, or in default of agreement." The object of the Amendment would be to make arbitration compulsory; and it raised one of the most important questions that the Committee had to deal with. The drastic provisions of the Bill had been commended by the establishment of the Board of Arbitration; and they were told that they might fairly leave everything to that court. What would happen if a settlement were arrived at without arbitration? If the Committee would reflect for a moment, they would see that the case was not on all-fours with other eases, where a municipal authority bought up water works or other property by agreement with the vendors. The new Board was not yet in existence, and when it was formed it would have to construct machinery and make preparation for the great work that it would have to carry on. It would not proceed with small and light tasks before it reached the crisis of its existence; but would at once have to deal with the greatest work it would ever have to discharge. Something like forty millions of money would have to be spent in acquiring these undertakings; and the magnitude of the transaction was shown by the
184
fact that all the water-works which had been bought up during the past forty or fifty years by Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham and other Corporations, only cost twelve-and-a-half millions. The present purchase would be three times that magnitude; and, according to the Clause as it stood, it would be possible for the new Board to make an agreement with the Companies without any reference at all to the Board of Arbitration. Even hon. Members opposite would agree that that would be too great an undertaking to hand over to a body without any experience. The companies had all the skill and experience which such wealthy Corporations could command. They had made every preparation. They had the most learned counsel and the most clever engineers and valuers; and the new body would come into the field when the Companies had secured all the best assistance in the market. As the Clause stood, a private bargain could be made with the Companies. He did not intend to cast any reflection on the new body; but that would be too great and too difficult a task to give it at the commencement of its career. They were inclined to facilitate the progress of the Bill as much as possible;

185
but there were certain points far too important to hurry over or ignore, and the Amendment raised one of them. There would be no better means of expediting the progress of the Bill than by accepting the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 15, to leave out the words 'an may be agreed on between the Board and the Company, or in default of agreement.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, on behalf of the Government, he could not accept an Amendment the object of which was to make it impossible for the new Water Board to come to an agreement with the Companies without going to arbitration. The hon. Gentleman said that he made no suggestion against the competency of the new Board; and yet talked all the time of the Board as if, of necessity, it was to be composed of men of no experience in municipal affairs or in business. The existence of the Bill had been known to the local governing bodies in London for a very long time. He had no doubt that they had, in many cases, made up their minds as to who they would suggest as their representatives; and it appeared to him that the new Board would be manned by men thoroughly competent as business men, and as men of experience, in every way to lay down a definite line of policy. Then the hon. Member said that the Companies would have secured all the best lawyers and engineers, and that no one would be left to serve the Water Board. He thought that that was describing the supply of legal and other skilled services in an incredible fashion. The Committee might rely on it that the Water Board would be able to command the services of men fully competent to serve them from a technical point of view. The hon. Gentleman had persistently told the Committee that the new Board would have responsible and laborious duties, and that it would have to bear
186
the brunt of its early labours. Was it in the least likely that the Board would give the Companies a great deal more than their concerns were worth for no reason, except the reason adumbrated by the hon. Member that it would be incompetent and ignorant. The members of the Metropolitan Borough Councils had declared—
MR. LOUGH: Not in their corporate capacity.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member talked of corporate capacity. When he referred to the competency of the London County Council to deal with this matter, did he mean in its corporate capacity?
MR. LOUGH: Certainly.
MR. WALTER LONG: Yet the hon. Member who said that a Board of seventy members was too unwieldy talked of the competency of a body of 130 members. He opposed the Amendment for the reasons he had given, and also because he declined to be a party to passing condemnation on a body which was not yet in existence.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the Amendment on the ground that it would be a slur on the body not yet in existence; but the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to quite appreciate the reason for the Amendment. Without casting any reflection on the new body, it would not have that wealth of assessors, surveyors, and counsel which the water companies had already retained. What the Amendment proposed was, not litigation on every occasion, but that when one of these undertakings was valued, the sanction of Sir Edward Fry, Sir Hugh Owen and Sir J. Wolfe Barry should be interposed in each case. The Amendment would give this further security and safety to the public, and unless the arbitrators sanctioned the terms in a formal award the transaction could not go through. He thought that was very desirable when

187
forty millions of public money was about to be expended. It did not, necessarily mean litigation; on the contrary, it might assist in getting rid of it; but the public interest would be safeguarded. The Amendment was a reasonable one, and only said that no agreement could be final until it was approved by the arbitrators.
MR. GUTHREE ()said that ho thought the fight between the Water Companies and the new Board would not he at all equal. The Companies had, for the last eighteen months, been carefully preparing their case; whereas, the new Board would only have a very short time to make out its case. The only objection which could be urged to the Amendment was that of expense; but in a transaction involving a sum of forty millions, the extra cost for arbitration would be very small. He would therefore urge on the Government the desirability of reconsidering the question. The fight would be more equal before the arbitrators, and would do the Board no harm.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was very sorry that the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill quite appreciated the position. What was desired was that the companies should be dealt with on identical terms. If there were to be two processes, one by agreement and the other by arbitration, the Companies would not he dealt with on the same basis. It seemed to him that there would be greater public confidence in the proceeding if all the matters were brought before the arbitrators. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend that it would not lead to increased litigation. Probably the first arbitration would be taken as typical, and would decide the other cases. On grounds of uniformity and economy, he very much hoped that the Government, if not at present, would at all events before the Report stage reconsider the position.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he agreed generally as to the method by which the value was to be arrived at, which was,
188
broadly, the recommendation of the Select Committee, He would, however, support the Amendment. It was a very drastic Amendment, but the case was drastic and desperate, He would have no confidence in a body, constituted as the new body would be, entering into an agreement with the Companies; but he had every confidence in the Board of Arbitrators dealing fairly between the owners and the ratepayers. He made no suggestion against the new Board, but in a question of agreement the Companies would be bound to get the better of it. There would be four members on the Board who had no right there whatever— viz., the three Thames Conservancy representatives, and the one Lea Conservancy representative. They would represent the sellers, and he could not view with equanimity the fact that they would be parties to an agreement. He did not know whether ho dare mention the mystic words, "Metropolitan Board of Works; "but he would only say that that Board, which was constituted like the present Board, broke down in financial matters of this character, and that the very case which Lord Herschell's Commission enquired into was a case of buying an undertaking. He thought with such a large Board, with new work, drawn for eighty local authorities and not the direct representatives of the people, that the wisest plan, in the interests of the ratepayers, would be not to allow agreement, but to rely on the three distinguished men in whose hands would rest the fiduciary interests of the ratepayers.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not doubt that the members of the new Board would bring to the work entrusted to them the fullest ability they possessed; but the difficulty was the question of experience. Let the Committee imagine that it had to purchase one of the water undertakings. There were a dozen matters which an inexperienced man would not find out, unless all the facts were threshed out in open Court. The public ought to have their interests fully protected. A fair price ought to be paid for the undertakings, but the public ought to be safeguarded against being induced to enter into a bargain without knowing all the facts. There would be no advantage in purchasing one undertaking by agreement if others had to be decided

189
by arbitration, as there would, practically, have to be as much enquiry on one as on all the eight, perhaps, in regard to the New River Co. The detailed enquiry would not be carried on by the arbitrators themselves, but would be referred to officials; and the arbitrators would then decide between the contending parties. The arbitrators would not themselves enquire into the past profits of the Companies, when pipes were laid and similar matters, which would be referred to experts. There would be no practical saving of time, and no practical saving of expense; and there would be a great risk that the public would have to pay a higher price for the undertakings if the matter was not approved by the arbitrators. It was essentially a matter which ought to be fought out in public. If an agreement were made behind the backs of the public it would be said that the terms were not reasonable or fair; and if it were subsequently shown that one Company got less than another all manner of difficulties would arise.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was obvious from the discussion that the Committee only wished to be fair as between the Water Companies and the ratepayers; and that being practically agreed on, the question was how it could best be carried out. He was staggered when he found that the President of the Local Government Board was not disposed to accept the Amendment. Whenever disputants disagreed as to the value of an undertaking, the case was laid by both sides, in the light of their experience and knowledge, before an impartial tribunal. What did the rejection of the Amendment mean? It was admirably put by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. It would put the ratepayers' interests at a disadvantage; but it might also put the interests of the shareholders in the Water
190
Companies at a great disadvantage. The President of the Board of Trade knew very well that there would be no officials at the disposal of the new Board; and he did not blame the water companies for not allowing their officials to be used by the new Board against themselves. That would be unreasonable to expect. On the other hand it might not be fair to the Water Companies to employ the officials of the London County Council. The only way out of the difficulty was to abolish purchase by agreement, and to let the Water Companies submit all the facts to the arbitrators. He would venture the opinion that eight out of the nine Water Companies would agree to that. He appealed to the President of the Local Government Board not to allow this new body to agree to the purchase. They were a new body without experience, and it stood to reason that they would not be able to cope with the hon. Member from Leamington or Mr. Littler, or any of the gentlemen who might represent the Water Companies. They would be as clay in the hands of the potter, and would be twisted into every shape, and if that did not happen, they would, acting on principles of economy, probably agree to purchase at a lump sum, which must be unjust either to the Water Companies or the ratepayers of London. He did not want either of those two extremes, he wanted a fair, just and equitable decision, based only on legal skill and technical knowledge—a fair decision based on a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. Such knowledge the Borough Councillors could not command, through no fault of their own. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment he would receive the thanks and blessings of the Committee; if he did not, then he (Mr. Burns) was afraid they would waste another year before they got this matter through.
MR. LOUGHhoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession on this matter, and would be able to see his way to meeting the Committee on this Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was very anxious to secure the progress of the Bill. He thought it was very undesirable to preclude this new body from settling these matters by agreement if they so desired, but inasmuch as in all probability they would proceed to arbitration, although he could not agree to accept the Amendment now. He was ready to reconsider the question now raised before Report. He could not go further, because it was impossible to say at present what the effect of the change proposed might be on the arbitration.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid under those circumstances he was quite content to allow his Amendment to stand over to the Keport stage.
MR. LOUGHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for this concession and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood the Government was prepared to accept the Amendment he rose to move, and therefore he would move the Amendment without saying anything further.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 24, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'and any such notice shall state the amount of the sum to be paid, or of the water stock to be issued under the proposed agreement.' "—
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LOUGHsaid if this Amendment were proceeded with, the Committee might find itself in an awkward position, because if the right hon. Gentleman finally decided to accept the Amendment that had just been debated, these words would not be required.
MR. WALTER LONG: That would naturally follow, and the matter could be remedied on the Report stage.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON ()rose to move—"In page 2, line 27, after ' may,' to insert ' in such manner as to produce within three years from the appointed day throughout the limits of supply an equalisation of water rates in proportion to the ratable value of the hereditaments supplied, or the special services rendered, as the case may be.' "He said this Amendment raised an important question, namely, the manner in which the rates were to be levied after the passage of the Bill. The Bill as it originally came before the House, practically laid down no rule.
MR. WALTER LONG, on a point of order, submitted that this was not the proper place to move this Amendment. He submitted it should come in Clause 15, and not in this Clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right. This is not in order here. It should come in as a new Clause.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the object of the Amendment he proposed to move was to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman what appeared to be an ambiguity in the Bill. Under the Thames Conservancy Act the Water Companies had the right to appoint one member to the Thames Conservancy Board. In this Clause the rights of each Water Company were transferred to the Water Board, but nothing was said as to this particular right held by the Water Companies jointly. The whole of the Water Companies would not disappear under this Bill, because the New River Company would be left, in a truncated condition it was true, and it might claim the right to send a member to the Thames Conservancy. The same thing arose with regard to the Lee Conservancy Act, which he proposed to deal with by another Amendment at a later stage.
Amendment proposed
"In page 2, line 33, after the first 'company,' to insert 'and the right exercised by the Metropolitan Water Companies jointly of appointing one of the Thames Conservators shall be exercised by the Water Board in their stead.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WALTER LONGwas in favour of the Amendment. He thought the right referred to should be transferred to the Water Board, but that could better be done on Clause 26, by which power was to be given to the Local Government Board
194
by Provisional Order to arrange for the transference of all such powers to the new Board.
MR. HALDANEasked for some indication of what the action of the Local Government Board would be, because, so far as he could see, this was only a direction to the Local Government Board.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newington required some explanation. The hon. Member, proposed to leave out the following words—
"Where the Company are, immediately before the appointed day, supplying water otherwise than in bulk in any parish in which they are not by the Acts relating to the Company authorised to supply water, those Acts and all public general Acts applying to I lie Metropolitan Water Companies shall as from that date extend and apply to that parish and the works of the Company comprised therein, as if the parish had been a parish in which the company were authorised to supply water."
So far as he could see, the words were intended to extend the Parliamentary limits of the Water Companies, if that were so he did not see the use of these words, which seemed to have been dragged in to no purpose. He would move the Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of stating what the necessity of these words was.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 33, to leave out from 'and,' to end of paragraph."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. WALTER LONGwas not surprised that these words were not clear to hon. Gentlemen. They were a little obscure, but it was necessary to incorporate them in this Bill in order to legalise what was now being done by certain Water Companies. In some places Water Companies were supplying places outside their legal limits, and it was obvious that if these words were not added, great hardship would be inflicted on those places which would not be entitled to be served by the Water Board.
MR. LOUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:—
MR. LOUGHsaid they were really proceeding so fast that there were many provisions which they might regret if they did not give them more consideration. There was one expression in this Clause which was not in the Bill when it was before the Committee upstairs, and he moved the omission of the Clause, in order to raise a discussion upon it—"or other annual payments." It was not quite clear what the expression covered. When on behalf of the Water Companies those words were proposed to be introduced when the Bill was before the Committee upstairs, the Local Government Board had strongly objected. He
196
would like to know the reason of this change of front on the part of the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Clause 4."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid these words were inserted in order to cover the case of certain sums payable by the New River Company and the East London Water Company for the service of the Board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Upon the Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill,"—
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked if they passed this Clause would the Committee be allowed to adjourn without taking anything further? Would Progress be reported now, as it was twenty-five minutes past five?
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
THE LORD GRANARD (E. GRANARD).Took the oath.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of: of Church School Managers of Twineham; Bramber; Hinfield; Woodmancote; Shermanbury; and Albourn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against: of United Free Church Presbytery of Aberdeen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES—ANNUAL.
  No. 374. Leeward Islands; Report for 1901-2. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BETTING.
  Message from the Commons for Report, etc., of Select Committee. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. SECOND READING—SECOND DAY'S DEBATE.
Order of the day for resuming te debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, in his able and comprehensive speech my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, drew attention to the fact that the measure had occupied in another place no less than fifty-three days, forty-six of which were spent in discussing the details. Under these circumstances it will be admitted, I think, that not only the principles but also the details of the measure were fairly and fully discussed and decided by the House of Commons. But the noble Duke, in the course of his remarks, did not draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that these principles and details were discussed at still greater length during the great

3
agitation in the country between August and October, when Parliament was not sitting. During the recess, as your Lordships are aware, a vast number of meetings were held throughout the country, promoted by the opponents of the measure, who, if I may use the expression, flooded the country with denunciations not only of the Government, but of those who supported the Government with regard to the Bill. I do not for a moment say that it was unjustifiable for them to do so. All I mean to draw your Lordships' attention to is the extent to which the Bill and its details have been considered in the country, and how difficult it is for me, as the Minister of Education, to attempt on this important and interesting occasion to say anything new. I do not in the least object to the denunciations, and I do not object to the agitation. I allow that it was conducted by people who had a perfect right to act as they did, but I do not equally allow that the denunciations were of a sincere character. If they had been sincere, I think that during the campaign which has been directed against the Government we should have heard a few sentences uttered on behalf of the children, whose interests this Bill is supposed to safeguard. But we have heard no word uttered in the interest of the children. On the contrary, the Government have been denounced to such an extent that I used to think the agitation was got tip in accordance with the words of Sir William Harcourt, who said at Ebbw Vale—
"The Government are giving us a rallying cry in the Education Bill."
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Monks-well, laid great stress in the course of his speech last night on the effect that that agitation had produced. I have no doubt that at the time the agitation had a great effect, but I agree with the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who stated last night that the weight of the agitation had considerably lessened. Moreover, I think that the explanation of the detail and principle of the Bill which the Prime Minister gave at Manchester, combined with the recent exposition of the details of the measure in Parliament, have opened the eyes of the country as to the real merits of the
4
Bill. I think the question is now for the first time really understood, and the country realises that this measure is brought forward, not with a political or Party object, but in order to raise the whole standard of education in this country. The country must now realise the absolute truth of the saying of one of our great Ministers—
"You may fool all people sometimes; you may fool some people all times; but you cannot fool all people all times."
Therefore I venture to say that the agitation on which Lord Monkswell laid so much stress last night has been found out; because the people of this country now for the first time really understand the details of this great Bill.
The charge has often been made against His Majesty's Government that they were not justified in introducing such a measure as this because they had not received a mandate from the country. I should like to ask, when did the country ever issue a direct mandate to the Government to bring forward a particular measure? At the General Election of 1868, although the country issued a mandate to the Liberal Party to disestablish the Irish Church, no mandate was given to initiate the Education Bill of 1870. At the General Election of 1885 no mandate whatever was given to the Liberal Government to introduce the Home Rule Bill of 1886. I do not think noble Lords opposite will contradict me when I say that the Home Rule Bill came like a bombshell into the Liberal Party. 1 allow, though it is open to argument, that a certain mandate was given to introduce the Home Rule Bill of 1893; but I maintain that there was no mandate for the introduction of the financial proposals of the Government of that day. Therefore if noble Lords opposite and their supporters lay down a hard and fast rule that no measure is to be introduced unless it is a prominent plank in the platform at the previous General Election, we may find ourselves in a position in which no grievance could be remedied and no absolutely necessary reform accomplished unless it was a specific plank in the platform on which the election was fought. But I maintain that no such charge can be made in regard to this

5
measure. I do not deny that the conclusion of the war and the future settlement of South Africa were the chief planks in the platform at the last General Election. But the country knew full well the views the Government entertained with regard to education, and it cannot be said that the Bill has been sprung upon the country. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government, realising as they have done for five years past, that it was necessary to deal with the question, would have been unworthy of the confidence of the country had they not dealt with the question and endeavoured to place education on a sure foundation. In my opinion, and I am borne out by experts on the subject, this country is behind the age in education. Our present position is one of absolute chaos; and owing to the confusion which exists there is expense which to my mind could be obviated. This is not only the opinion of myself and of those with whom I am closely associated. Professor Armstrong, an educationist who is in no way biased has declared that there are many people who are convinced that in not a few respects School Boards have been disastrous failures; and we need a wider organisation, penetrated with sounder and especially more practical views. Many gentlemen associated with noble Lords opposite have declared in public that the present system is unsatisfactory. It was the duty of the Government to remedy this state of things. The question of education could not be left alone. I consider that the present Government are the only parties able to deal with the of question. I do not think that the noble Lords opposite, even if they occupied our position tomorrow, could deal satisfactorily with the question. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition dissents. I should like him to define the position he would take occupied the position of the noble Duke behind me.
Mr. Bryce, an educational expert of whom I speak with the greatest respect and admiration, told us in the House of Commons that he had a scheme for dealing with education, but that owing to the despotic character of the measures of the Prime Minister he had not had an opportunity of producing it. But
6
that need not prevent noble Lords opposite making known the manner in which the problem should be dealt with. Speaking at Derby a short time ago, the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition stated that if a Liberal Government were formed they would be ordered by their constituents, and would joyfully and willingly carry out the mandate, to reject what was wrong in this measure and to put education on a broad, liberal, and satisfactory basis. I hope we shall hear from noble Lords opposite what is the satisfactory basis on which they propose to put educational legislation. I should like to ask, in the first place, whether they would establish universal School Boards? The noble Earl shakes his head. I do not think they could do that. A great number of the followers of the noble Earl are ardent supporters of the voluntary school system, Do noble Lords opposite propose to allow the voluntary schools to be squeezed out of existence? Do they propose that the instruction of the two and a half million children who are at present being educated in voluntary schools should stop? Do they propose to lose the £840,000—this was the sum last year—subscribed by the promoters of voluntary schools and which has been used annually for the benefit of the ratepayers in the education of the children? And again, I should like to ask what they propose to do with regard to the buildings which at the present moment belong to the voluntary school managers, even supposing that the latter would agree to sell those buildings to the local authorities. What is their definition of area? They tell us that the country area is too large and that the parish area is too small. We have defined to the best of our ability a convenient area, and it would be interesting to know the definition of area of those who have criticised our proposal.
EARL SPENCER: I stated my view on the subject of the area last night.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think the noble Earl told us his definition.
EARL SPENCER: Yes; I suggested that it should be smaller than the County Council area, larger than the

7
Parish Council, and on the lines of Rural District Councils. I have given that opinion time after time.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But is that the opinion of the noble Earl's Party?
EARL SPENCER: I cannot say that.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I maintain is that the Party opposite, instead of producing a counter scheme, criticise the scheme of the Government. I do not profess to believe that the present measure is perfect, but I say that with the material on which we have had to work we have endeavoured to place the question of education on a sound and secure basis. We have endeavoured not to destroy the Act of 1870, but to remedy it and fill up the gaps. I deny that the Bill deserves to be denounced as a disgraceful measure. There are certain members belonging to the noble Earl's Party who do not share the extreme views which have been expressed on this subject, and the London School Board, a body with which I was once associated, and for which I have the greatest admiration, on June 12 last expressed their approval of the policy contained in the Bill. The resolution which they passed was in the following words:—
"This Board approves the policy of the Education Bill recently introduced by the Government, whereby, while preserving the present right of: voluntary schools to give denominational religious instruction, such schools are in other respects brought under the control of the same authority as other elementary schools, and will participate in the rate raised by such authority, and they ask that the same principle may be applied to London."
Well, my Lords, after such a resolution as that, passed by the greatest School Board in this country, are we justified in believing that the Bill we are asking your Lordships to accept is an infamous and monstrous Bill brought forward only for political purposes? I contend that on the rural side, School Board education has shown weaknesses. Mr. Bryce, on June 2, dwelt on the importance of establishing larger administrative areas for elementary education than those of the present rural School Boards. Mr. Trevelyan confessed on the same day that to improve the education in our villages
8
we require to have more than local interest. "The wider the area of choice, the better the chance," said Mr.Trevelyan, "of getting good men."
In some places the School Board rates have gone up to a high figure, altogether beyond anything contemplated by Mr. Forster in 1870. In Buckinghamshire, for example, there is one School Board with a rate of 2s. Id. in the £; in Cornwall there is a parish with a rate of Is. 10d. in the £; and the School Board rate in two parishes in Durham is Is. 9d. and Is. lOd. in the £ respectively. In Essex we have one parish School Board with a rate of nearly 3s. in the £, and two other rural parishes with rates of Is. 11d. and 2s. 3d. respectively. In the Forest of Dean there is a School Board rate of 2s. 6d. The rating question is also a serious one in the urban areas. For instance, West Ham has a School Board rate of nearly 2s. 2d. Walthamstow and Wanstead have also a rate of more than Is. 8d., while the county borough of Oldham has a rate of Is. 9d. Mr. Forster's utterances in 1870 enable us to realise how ideas have been modified with the enormous increase that has taken place in the rates since the Education Bill of that year was passed. In explaining the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Forster said that the rate would not exceed 3d. in the £, and that he did not believe that it would amount to anything like that in the majority of cases. Mr. Gladstone was also of opinion that the rate would not come to 3d. in the £. As to the School Boards in great towns, without wishing to say anything detrimental of them, I consider that their great energy has been directed rather to extending their range than to improving the quality of the education which they were created to supply. I do not in the least blame them. 1 would be the last person in the world to censure anybody for any superfluity of energy. But what has been the result? That energy has caused those School Boards to realise the need for higher education in their districts, and they have endeavoured to supply it. They have in this way gone beyond the functions originally entrusted to them and have acted illegally, and in order to indemnify them a transitory measure had to be passed through Parliament, under which they were enabled to carry on the duties they had undertaken the cessation of which would have had

9
disastrous results. The school Boards of these towns were giving technical instruction at the same time as the municipal authorities, with the result that the rates suffered from the inroads of both bodies. There has, accordingly, been gross overlapping and unnecessary expense, which the present Bill will obviate. In support of my statement as to overlapping and the unnecessary expense to which the ratepayers have been put, I will quote Dr. Macnamara, a member of the other House, and an educationist, whom I am glad to think I can count as a friend of my own, though he is opposed to me politically. Dr. Macnamara said:—
"What is the first thing this Bill does? it seeks to set up in each locality an education authority capable of countrolling all grades of schools within the area. if this could be achieved on right lines a tremendous educational reform would have been effected."
After describing the present system, Dr. Macnamara went on to say—
'What are the direct results of all this hotehpotch of local government? The first is a waste of a large amount of public money in the unnecessary and extravagant duplication of administrative machinery."
I ask the House whether we should have been justified in allowing that condition of things to remain without making some attempt to remedy it?
I pass on to the charges that have been brought against the Government. The two main charges are, firstly, that we are destroying School Boards; and, secondly, that we are giving undue benefits to voluntary schools. As to the destruction of School Boards, let me say at once that I have had experience of the great work done by the London School Board, of which work I have the sincerest admiration, and that I would not be favourable to a measure which would eliminate the services of the educationalists who have acted on such bodies. It has been started that the new education authorities will lose a great deal by not having these experienced men at the head of affairs in the future. I repeat that if I thought the men connected with the School Boards in the large towns were to be debarred from taking a prominent part in the education of this country I should not be standing here to-night supporting a Bill which would have that result. If the noble Earl had closely examined the Bill he would have seen that sub-Section 2 (d)
10
of Clause 18 lays great stress on the fact that the Government invite and welcome the co-operation of the leading members of School Boards. The sub-Section reads:
"Every such scheme shall provide for the appointment, if desirable, of members of School Boards existing at the time of the passing of this Act as members of the first Committee."
EARL SPENCER: Yes, but they are to be co-opted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But I think I have answered the contention of the noble Earl that we were excluding those people on the present School Boards who have rendered such enormous service to the country, and whose services we shall welcome most heartily in the future. The present School Board system is not, I contend, entirely and truly representative. The cumulative vote does not guarantee the return of the best men, and it enables small minorities to elect men who are not fitted for the work. I had placed in my hand tonight particulars of a case in which, by means of the cumulative vote, an entirely unfit person has been elected on the School Board of a great country borough, and that the Board had been compelled for their own protection to approach the Board of Education for advice. This bears out my contention that the cumulative vote does not ensure the return to the School Boards of representative men. I do not think the School Board system, however much we may admire it now, would have been brought into existence by the Education Act of 1870 had there then been the bodies which exist now. I wish to emphasise that by quoting from the speech made by Mr. Forster in introducing this measure. Mr. Forster said—
"The electoral body we have chosen for the towns is the Town Council. I do not think there can be much dispute upon that point. In the country we have taken the best body we can find—the select vestry where is one, and the vestry where there is not a select vestry."
Mr. Forster admitted that in deciding between the union and the parish as the area of consideration there was a difficulty, and the reason why there was a difficulty was almost a disgrace to this country. Mr. Forester said—
"We are behind almost every other eivilised country, whether in America or on the Continent

11
of Europe, in respect of rural municipal organisations, and this difficulty meets us not only in connection with education but with many other questions affecting the people. The same difficulty applies to London."
It was in consequence of the weakness of the proposal as regards the parishes in London that a single Board for London had to be adopted, and for the sake of uniformity the same course was pursued in the towns. This proves, beyond all doubt, that Mr. Forster would not have created School Boards had there been the bodies which are in existence now. These municipal bodies had had various duties and responsibilities entrusted to them, among which education has already been included. The noble Lord opposite, Earl Spencer, in the course of his speech last night, seemed to consider that the duties we are imposing on these great bodies should not be given to them, because they have quite sufficient work to do already. The noble Earl said—
"I think they have enough to do, and I think they ought not to have the work which belongs to the School Boards thrust upon them. I believe that will place them in great difficulties indeed."
EARL SPENCER: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: I am not competent to cross swords with the noble Earl, and I will leave to the noble Earl the late Liberal Prime Minister the task of answering my noble friend on that point. Lord Rosebery, in giving his impressions of this Bill a short time ago, described the supervision of education as a prerogative of the municipal Councils of incalculable importance, and said that if they had added to what they do already the task of supervising education they would be advancing by leaps and bounds that lofty position to which every patriot desired the great municipalities to attain. I am certain that the noble Earl below the gangway will make good tonight the remarks he then made, and therefore the noble Earl opposite must not blame me if I leave the defence of the Bill in that respect in the late Liberal Prime Minister's hands.
My noble friend Earl Spencer went on to criticise the Bill for placing extra duties on the County Councils, and stated that it would be perfectly impossible for them as the education authorities to control the whole of the
12
education of the country. But we are supported on this point by the County Councils Association, which passed the following resolution on May 7, on the motion of the Chairman of the Surrey County Council:—
"That, without expressing any opinion on the controversial questions raised by the Education Bill, the proposals contained in that Bill to place the control of all education in administrative counties under local educational authorities meet with the general approval of this Association, and that, as regards administrative counties, the County Councils, acting through committees, a majority of whom should be members of the Council, as the education authorities are well qualified, and prepared, if so requested by Parliament, to undertake the powers and duties imposed upon those authorities by the Bill."
Therefore, with regard to the boroughs I leave the noble Earl to the tender mercy of Lord Rosebery, and with regard to the counties to the tender mercy of the County Councils Association. I contend that an enormous gain will accrue from giving the controlling power over education in the locality to the borough or the County Council. There will be a great gain in efficiency by coordinating under one authority the dual authority now existing. Great economy in various ways will also result. My noble friend Viscount Goschen last night, in a speech which I am sure your Lordships will agree was a most valuable contribution to the debate, criticised the provision in reference to inspectors. The noble Viscount asked—
"Were they to have inspectors appointed by the local authority?"
The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council having interposed a remark which is not reported, the noble Viscount said—
"Oh, then they might inspect, and a pretty inspection that would be. They had already the Government inspectors and now there were to be two despots—a central despot and a local despot."
I would join with my noble friend in deprecating any expense that may be incurred by having too many inspectors, and I will do my utmost to reduce the cost of the inspectorate to the lowest degree compatible with the efficiency of its work. I would point out, however, that the Bill does not make it compulsory on the local authority to inspect the schools, and my great

13
aim and object will be to induce the local authority to co-operate with the Board of Education in regard to these duties. I am most anxious to place the inspection of the Board of Education at the disposal of the local authority, and, by hearty co-operation between the two bodies, to reduce the expense in every possible way. I can assure my noble friend that his words will carry great weight with the Government, and, I think, also with the local authorities.
The second charge made against the Bill is that it unduly benefits the Voluntary schools to the detriment of other religious bodies. I deny that in toto. I should like to say a word in defence of these voluntary schools, of which I have always been an ardent supporter and admirer. I am an ardent admirer of them because without their aid there would have been no elementary education whatever in this country. Therefore I say that all educationists, no matter what their political or religious creed may be, owe a debt of gratitude to those who were responsible for the formation of the voluntary schools. It is not, perhaps, known that until 1833 the voluntary schools alone carried on the work of elementary education without State aid or assistance of any kind. There is another statement made with regard to voluntary schools. We are told by those who oppose the voluntary school system that the voluntary schools, as they exist at the present moment, are not owned wholly by their present proprietors, but are partly owned by the State. I admit that there is dual ownership, but it is an infinitesimal ownership on tho part of the State. Out of the £25,000,000 which the 14,000 voluntary schools of the country are supposed to represent, the sum contributed by the State is only £1,845,000. Not only would the ratepayers suffer an enormous loss if they were called upon to provide the deficit which would arise if the voluntary schools were abolished, but there would in that case be the grossest betrayal of those who have been responsible for the education of the rising generation of the country. His Majesty's Government would have been unworthy of their position had they not endeavoured to maintain the efficiency
14
of those schools. Did the Act of 1870 ever intend to abolish voluntary schools? It intended to do nothing of the sort. As to the intentions of that Act, Mr. Forster said in the course of his opening speech in introducing the measure—
"Our object is to complete the voluntary system, to fill up gaps, sparing the public money when it can be done."
The original intention of the Act was to take every advantage of the voluntary schools. Mr. Gladstone, in withdrawing the rate-aid proposal, said:—
"We must fulfil the engagements we have already entered into wiih the voluntary schools that in their competition with rate schools they shall receive some assistance towards lightening the burden of their expenditure."
In view of the result of the competition of the board schools on the voluntary schools, it should be borne in mind that the intention of the Act of 1870 was never that the voluntary schools should be abolished or squeezed out. It is said, but I cannot believe it, that certain sections of the community have declared that they will not pay rates in support of the voluntary schools. As I say, I can scarcely believe it; but have those who declare such an intention forgotten that since 1870 the promoters of the voluntary schools have not only maintained their own schools, but have ungrudgingly paid whatever rates the School Board in the district may have insisted upon? How, then, can these Nonconformists now refuse to assist the voluntary schools?
I now leave the whole question of elementary education, and turn to secondary education. We have been told that thi measure confers no benefit on secondary education. I do not know if that statement is endorsed by noble Lords opposite, but, if it is, they will find that they are not supported in that view by one of the most able members of their Party, Sir Edward Grey, who said at Sheffield that he had no quarrel with that part of the Bill which dealt with higher education. So far as it lay in our power we have made proposals which will be to the advantage of secondary education. We have given powers of levying rates for this purpose to the county boroughs and the county authorities. We have definitely ear-marked what is known as the whisky money for education. I maintain

15
also that the new elementary grants will indirectly benefit secondary education, because, by saving the rates, it enables the authorities to spend the money which it would otherwise have had to raise on secondary education. The local authority has also been given a free hand in the training of teachers. The noble Earl opposite, Earl Spencer, stated that the training colleges would be a charge on the rates, and expressed the opinion that the Exchequer should find the greater part of the money. I think the noble Earl cannot have realised the provisions of the Code. The Exchequer grant will be available for training colleges supported by county authorities and which fulfil the requirements, and therefore the county will be under no extra burden. It may be said that those who are trained in these institutions may go to other districts, but we hope that the county authorities will combine so as fitly to supply their own areas with thoroughly well trained teachers.
There are two other questions with regard to secondary education which I have been asked to answer by my noble friends Viscount Goschen and Lord Harris. The noble Viscount asked me what the Board of Education considered necessary as to provision for higher education, and Lord Harris inquired whether we were going to force the County Council to levy a rate. The Board of Education desire to lay down no hard and fast rule as to what is necessary in any question of higher education, as the type and the amount must vary with the needs of each area. With regard to the suggestion that the Board of Education may adopt a compulsory attitude, I would remind your Lordships that that Board is merely an advisory body. The first part of Clause 2, Part II., reads:—
"The local education authority shall consider the educational needs of their area and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education."
The Board of Education are not bound to take up a compulsory attitude.
LORD HARRIS: Under Clause 10.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: It is the same principle. The Board of Education are merely an advisory body. They have no power to
16
compel my noble friend and his County Council to raise any rate, but if they choose to apply to them for advice it will be given. I do not believe it possible that the local authorities will refuse to administer the Act; to do so would be to relinquish great advantages, for they would no longer have control over any of the schools, whereas if they adopt the scheme they have complete control over secular education in every school. Neither do I share the view that the Nonconformists receive no benefit under the Bill. I have a very soft place in my heart for Nonconformists. I know the great work they have done, and I should be the last person to see an injustice inflicted upon them. I consider that they derive considerable advantages under this Bill, and I would instance the provision whereby pupil teacherships are open to them.
I have endeavoured in the speech I have made tonight to deal with the various charges that have been brought against this measure. I have endeavoured to prove to the House that His Majesty's Government have tried to deal honestly and justly with all classes and all creeds. When this Bill becomes law, as I have every reason to imagine it will, important duties and great responsibilities will devolve upon the Board over which I have the honour to preside. I know full well that I am unworthy of that position. I know full well that the noble Earl below the Gangway, Lord Rosebery, regards me as singularly unfitted for my post. He need not shake his head. I do not deny it. But I can say on behalf of myself and of those with whom l am associated, that we will do our utmost to discharge the duties and responsibilities which devolve upon us, not only efficiently but with absolute impartiality. We would, welcome the co - operation and assistance of those local bodies on whom, in a minor degree, are also imposed new duties and responsibilities, and of all classes of the community who have the real interest of education at heart. I may be optimistic, I may be sanguine, but I have a strong conviction that this measure will deal satisfactorily for a long time to come with the question of education. I believe that the agitation which took place in the autumn, and

17
to which I have alluded, will, beyond all doubt, calm down; and I believe that all those prognostications that were then made as to the ruin and disaster that must ensue if the Bill became law will not be fulfilled. I am confident that when the Bill becomes law we shall see all classes of the community, whether political or religious, striving to achieve the end we all wish to attain, and that the Nonconformist lion will work with the Anglican lamb with the simple desire to promote the welfare of the children of the country. If that should be so, I think the historian of the future will declare that in carrying this measure the Government has been endeavouring to live up to the well-known words of the poet—
"'Tis education forms for common mind, Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined."
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, may I venture to congratulate the noble Marquess who has just sat down on the ready and easy way in which he has fallen into the duties of his new office. For the bantling which lies exposed before us the noble Marquess is not responsible. We, on this side of the House, are not privileged to know who is its mother. We know it was brought into the world by the hands of the noble Duke and the Prime Minister, with the assistance of a conclave of episcopal matrons. Now that the infant has obtained some strength, it is to be handed over to the noble Marquess as the dry nurse, I suppose. He is discharging his duties to it pleasantly. It is satisfactory to see that he is pleased with the beauty and the perfections of the little creature, though to us it seems plain enough that it is neither very healthy nor likely to have a long life. The noble Marquess, in opening his speech, advanced three propositions, to all of which I must take some exception. The noble Marquess set out that there had been a superfluity of discussion in the House of Commons, and that the action of the Government in forcibly bringing that discussion to a close was justifiable. There I entirely differ from the noble Marquess. The Prime Minister himself admitted, when he proposed measures for closuring the debate in the House of Commons, that the discussion in that
18
House had been of a singularly unobstructive and interesting character. I think also some blame is due to the Government in that they had not brought this measure forward at an earlier period of the session, but had wasted those more fruitful hours of the session on a futile attempt to reform the procedure of the House of Commons. I think also that members of the Government might have remembered that many of those speeches which were shut out from discussion in the House of Commons, both in Committee and on Report, were speeches connected with the finance of this Bill, which we in this House were precluded from discussing or amending. I think that that consideration also should have induced them to have extended to the utmost limit liberty to the Members of the House of Commons to discuss this Bill fully, and to deal with it in the most complete manner.
Again, the noble Marquess alleged a want of sincerity in the agitation against this Bill which has been going on in the country. I think that was hardly a worthy insinuation on his part. We who dispute the justice of this Bill are quite ready to admit the sincerity of those who bring it forward and support it. We believe — nay, more, we know—that more than half the people of this country are bitterly opposed to this Bill, and we believe and know that the opposition to the measure has in no way been wanting in sincerity, but has arisen from a deep sense of the injury that is likely to accrue from it. The noble Marquess suggested that there had been shown throughout this discussion a want of solicitude for education and the interests of the children. There, again, I join issue with him. I think that if he will study the debates that have taken place, he will find that both of those points have been kept well to the front in the speeches in the other House, and he will find that they have been constantly put forward in speeches that have been made by opponents of this measure on the public platform. The noble Marquess then went on to find fault with my noble friend beside me, and also with the Opposition, because we did not define our policy and say what we should be prepared to do supposing we were sitting on the Benches opposite. In that respect he rather echoed some remarks made by

19
Viscount Goschen, and a claim made by the noble Duke when he said, "Tell us what you would do with the voluntary schools?" Those three noble Lords have all had the same advantage as I have myself of experience in the other House, and I always thought it was an accepted maxim in the House of Commons that it was the duty of an Opposition to oppose and not to propose.
I am not going to tell noble Lords exactly what we should do if we were in their place. But I will go as far as this. I do not mind saying what I should have advised the Government to have done if I had been taken into their consultation. The late colleague of the noble Duke in a secondary capacity, Sir John Gorst, recently said in a public speech:—
"There is no doubt that unless we intend the English people to become hewers of wood and drawers of water for the world, we must make them as well prepared for the work they have to do as are foreign workmen."
In that sentence you have confessed the lamentable fact that as things now are our people are being worse educated than those of other nations, let us say of Germany and America, who are our most serious commercial rivals. That is the state of things we have to meet. That state of things will not be met by some improvement in our elementary education. You will have to go further than that. What you have to do is to improve that higher education which follows on elementary education and goes step by step from the elementary school to the university. I have said that the course His Majesty's Government have pursued is not one that I should have advised. I should have advised them to have taken the great settlement of 1870 as the basis of their proposals. I would not have disturbed that compromise. I would have made it the foundation of my system, and on that system and that compromise I should have endeavoured to have built up a great edifice for higher education, which would have given prospect of attaining some of the objects that we desire. I think that would have been a reasonable course to take. After all, the compromise of 1870 is one that has been acted upon and has turned out fairly well. We have, in consequence of it, established a fair system of elementary education, a system which has gone on improving from year to year; and I think that in the course of those thirty years
20
the very bodies for whom this Bill is to be a still further relief—I mean the voluntary schools of this country—have gained no small advantages. As the Bill of 1870 first stood they had to put down shilling for shilling, and pound for pound, the same amount of money that was given them from the Government grant. That is all changed now. First you had the fee grants, then the establishment of the 17s. 6d. limit, then you had the aid grants, next the relief of the voluntary schools from rates, and you have had the block grant. You have had many small bits of assistance from the Department itself, and I am confident that I am in no way over-estimating the relief given since 1870 at at least £1,500,000 annually. I should have thought the Government would have done well to have accomplished something more in the way of strengthening and improving this system, founded on compromise, and which had acted well, rather than throw the whole of our elementary education into the melting pot and endeavour to build up the edifice again from the bottom. That has been the policy of His Majesty's Government and we shall see in the future what the result of it will be. They will in due course have their reward.
When I come to examine as far as I can from the proposals of this Bill what is likely to be the result, from an educational point of view, I cannot say that I see any sort of security that great educational improvement is likely to ensue. The Bill seems to me to give no security whatever for improvement in education, whether it be elementary or secondary. You undoubtedly set up an entirely new series of authorities, but I do not see that in this Bill there is any guarantee that those new authorities will use their powers in order to improve the elementary education of the country. This is the view of a man who, at any rate, has some great knowledge of education, Sir Joshua Fitch. He says—
"This Bill does nothing to secure, or even to suggest, improvement in education or to secure for children better teaching or better opportunities for intellectual advancement. In so far as elementary education is affected the Bill affords little or no help. It gives no motives to managers, denominational or otherwise, to exert themselves or to raise the standard of education, but it offers new encouragement

21
and aid to the denominational system and gives to that system, though it is less and less in favour of the nation as a whole, a fresh lease of life."
What guarantee have we for the manner in which these new authorities will use their power? Will they raise the standard of the voluntary schools to that of the present board schools, or will they bring down the average standard of the present board schools to that of the voluntary schools, or will they endeavour to bring them both to some mean between the two? I do not see that any indication is given in this Bill as to the method in which they are to discharge their duties.
I come to the secondary education part of the Bill. There, again, I say there is no sort of mandatory direction in the Clause referring to it which will compel the local education authority to take really effective steps. I know that the noble Duke disputed that last night. It is true they are told to consider the educational needs of their area, and to take such steps as seem to them desirable; but if they consider that steps are not desirable, there is no sentence within that Clause which gives ant power to compel them to take any steps at all. I think that that view is borne out even by words that fell from noble Lords last night. The most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury told us that so far as secondary education was concerned the Bill was very meagre. My noble friend Viscount Goschen described its intention as obscure, and said he would be glad to ascertain the goal which was being aimed at; whilst the Government's own chief supporter in the Press, The Times, only two mornings ago wrote of the Bill that it
"Leaves the problems of secondary education in many respects almost untouched."
The noble Marquess has made a great point against us with regard to the question of mandate. For my own part, so far as the question of education is concerned, the matter of mandate weighs with me very little indeed. It may be that the Government had no mandate to deal with local government in the manner that they have. It may be that they had no mandate to take so much control over the expenditure of public money
22
from the people as they have. But, so far as education is concerned, I think that the mandate lies on this Government, on any Government, to deal in the best way possible with the education of the people. I think that on both sides of the House we are agreed that education is a subject that we all must try our hands at. The noble Earl who sits below the Gangway, even in his Chesterfield speech, rightly declared that the subject of education was one of those subjects on which all Liberals should concentrate.
I have no fault to find with the Government dealing with the question of education It is to the methods and to the principles which have been applied in this Bill that I take exception. I say that if the methods and principles which are to be found in this Bill are given effect to by an Act of Parliament, then this Bill will serve only to perpetuate and aggravate the greatest blot in our system, the greatest hindrance to efficiency—I mean, the sectarian character of a large proportion of our State-aided schools. The Established Church of England has always insisted on making the teaching of its own particular doctrines the paramount object of education. That has been their policy from an early period. The first report of the National Society says that
"The national religion should be the foundation of a national education, and should be the first and chief thing taught to the poor according to the instructions provided by our Church for that purpose."
In the House of Commons Lord Hugh Cecil, in other words, laid down the same principle when he declaimed that every school should have two doors—the one through which the pupils should be forced by the compulsory powers of the State, and the other the one by which they should be sent out by the education given in the school into the Church. To this principle, I think, is largely due the present state of the schools in this country, for in order to secure the teaching of their own particular doctrine the English Established Church—and I find, no fault with the work that it has done in this direction—have covered the country with schools of its own, and in these schools education has only too often been inefficient because, from lack of funds, there has been a difficulty in

23
providing good teachers to sufficiently well equip the schools. It is essentially the sectarian difficulty which has prevented the nation from uniting as a body on a national system such as America possesses. There are in America something like 16,000,000 children attending schools provided by the State at a cost of something like £43,000,000 a year. I think that the sectarian spirit, encouraged by this system of voluntary schools, has been the real cause of most of our difficulty. It has divided people who ought to have been united. It has set men wrangling over doctrine when they ought to have been discussing education. It has sacrificed the education of our children to the rivalries of our Churches. I come from the north of the Tweed, and we there consider that we are far ahead of England in the matter of education. That may be so or not. We think so. And yet we are there, I think, fond of theological controversy. In spite of that, I believe that the reason to which can be attributed the success of our education in Scotland is that we have in our education been freed from sectarian controversies, and that we have been enabled to set up over the whole length and breadth of the country universal School Boards, under which children have been given thoroughly good elementary education.
As to the operation of this Bill, I wish to say a few words. What does the Bill do? First of all, it abolishes School Boards. The noble Marquess disputed that fact. I will refer him, in support of my contention, to a single line in the Bill at the top of page 3, which runs—
"School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished."
Well, these Boards to whom education in England has been so greatly indebted are to go. I do not think that anybody will dispute the fact that the School Boards have greatly raised the level and the standard of education. I think those who support voluntary schools will admit that our School Board system has done a great deal to raise the ordinary standard of education. The School Boards are to be abolished, and what is to take their place? Not a body directly elected by the people for the purpose. That has been surely one of the best features of
24
the School Board system. From the people, from the parents of the children who attend the schools, the School Boards have sprung, and to the people, and to the parents of those who attend the schools, the School Boards have been responsible, both in respect of their action and their expenditure. But under this Bill there is to be no more of that. The School Boards are to go, and in their place is to be set up a sort of three-headed authority which is to be kept in check by the Education Department. First, my Lords, you have an education authority consisting of the County and Borough Councils. I repeat what my noble friend beside me (Earl Spencer) said last night. Have not these County and Borough Councils sufficient to do already? Are not their hands fairly full with the work already entrusted to them? Do you not run the risk of over-loading with work men who are already rather hard pressed to discharge their duties, and who discharge them free of recompense, men of whom the best have many other occupations and much other business to attend to? Are you sure that these Councils as they are constituted have any particular knowledge of or aptitude for educational work?
And, again, taking the County Council, I ask how is it possible that a great County Council can make itself acquainted with all the needs and necessities of every small school within its area? It has been calculated that, supposing the County Council of the great West Riding of Yorkshire were to attempt to visit the elementary schools within its area, it would take it a year to go round and pay a single visit to each school. After all, I suppose the functions that will appertain to the County Council, as the education authority, will be little more than financial. It will have to raise the rate; it will have to distribute the rate and the Parliamentary grant; but the real work will, I suppose, fall on the education committees. Now, what am I to say about the formation of those education committees? It is claimed, I know, that they are really representative bodies. It is an extraordinary thing that noble Lords on the other side, including members of the Government, appear not to be able to distinguish the great difference

25
there is between a directly elected body, and one that is indirectly elected, and which Consists largely, if not entirely, of co-opted members. Apparently it is part of the policy of the present Government to substitute for directly elected bodies, not only for education but for other purposes, bodies of this nondescript and unrepresentative character. These committees are to consist, in the first instance, of a majority of members appointed by the Council, and, though that is the case, the Council, if it so pleases, may be able to name its entire number of members without including one of its own body. I do not mean to say that that will be the usual case, but it can do that if it so chooses. Then we come to the rest of the members of the education committee. In the Bill there is no direction whatever as to how these various men are to be chosen. Four or five different classes of members are suggested, but as to how they are to be chosen, what their comparative number is to be, who they are to represent, who is to nominate them, we have no sort of instruction whatever; and it is only as one of this class of co-opted persons that women find a place at all within the scheme of the Bill. Women deeply feel the fact that they are by this Bill excluded from direct election to one of the most important bodies in whose work a woman can take part. To these authorities is added yet another authority—the board of managers. In both sets of schools managers are to be appointed who are to perform certain equally undefined duties.
You have, then, this hierarchy of authorities. You have the education authority, you have the education committee, and you have the managers, and to keep them all in order you have the Education Department, which is weakened in its power of controlling the various authorities, because it has given up two important powers—namely, the power of declaring default and the power of compelling the local authorities to provide sufficient school places. What an opportunity for rivalries, jealousies, and difficulties between these various authorities! There is no definition of the respective duties of these authorities. It is said that the education authority is
26
to be supreme, that the Education Committee is to control and that the managers are to manage; but no attempt is made to define either what control is, or what management is. I do think that great confusion must ensue from administration under these authorities. To these various authorities are to be handed over, not only the present board schools, which hereafter will be known as provided schools, but also the voluntary schools. In future the support of both these classes of schools is to come on the rates. Heretofore the denominational schools have been supported partly by Government grant and partly by subscriptions from those interested in them. That is why in many places School Boards have not been set up. It has been said that it would be cheaper to maintain and to keep the voluntary schools. That has always been threatened. The population of a particular district have been told:—"If you set up a School Board you will find it more expensive. You will have to pay rates, whereas now the school can be managed in a cheaper manner, and only those who choose to subscribe need have any expense put upon them." It seems to me that now arises a somewhat important question. You have taken from the voluntary subscribers and given to the ratepayers the charge of these schools. But who is to be responsible for the religious instruction given in them? Not the ratepayers, not the representatives of those who pay, not the Education Department as representative of the taxpayers, not the County or the Borough Council, not the Education Committee. The decision as to the management of the religious teaching, as to the appoiontment of teachers completely from top to bottom, as to the profession of faith of those teachers—all this is to be given to the present managers, to the clergy and to their friends, with this exception only, that to the foundation managers are to be added two managers appointed by the education committee. So that from this time henceforth the Church party are always to be in a majority on the management of these schools, and it will be in their power to secure that no Nonconformist, but only Church of England teachers, are appointed, and that the special doctrines

27
of the Church of England are taught, and this though the school has become a public school supported by the people as a whole, Churchmen and Nonconformists alike.
It seems to me that here is the glaring injustice of the Bill. The people are to be rated for education which they do not control, and not only that, but for education which is sectarian in its character. It seems to me that these are violations of two great democratic principles. I hold, first, that the people should control that which they pay for; and, secondly, that rates levied from the people should not be applied to sectarian bodies. I heard it laid down from the other side of the House last night that representation should go with taxation. It seems to me an astonishing thing that one should have to dwell on so elementary a principle of government and to find that at this time of day in England this principle should be so gratuitously violated. We are rated for Town Councils and County Councils, but we have the control; we are rated for boards of guardians, but we have the control of those bodies; we have been rated for School Boards, but we have the control of those authorities. All these bodies are responsible to the ratepayers, but under this Bill we are to have schools for which we are rated, but over whose actual management we are to have little or no control. It is, indeed, true that the education authorities are to raise the money, but it is the education committees and the managers who will have the spending of it, and over their action we have no control whatever. Let me look for a moment at the second principle violated, which is that rates levied upon the people should not be applied to sectarian objects. I thought that was a ground on which the battle had been fought to a finish long ago. Nonconformists of two or three generations ago declared that they would not pay Church rates. They objected, and in support of that contention some of them suffered loss of goods and some of them were sent to prison. By their sacrifices Church rates were abolished, and yet here we are going to have renewed this system which we had thought had gone for good. Now, forsooth, men of all creeds and no
28
creeds are to be rated for the teaching of the dogmas of a particular Church. The Church of England has in this country some 13,000 schools in which Church doctrines are taught. I do not for a moment dispute the right of the Church to teach those doctrines. They have the entire right to do so, but they should teach them at their own expense. Under this Bill it is proposed that they should do so at our expense. That is a proposition which I for my part cannot accept, and it is one which I do not believe will be accepted by the majority of the country. It is, I think, a somewhat significant thing—a thing which deserves some consideration—that in this House, which contains two Estates of the Realm, there should be found perhaps only fifteen or twenty men who voice the opinion which is that of the majority of the people of the country.
The noble Duke and the Members of the Government have a distinguished colleague who is now on his way as a messenger of peace to the other side of the world. I say, God speed him on that errand. Perhaps his view may have some influence on the Government, even though ours will have but little. I should like just to quote a sentence from the speech he made in Birmingham after the passage of the Act of 1870. Mr. Chamberlain then said—
"If the resolutions of the School Board are carried into effect, numbers of children now enjoying the luxury of a sectarian education at the expense of the private supporters of denominational schools will enjoy that luxury at the expense of the ratepayers. This iniquity I and my colleagues have resisted, and will continue to resist, holding the opinion that in schools supported by the rates denominationalists have no right to interfere, and that they must not be allowed to meddle in the concerns of the kingdom in which they had no jurisdiction."
I think those words of Mr. Chamberlain are extremely apposite now, and that they might well be taken into consideration by noble Lords opposite. When he introduced this Bill the Prime Minister claimed that it would secure co-ordination of educational authorities, that it would secure popular control, that it would end the religious difficulty. My Lords, these are high aims and worthy aspirations, but I think that from the debates that have taken place in Parliament and the discussions outside, it is very clear that there is little likelihood of those aspirations being realised. It is because I

29
think that these aspirations will not be realised, because I think that this Bill will but accentuate and increase difficulties already existing, that I, for my part, shall cheerfully vote against the Second Reading with the full confidence that though, as is certain, the Bill will become law, its life will not be a long one, and that it will be the duty of my noble friend beside me, and those who think with him, at the very first opportunity to bring in a measure which will restore to the people of this country the control of education and also religious equality.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I can promise your Lordships that I shall not detain you for more than a few moments, for I have no intention of entering upon the general discussion of the substance of this Bill. But great doubt has been expressed by my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also by the noble Lord who has just spoken, whether the County Councils of England and Wales are the proper authorities for carrying the Bill into effect. On that question, perhaps, I may claim some right to speak, because I am chairman of a County Council and have the honour to be the Deputy-Chairman of the County Councils Association, upon which body every County Council in England and Wales is represented. That Association has very carefully considered the Bill and the functions which, under it, the County Councils will have to perform. As the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education has already informed your Lordships, the County Councils Association met in May last and came to the conclusion that County Councils were acting through committees (a majority of whom should be members of the Council) as the education authorities, well qualified and prepared, if so requested by Parliament, to undertake the powers and duties imposed upon these authorities by the Bill. I venture to think, with regard to the doubts expressed by noble Lords on this subject, that the County Councils are better able to give an authoritative reply on this statement than anyone else. The County Councils Association also expressed unqualified approbation of those portions of the Bill which refer to secondary and technical education. For the first Resolution thirty representatives voted in favour and only seven against,
30
and among the former was the representative of the County Council to which my noble friend Earl Spencer belongs Objection has been taken on the ground that the County Councils are to work through committees. I venture to think that no one who is acquainted with the way in which County Councils perform their duties would for a moment imagine that they could work in any other way. It is the course they adopt with respect to the whole of their business. An important measure of local government was passed some time ago which had to be worked by the County Councils through a most important committee. That committee sent down its members who made local inquiries all over the county, and carried out the work under that Act with perfect satisfaction to the public. It has been urged that experts will be precluded from sitting on these committees. I am surprised to hear that objection raised by anyone who is acquainted with the needs of education. The power of adding experts to education committees exists at present under the Technical Instruction Act, and it seems to me a most valuable power. County Councils object to an education committee being constituted which should not be composed of a majority of members of the County Council. That view was adopted by the Government, and an alteration was made in the Bill which provides that, except in some very exceptional cases, the majority of the members on the education committee shall be members of the Council. My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth said it was impossible for the County Council to know all about the primary schools in the counties. Of course it is impossible. How is any big work ever done in this country except by sub-dividing it? The work of the primary schools will be done by delegating powers from the education committee. A provision has been inserted in this Bill for the specific purpose of giving the education committees power to deal with matters in that way. Having given my best attention to the subject, and having heard the discussion between the representatives of the County Councils of the whole of England, I can only say that the County Councils are grateful to the Government for the manner in

31
which they have met many suggestions which those Councils considered of importance with regard to the details of the Bill. Personally, although the matter is undoubtedly a difficult one, I look forward with great confidence to the duties which are imposed by this Bill on the County Councils being adequately and properly performed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I listened with special attention to the speech of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, who raised a warm feeling of interest in the breasts of a good many of us when he told us that he was about to state what mode he would have adopted in the difficult circumstances in which we stand educationally had he been called upon to construct an Education Bill. When we waited to hear what the form of the Bill would in that case have been, all that we learnt was that it would have been one to carry out in its completeness the principles laid down in the Act of 1870. I venture to believe that this Bill very nearly fulfils the idea which the noble Lord in those few words sketched by carrying out in the altered circumstances of the day the very lines laid down by Mr. Forster and his colleagues in 1870. Last night the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill said that the bishops—I do not know why the bishops were thus singled out—were opposing "a gigantic weight of opinion in the country rooted in conscientious conviction."I am not prepared to dispute the truth of the statement that there is a body of vehement opinion rooted in conscientious conviction, but I am not sure that the word "gigantic "is the one I should have used. But I let that pass. I would ask your Lordships for a moment to inquire whether that weight of opinion is grounded as a matter, of fact on a reasonable knowledge of the Bill as it stands, and whether it is a spontaneous expression of public opinion, or whether we can attribute to it a special character and a special origin? No one, I believe, who has studied the matter, will deny that the opposition to the Bill, honest and straightforward as it is, in the main a Nonconformist opposition. I am not in the least derogating from its importance on that account, but I think it is beyond question that the educational experts who
32
are free from prejudices of distracting and disturbing kind, and who have expressed an opinion on the Bill, are, generally speaking, in an overwhelming preponderance on the side of the measure. Of course there are some educationists who oppose it, but I am speaking of the preponderant body of expert opinion. There is, however, a strong and united opposition to the Bill in Nonconformist quarters, and it is not a whit the less entitled to be listened to on that account. On the contrary, it is, in my judgment, of all the more weight because it is founded beyond question upon deep religious sentiment, and religious sentiment is one of the most important factors in the formation of effective opinions. But when we go further and ask how that opinion has reached its present head, I think we find reason to give us pause.
It is, of necessity, impossible for large numbers of people in the country to understand an intricate and complex Bill like this without someone to explain it to them, and in such a case trust is naturally reposed in some one who, from his position and personal character, is entitled to be listened to. There can be no question that the man who in this country has come forward to take that position among Nonconformists has been that trusted leader, that great religious guide to many people, Dr. Clifford, of whom I do not wish to say a single disrespectful word. The letters of Dr. Clifford, published originally in the Daily News, and republished as a pamphlet, have undoubtedly been a leading factor in the formation of that hostile public opinion which we are told is a gigantic force. He has endeavoured to put the characteristics of the Bill in a brief categorical form, which could be understood by everybody. Let me give an example of what I mean. When he uses terms which virtually tell his readers that the board schools are practically swept away, it would have seemed to me that he was indulging in purely fanciful rhetoric but from the fact that, last night, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Coleridge, with no less weight than belongs to one of His Majesty's Counsel learned in the law, practically adopted the same words. My Lords, I say unhesitatingly that, put in that form the words are the wildest distortion of the provisions of the Bill, and are actually,

33
though I do not say intentionally, misleading to the public to whom they are addressed. The pamphlet again makes specific statements to the effect that the Bill, both in voluntary and in board schools, abolishes compulsory education, and it categorically states (I am here quoting its very words) that "it closes the evening schools." Is it a fair mode of dealing with the country, which cannot understand an intricate subject such as this Bill, to make categorical statements so preposterous as that? Can we be surprised that there should be a large force of public opinion roused to white heat against a measure which is supposed to be productive of such results? But that is not all. I touch, with some diffidence, on a subject more sacred in its character and more difficult to handle. A few months ago the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches put forth a circular which I hold in my hand, expressly requesting all the Nonconformist ministers to unite their congregations in prayer on the subject. A more laudable, natural, and proper direction to emanate from this Council I cannot imagine, provided that what is meant is that the process shall be followed which we in this House, and the Members of the other House, follow every day, of invoking the Divine blessing on those who are entrusted with the most difficult work of legislation. But this circular goes on to say that the prayer should be directed specifically against what is described as "the perpetration of a retrograde step in regard to national education, and a cruel injustice to the Free Churches of our land." I venture to ask, with confidence, what noble Lords opposite would have said had the Bench of Bishops put forward a request that in the Churches throughout the country, prayer should be offered for the distinct and definite passing of particular Clauses of this Bill? Legitimately and properly we should have been condemned on every hand for abusing the position we hold, and I venture to say that what would have been true of us is no less true of those who have acted on the opposite side in the manner I have described. It is not, therefore, surprising that there should have been a great outburst of public sentiment on this subject among
34
the section of the people to whom these appeals were made.
For a long time it was felt by those of us who, generally speaking, are in favour of this measure that we would not act wisely in endeavouring by public meetings to counteract what was being done on the other side, and that it would be better to leave the Bill to be understood, and to allow the country to weigh the matter quietly for itself; but after a time it was obvious that something else was needed, and wherever the endeavour has been made to circulate information which at least endeavours to be absolutely impartial and fair by those who take a different view of the question, the tide has turned and the state of public opinion is very different from what it was some time ago. I will give a concrete example. The largest town in my diocese is the town of Portsmouth, where the schools are almost entirely board schools. The pamphlet containing the letters of Dr. Clifford had an immense circulation and the effect produced was very great indeed. For a long time we left the matter alone, but ultimately those who regard the Bill with favour issued a series of leaflets and then called a public meeting in the Town Hall. In that town, which is full of board schools, and in which the voluntary schools are few and far between, the huge town hall was crowded before the meeting began, and enthusiastic resolutions were carried in favour of the Bill. That is no solitary instance of what is happening. I believe that as soon as the measure is properly understood, we shall find that that "gigantic" force of opinion to which the noble Earl has referred will dwindle away.
I pass from that to the need for the measure as a whole. It has been taken for granted more or less I think on both sides of the controversy by those who have no very special knowledge of the intricacies of the matter that the rural schools in England are at present exceedingly bad. I venture absolutely to dispute that proposition. Our rural schools are behindhand in their appliances, in their staffing, and in the amount of the salaries paid to the teachers, and frequently in the character of the school buildings, and it would be grossly unfair, in my judgment, to the teachers and to the children, to allow them to continue in

35
that condition; but if the Government had acted in the way suggested by some, and had met the difficulty by simply establishing universal School Boards throughout the country, I venture to think they would have made the matter worse instead of better. Inefficient as some of our rural schools are, the most inefficient are those which are under the control of the School Boards. But I want to ask, Are we right in supposing that the existing rural schools are as black as they are painted? I should not expect your Lordships to accept my opinion on the character of those schools. I know them pretty thoroughly. I seldom visit any country parish without visiting the school, and I have therefore a personal acquaintance with hundreds of them. But I do not ask you to take my own evidence. What I have done has been to look carefully at the reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools for the past year, to see exactly what those who are best qualified to speak have to say on the subject; and I would venture to trouble your Lordships with two extracts only. One is contained in the Report of His Majesty's Inspector for the East Central Division of England, the Rev. C. D. Du Port, who incorporates in his Report the reports of the Inspectors under him. I take the following sentence from the Report:—
"Because country teachers are indifferently paid, and because country managers find it diflicult to make both ends meet, therefore it is tacitly argued that country schools must needs be inefficient. They are nothing of the sort. … Apart from the difficulty of providing experienced teachers for small classes of infants, the rural schools are quite as good as the urban schools."
The Inspector refers to the fact that if isolation is a drawback to the country teacher, it is also in some respects a distinct advantage. He says:—
"His school is always an organic whole and never degenerates, as the large urban school, sometimes does, into a mere bundle of classes. Then, again, successful town schools are frequently cast in one mould; whereas the good village school has a character and an individuality of its own which it has developed in response to the ' plastic stress "of a vigorous and independent mind.'
I turn from that to another part of England, purposely taking places that are far from one another. I read in the Report
36
of the Inspector for Cumberland, Westmorland, and the rural parts of Lancashire that:
"In the voluntary schools the assistants are as a rule, of poor qualifications, but the work often reaches as good a level as in schools which have on paper a far superior staff. This may be in part due to the teachers being treated more as individuals and less as pawns, but the main credit of it must be given to the headmasters of these schools, many of whom display extraordinary ability and energy. The strain involved in producing such excellence as they do must be well-nigh intolerable; but they do produce it very often."
Those, my Lords, are testimonies from His Majesty's Inspectors as to the character of our rural schools. I say unhesitatingly that the credit for this is due, in the first place, to the teachers who, in isolated positions and labouring under extreme financial and other drawbacks, evince a magnificent devotion, and are content to accept lower salaries than they could get elsewhere, rather than abandon the interests of the rural schools. In the second place, I venture to say that the others upon whom the credit rests are the clergy, in whom, for the last hundred years or more, the care for education in our rural districts has been practically centred.
I happened, recently, to find by accident a Report of a Committee of the Quarter Sessions of Hampshire upon "The State of the Poor," presented at the Midsummer Session at Winchester more than a hundred years ago. At that time day schools were few and far between. Such education as was given at all to the children in rural districts was mainly given in the Sunday schools, and the committee of Magistrates, who looked into the subject, stared in a somewhat startled and almost frightened way at the progress, infinitesimal as it seems to us, that was then being made educationally among the people. The committee regarded the endeavour with the sort of puzzled caution with which a flock of sheep stares at a strange thing in the field. They deprecated—I quote their own words—
"That supposed learning, that zeal beyond knowledge, which tends to enthusiasm."
And they went on to say—
"It is with limitation only that schools for the poor are beneficial. So far as they have any tendency to raise an idea of scholarship, to make those who attend them conceive they are scholars, and thence to place them in their own conceit above common labour, they become prejudicial instead of serviceable to the community."

37
That was the view taken by the laity of that period of the character and need of rural education, and I mention it to show yonr Lordships the kind of difficulties which the clergy had to contend with in initiating the schools which have now reached the excellent level I have described. I am almost afraid to call attention to this fact that Report is signed by the ancestors of some of your Lordships. The people who had to combat such views as to education in the rural districts were the clergy. They were the only people who, during the greater part of the century that has closed, really put their backs into it and cared about the promotion of rural education. They were believers in it when other people were not, and they are believers in it today. It is as educationalists, not as clerics, that they have thrown themselves into the work, although, of course, they have always, both by word and act, laid emphasis upon the foremost place which religious teaching must take as the basis for the formation of character.
In urban districts, also, the credit for educational progress, speaking generally, is due though of course in a less exclusive degree to the clergy. In the debates of the last few months it has not been unusual to hear the fact that a great many clergy are sitting on School Boards cited as evidence that the School Boards are not hostile to the clergy—a view which the clergy are inaccurately supposed to take. Undoubtedly the system which many of the clergy advocate in their voluntary schools is one which certain members of the School Boards are apt to discredit; but I have never heard the other charge made, and I was startled to hear it alluded to in Parliament the other day as something that we were supposed to have charged School Boards with. The conclusion that I will draw, however, is that the clergy are found to be the best leaders and guides in the education that is carried on by our School Boards. It is no small fact, surely, that the School Boards of such places as Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Salford, and Sheffield, to take only a few instances, all have clergymen as their chairmen. It is, therefore, utterly monstrous to suggest that the clergy as such are engaged in promoting sectarian interests alone in elementary schools and not
38
thinking of education as a whole. If that was so, would they have been appointed in these leading towns as chairmen of the School Boards? It is because they are educationists of the first order that they stand where they do; to make out that they are obscurantists is, to my mind, simply to contradict the facts of history and the evidence that is before our eyes at this moment.
The three main objections advanced against the Bill are that its idea is to retain denominational tests, that it gives control without adequate popular representation, and that it uses the rates for denominational teaching. Let me deal with these points one by one. I yield to no man in my dislike to denominational tests as a bar to any position of responsibility or service in the State which deals simply with secular matters. But it does seem to me the merest pedantry not to admit that to that general rule there must be an exception with regard to the people whose duty it is going to be to give religious instruction. You are bound to find out whether the person who is going to give such instruction is fit to give it. I have frequently borne testimony to the admirable religious teaching that is given in the schools of the London School Board and of many other of the large School Boards, but why is it that in these schools the religious instruction is so well given? It is because the teachers have all practically been trained in religious colleges in which one of the foremost tasks undertaken is the preparation of men and women to give religious education to little children. Under this Bill we are going, quite rightly, to provide other and more extensive means for the training of our future masters and mistresses, but in so far as that provision is made by the State it will be of a secular character, and to that extent the result will be that in a few years hence you will be obliged to choose those who will be entrusted with the giving of religious teaching from people who have not had the advantage the teachers of today have had. If you choose a master to teach drawing, you do not think it sufficient that he should express his willingness to teach it. You test his qualifications. You are bound to do the same before you assign to him the most

39
difficult, by common consent, of all a schoolmaster's duties, the teaching adequately and well of the truths of religion. Therefore I protest against the notion that an inquiry into the qualification of a teacher to give, conscientiously and because he believes them, the truths of our religion, however simply, to little children, is a violation of any fundamental principle.
In the next place, it is alleged against this Bill that control is being given without adequate popular representation. That all depends upon what is meant by control. If I understand the Bill rightly, there will be no necessity whatever for a single penny passing through the hands of any other person than those who are either popularly elected themselves or appointed by those who are popularly elected. But no doubt I shall be told that the real difficulty lies in the fact that the appointment of the teacher rests with those who are, to the extent of two-thirds, not popularly elected. Yes; but it is made under the control of the whole body, under the absolute control and guidance, as regards educational efficiency, of the popularly elected body which stands behind. What practically will happen is this, that the managers—one-third from outside, and two-thirds from inside—will have the right of nominating a teacher from among those who are approved as competent by the education authority. If that is taking the control out of the hands of those who raise the money, I do not know what control means. It may still be said that it is an unfair arrangement, that there ought not to be any preponderating voice given to the denominational managers in the appointment of the teacher. Well, on that point I should like to go back five years, when the atmosphere was a little clearer with regard to this particular controversy, and when politicians of all kinds were able to look at the matter in a calmer way than they can today. I turn to a speech delivered five years ago by Mr. Asquith at Rochdale, and I should like to read what he said:—
"I have never gone the length of thinking or of saying, nor, I believe, have any of my friends, that the principle of popular control ought to be carried to the length of subverting the denominational character of the schools. I think that would be an unfair thing, an unjust thing; that it would, in effect, disestablish the denominational character of the schools, and transform them, and practically put them
40
on the same footing as the board schools of the country. I agree that, if you are to have a denominational system, then the particular tenets of the particular faith must be taught, and that those tenets may be taught in good faith, with enthusiasm and with zeal, it is not unnatural that the managers of those schools should claim to have a preponderating voice in the choice of teachers."
That was the view taken at a calmer time by one of the foremost leaders of those who are at present opposing the Bill of the Government.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Who was maintaining the schools then?
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The criticism of the noble Earl is a most fair and reasonable one. I am only using the quotation to prove one point in my argument. What we are told by so clear-headed an educationist as Mr. Asquith is that if you are to maintain denominational schools at all it is not unreasonable that the managers of those schools should claim to have a preponderating voice in the choice of the teachers; provided you maintain denominational schools at all you are not to make the appointment of the teachers depend upon those who are not preponderatingly belonging to the denomination. I admit that under the present Bill a change takes place as regards the payment for the schools. All I use the quotation for is to press this point; he admits that if a denominational system is to go on at all you must leave the preponderating voice in the appointment of teachers to the denominational managers. Is not that exactly what this Bill is practically doing? It leaves, not the entire voice, not the complete control, but the preponderating voice in the appointment of teachers, to those who belong to the denomination. There I am content to leave that point at present. But there is one little point that I should like to dwell upon. Some noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the House have the advantage—I should say the high privilege—of being members of the London County Council; and one of them, who I believe is to address us tonight, the Earl of Rosebery among the many distinguished offices he has held, has filled none of them more splendidly than the chairmanship of the London County Council. There is great talk about the remoteness of the

41
control given to the popularly-elected authority over the appointment of teachers. Is it remembered how remote is the popular control in the appointment of teachers by the different technical education boards under the London County Council? There are contributions from the City Companies and from other bodies, enabling them to obtain, I will not say a preponderating, but a large voice in the appointment of teachers. It is in this way that they practically work in the splendid way they have worked their Polytechnics and other institutions. I do not wish to make too much of that point, but it does seem to me to be worth bearing in mind when we hear of the distance between the teachers who are actually at work and those who have the ultimate control of the work.
Then with regard to the objections raised to the whole principle—this fundamental principle, as the noble Lord said—of giving rate aid for denominational schools. The position of those who take that point is to me bewildering in the extreme. I think I am not wrong in saying that in the early days of the Parliamentary debates of the last few months, again and again it was said that, however important might be the question of who the ultimate authority was, there was one thing far more important, and that was the fundamental principle that rate aid ought not under any circumstances whatever to be given for denominational teaching. I find that one of the leaders of the opposition to this Bill, Mr. Lloyd-George, said early in the debates—
"I agree that the question of the authority (he is speaking of representation and the rates) is not really the most important part of the Bill. There is only one important question that divides us, that of rate-aid for teaching religion of which a large portion of the ratepayers do not approve. That is the whole question so far as we are concerned."
My Lords, I call attention to those words. I ask you to look on a few months, and you will find these same people telling us that they would be perfectly satisfied if they had the Scotch system established in England tomorrow. The whole essence of the Scotch system is the giving of rate aid to denominational education; and the people who told us a few months ago that the objection to the use of rates for denominational education was vital, have now boxed the compass and tell us that the process they desire to see followed is
42
one that has rate aid for denominational schools as its very backbone and essence. My Lords, I dwell upon that not because I want to taunt those who have so spoken with inconsistency; it may be that they are inconsistent, but that is not the point that I want to dwell upon. It is this: that it is the best evidence we can have of the difficulty which they find in formulating any other scheme. First they are forced to one conclusion as to the fundamental principle; then they are forced to go right round the compass until they get to the opposite principle in order to justify their opposition to the Bill now before the country. I refer to it simply to show that they have practically no alternative scheme which can hold the field against this scheme now before your Lordships' House. I venture to think that to that extent at least the argument is not an unimportant one.
My Lords, I have, I am afraid, detained your Lordships too long. I have spoken as an educationist rather than as an ecclesiastic. I could say much if it were necessary on the constructive side of the Bill that is before us, but the introduction of the measure last night by the noble Lord, and the speech of the President of the Education Board tonight, have dealt so fully with that subject that I do not propose to dwell upon it further. I am not prepared to say that in every particular I think this Bill the best that could have been devised. I should like to have seen it different in a good many ways. Indeed, I doubt whether any single Member of your Lordships' House (including even the authors of the Bill) is prepared to say that. The best scheme that could be devised we each of us have no doubt in our own minds, and it will doubtless differ from the present Bill. But this is an honest, straightforward, and courageous endeavour to grapple with a great and difficult problem in a way which will best meet the conflicting interests which anyone who has to deal with this subject has to meet. I confess I am not alarmed by the prognostications of failure which have been rife both inside and outside Parliament. I look back and find how in 1870 no less a politician than John Bright, and others with him, told us that that Bill was

43
doomed to speedy failure, whereas it is now regarded as practically the palladium of the liberties of those who desire educational progress. Then I pass on to the Bill of 1889. Your Lordships all remember how in 1889 powers were given to the County Councils to help technical education. We were told again and again that none of the Councils would use the Bill—that the last thing they would do would be to spend that money on educational purposes. My Lords, we know the County Councils better now. In a very large degree, and in a constantly increasing degree, these funds have been used as they were intended to be used. That again, therefore, prevents my being alarmed at the prognostications and fears with regard to the future of this Bill. Five years ago, when the Voluntary Schools Association Bill was passed, we were told that these associations were bound to fail, and that the plan would lead to ceaseless wrangles among those who were trying to get money for individual schools. Yet nothing of the sort has happened, and the result of those associations has been to an enormous degree to help forward the work of rural schools in practically every county in England. The term "co-ordination" has received a very great deal of ridicule in this House and elsewhere. It has been spoken of as a kind of mysterious "Mesapotamia," which means nothing and serves no good purpose. I believe that to be absolutely fallacious. No principle of this Bill is more absolutely certain to work out well and successfully than the co-ordination which must result where it is properly worked as regards every step in our educational system. Nothing is so good in these matters as a concrete instance. I live hard by the little town of Farnham. We have a population, partly urban and partly rural, of 12,000. We have five board schools and four voluntary schools; we have a grammar school for boys and a secondary school for girls; we have a pupil teachers' Centre, and we have all sorts of evening classes. They are under five different authorities, and they are receiving grants (quite apart from voluntary subscriptions) from three totally different sources. Anything more puzzling and more extravagant than such a complicated system could hardly be conceived. Now already, before the Bill is passed we are seeing our way to the
44
complete co-ordination of that system, bringing the primary and secondary organisation into one united whole, the secondary schools being able to be supported by the same authority, and the teachers in the secondary schools being available when necessary for scientific and other subjects in elementary schools, because there will be the same paymaster. In that, and many other ways, I am certain that before many years have passed we shall find that the results of the measure will be so good as will startle those who have given it such strenuous opposition.
My Lords, I have said all I have to say, but I am charged with one duty that I desire to perform before I sit down. Your Lordships listened last night with the attention always due, but due in a special sense last night, to the most rev. Primate. We do not know whether to admire more the weighty and pathetic speech that he delivered, or the courage with which he delivered it in the face of obvious physical difficulties. It is not a small thing that at the head of the Church of England, which has necessarily so much to do with the organisation of education, we should have one who, for a life of more than fourscore years, has been from the outset in the forefront of every movement of educational progress and reform. More than fifty years ago Mr. Temple, as he then was, was a prominent figure in educational work, and he is in the forefront of that work still. I think that is a record which will be difficult to match in the history of educational work, whether in the Church or in the civil community. I had the privilege this morning of speaking to the Archbishop upon the subject of this Bill and of his speech last night, and he desired me to say this—that had not physical weakness prevented, he desired to have concluded his speech by a very earnest appeal to all those whom his words might reach—the managers, clerical and lay alike, and all those who are interested in the voluntary schools which are still connected with the Church—that it should be one of their primary and foremost efforts when this Bill becomes law to see that no hardship is inflicted thereby upon Nonconformists. We have all along desired—those who take a lead in Church matters—that facilities of every kind should be given

45
for the removal of every possible Nonconformist grievance that is removable in our parishes. But the most rev. Primate desired that the last words of his speech should be such an appeal on behalf of those who, while not belonging to our Church, are as entitled to their religious convictions as any of ourselves, any of your Lordships, any of those who are sending their children to a Church school, being themselves Churchmen; and to beg that every possible endeavour might be made by us who are responsible in these schools for removing difficulties wherever that can possibly be done. My Lords, we have long expressed such a desire—we desire it still; and I for one honestly believe that when the controversies which are raising the present dust and turmoil are overpast, we shall be found—Nonconformist and Churchman alike—under the provisions of this measure, co-operating in the task of working out the far-reaching and beneficent scheme which I firmly believe the whole country will before long determinedly and hopefully take in hand.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships generally will have sympathised with the very pathetic appeal conveyed to us from the most rev. Prelate by the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down.
My Lords, what is the problem with which the Government intended to deal in this Bill? In the first place, it was to organise secondary education; in the next place, to prevent overlapping, to co-ordinate; further to improve the financial condition of voluntary schools, and finally to increase the efficiency of schools in rural districts. As regards secondary education, the Bill contains no compulsory Clause imposing on the local education authority the duty to make provision for secondary education. It gives no power to the Board of Education to create that supply. It is merely permissive. There are no guarantees whatever that anything will be done either for the improvement of the higher technological instruction or for higher education on modern lines. The Board of Education acts, as the noble Marquis said tonight, in a merely consultative capacity.
46
Inspection is not provided for, except the voluntary inspection under the Act of 1899; neither the representation of the local education authority on the governing bodies of assisted schools, nor the examination of inspected schools, with a view to leaving certificates, of which we in Scotland receive all the benefit at present; schools conducted for private profit are not excluded; and no audit is provided for schools which receive assistance. It was said tonight that some one on this side had fully approved of these proposals. I suppose the fact is that the Gentleman referred to did not quarrel with them, for the simple reason that there is nothing in them with which you can quarrel; they are absolutely illusory, and secondary education will, after the Bill becomes an Act, be very much in the same position as it is in now.
The problem of overlapping and co-ordination is one which concerns chiefly the big towns. The noble Marquess laid great stress on the fact that School Boards were more bent on extending the range of their operations than on doing their duty to the elementary schools primarily under their control.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Let me correct the noble Lord. What I said was that they should be more concerned in promoting the quality of the education.
LORD REAY: It comes rather to the same thing; it means that in the view of the noble Marquess the quality of the education in elementary schools leaves something to be desired. As regards the quality of the education in the elementary schools it is so far from the case that the London School Board overlooks it that lately a very definite inquiry has been proceeding as to the best means of still further improving the quality.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: I am aware that the School Board drew attention to the fact that there had been a loss in accuracy.
LORD REAY: Its Inspectors had brought to the notice of the School Board that through the change of system of the education there was some risk that

47
accuracy might not be enforced as strictly as it was in former days. I only mention this to show that no neglect can be imputed to us, and I may perhaps point out that the Board Inspectors (and not His Majesty's Inspectors) were the first to bring it to the notice of the School Board. No further proof is needed to show that the School Board is fully alive to its responsibility in the matter.
Now, I should like to say in regard to higher grade schools that these schools to which the accusation would apply that we were going rather beyond the legitimate range of our operations, are not secondary or technical schools, but in the language of the Board of Education "Higher Elementary Schools, "or what in France is called the Ecole primaire supérieure. The Higher Elementary School is the school which represents the final stage of the education given to those who can only receive elementary education, so that as regards the extension of the range of operations there certainly was no sufficient ground for abolishing School Boards.
The noble Marquees alluded to a resolution of the London School Board in favour of the system of this Bill and if its application to London. Since that resolution was passed—yesterday—the School Board by Majority adopted a resolution moved by Dr. Macnamara that for London no departure should be made from the system of ad hoc representation. I trust, therefore, that I have convinced the noble Marquess that, as far as London is concerned, there does not exist any widespread desire to see the principles of this Act applied.
If there has been any encroachment of School Boards on higher and secondary education, the noble Duke in his speech last night was careful to say—and I am sure the noble Marquess will not fail to endorse it—that it had been done with the connivance and even with the encouragement of the Education Department. The School Boards are certainly not the only or even the chief delinquents. I deny that they did anything for which the Education Department does not share the responsibility. The confusion is much exaggerated; but if confusion exists, it is due to the lack of control which should have been exercised with greater vigour by the
48
Education Department. The conditions under which the Parliamentary and other grants are made as contained in the Code and in the Directory enable the central authority to establish the line of demarcation between primary and secondary schools. Important questions, such as the size of the schools, the numbers in a class, the qualifications of the teachers, the sufficiency of school accommodation, the adequacy of the subjects taught, must be settled by the Board of Education, in the last resort, whatever local authority is constituted under it, if the rate of progress in all parts of the country is to be uniform. What I regret in the Bill is that the power of the Board of Education is weakened. Hitherto it could act in default, hence-forth it can only act by mandamus, and we know that mandamus is an extremely weak instrument.
Now, my Lords, the demand for uniformity of control, of which we hear so much, is advanced mainly on the ground of the existing chaos. That chaos, however, is due not be to the absence of a power which represented uniformity of control, but because that power did not choose to exercise it. The responsibility for the systematic organisation of national education rests with the Central Department, and the Central Department can never divest itself of it; and, if it could, it ought not to do so. Whatever may be the constitution of the local education authority, the guidance, the impulse must be given by the central authority, which has at its command the most expert advice, and the information which it gathers through its inspectors from all parts of the country. With regard to inspection, the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Goschen) last night stated that he could not conceive how a dual inspection could take place by what he called local despots and central despots. As the noble Marquess is aware, in London the dual inspection exists; His Majesty's Inspectors, inspect the schools, and in addition there are the Board's Inspectors; and our experience is that the Board Inspectors are stricter in the exercise of their functions than His Majesty's Inspectors. Of course, I do not know what the reports are which reach the heads of the Education Department,

49
but the reports which reach us are not of very much use; and I hope that the noble Marquess will take steps to secure that in future we shall get more detailed information as to the results of the inspection of our schools by His Majesty's Inspectors.
If I insist that in future there should be no weakening of central control, I appeal with confidence to the experience of Scotland. In Scotland, if we have made considerable progress in these later years in the direction of a better organisation of elementary, secondary, technical, and agricultural education, it is chiefly due to the constant guidance and the vigorous initiative of the Central Department. If there has been no overlapping in Scotland, if there has been no squandering of resources, if there has been consolidation of local effort, it has all been due to the impulse given by the central authority. Such guidance has a stimulating effect on local authorities, and does not in any way interfere with any initiative they may wish to take. Where the Department shows its superior insight into the needs of the country, as the Scotch Department has done, no friction arises, but, on the contrary, you will find that the local bodies will be quite ready to meet your wishes. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, I am sure will not deny that he has always found School Boards and County Councils ready to accept any advice which might be given them by him.
My Lords, the obvious course to pursue in England was to strengthen the hands of the central executive. That was the object of the Board of Education Act. Your next step should have been to give effect to the recommendations of the Secondary Education Commission. If that had been done, we should have had a very different Bill as regards secondary education to that which is before the House. After that, you should have created proper areas for elementary education in rural districts, leaving the towns in possession of the School Boards, whose efficiency—the noble Marquess will not deny this—though their ambition may have been in his opinion too great, has never been doubted. Proceeding step by step, you would then have avoided the leap in the dark which you are
50
now taking by imposing duties on bodies who are in several instances and in cases where they are best qualified to undertake these new duties, not prepared to undertake them. You could have prevented overlapping without establishing one authority for elementary and secondary education. Elementary education requires smaller areas than secondary education. Elementary education deals with schools which have great similarity of object. It deals with children who, as a rule, will not frequent day schools after reaching the age of fifteen. Secondary schools, on the other hand, offer a great variety of types, and are intended for scholars who will not leave school until they are eighteen. The methods of teaching in both categories of schools are different; the qualifications of the teachers are different. The authorities for secondary and for elementary education could easily have been linked, and, where differences arose, the Board of Education could very easily have settled them. Is the county the proper unit for administration of all education? It seems very doubtful, when one of the most efficient County Councils, that of the West Riding of Yorkshire, declares it is incapable of coping with the task of supervising all elementary schools. An area of a suitable size, such as the noble Earl behind me mentioned, the area of the Rural District Council, might have suited the purpose. No doubt, if you make the county (I am not speaking now of secondary education but only of elementary education) the unit for elementary education, the local interest in education must naturally be very much weakened because the locality will no longer be directly, but will only be indirectly, connected with the school which serves its area. If the authority is so remote, what connection remains? I need not go into all the details; my noble friend, Lord Tweedmouth, has done that; but I must point out that under those circumstances administration will almost inevitably become mechanical. The County Council will act through its officials, and the work cannot be done by the members of the County Council itself. You will undoubtedly have delegation (the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, has admitted that) in

51
all instances of large areas and large County Councils. Now this is not what is understood by municipalisation. What you mean by municipalisation is that the members of a municipality, just as is now done by the members of a School Board, will themselves undertake the duties for which they are elected so that the ratepayers may hold them responsible. They will do it through committees; but those committees may not be composed of members of the authority which is represented. We shall lose, therefore, not only what has been called the ad hoc representation, but all representative control, and that is a serious inroad on the popular control of education. As regards the results of a county rate, I need only say that I agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Camperdown last night.
The Cockerton decisions are the other reason which is given for the abolition of School Boards—I am careful not to say board schools. The Cockerton decisions are certainly not a sufficient reason for altering our whole educational system. Nothing would have been easier after the Cockerton decisions than to arrange for the work in dispute to be continued either in the elementary branch or in the secondary branch, either by the School Boards or by the County Councils. There was no need to create one authority; to disestablish, as the noble Duke said last night, either the County Council in connection with secondary education or the School Board in connection with primary education. All you need have done was to let them alone, and to establish some connecting link between the two. In London and in Manchester and in several other towns there is a concordat between the County Council and the School Board, and by that concordat all possibility of overlapping, all possibility of collision between the two is absolutely excluded. You could have enforced or prescribed this concordat and left the situation as it is. Now, in this Bill there is a most remarkable instance of defining elementary education, and that is the definition of elementary education in evening schools. It is laid down that education in evening schools will only be considered elementary when reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught there. That is going back to the
52
old Code; that is putting the clock back more than thirty years. In an elementary evening school we shall be unable to teach what your Code allows to be taught in the elementary day schools. After this Bill becomes an Act, you are going back altogether; in fact it is a deduction that may be fairly drawn, that in the elementary day schools also you will limit elementary education to reading, writing, and arithmetic, and thereby give satisfaction to some of the supporters of the Government. It is obvious that in an evening school you want not to teach what has already, ex hypothesi, been taught in the day school, but you want to give additional education; and if in elementary evening schools you are going back to reading, writing, and arithmetic, that will show that the day schools have been absolutely inefficient. I hope the noble Marquess will consult my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, and have some conversation with him about the Code for continuation classes in Scotland, than which there is no more remarkable or better Code.
Now, with regard to voluntary schools. Why was the simple procedure not followed of making an addition to the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897? That would have made the whole cumbrous machinery of this Bill unnecessary. It would not have involved any alterations in the constitution of voluntary schools. You might have made the conditions under which the Parliamentary grant was given to voluntary schools morn stringent, taking care that voluntary schools should use it for improvement and increased efficiency, and you might have followed that same course if you wanted to restrain what I think has been unjustly called the extravagance of School Boards. Now we have this very important departure from the Act of 1870—because for voluntary schools the departure is a very serious one. In the Act of 1870 you have the recognition of a clear line between denominational schools and undenominational schools. What is a denominational school? A denominational school is a school over which the denomination to which it belongs has full control. The managers belong to the denomination, the teachers belong to the denomination, and the teaching is denominational throughout. Nothing can be taught in that school at any time which is contrary to the tenets of the denomination.

53
That is what I understand by denominational schools. The assumption is that parents will send their children to a denominational school who wish for guarantees that the schools will strengthen the ties which unite them to the denomination. All this is recognised by the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 did not interfere with their management; it only required certain conditions of efficiency, which did not impair the character, the atmosphere of the school. It did not differentiate between the control of religious and of secular instruction. This Bill, on the other hand, interferes with the denominataional schools, and subjects them, as regards secular instruction, to local control. The majority of the managers are to belong to the denomination, the head teacher likewise, but the local authority may prescribe the books which are to be used, and its inspectors may inspect the schools. The local authority in prescribing the books may or may not respect the character of the school. It may prescribe books which the denomination may legitimately object to, and in such a case it is obvious that the head teacher who belongs to the denomination will use the books for purposes of criticism. You can very well use a book in a school not to teach its contents, but to teach the children exactly the reverse of what that book contains, and you cannot always have an inspector present to control what is going on. The head teacher cannot conscientiously teach from a book which will be sent to him by the County Council if he knows that in that book there are facts with which he disagrees, with which the parents of the children disagree, and the majority of the managers of the school. In such a case the control of the local authority must be absolutely nugatory.
I now come to Roman Catholic Schools. Suppose the County Council prescribes for a Roman Catholic school a book which is contrary to the convictions of those who frequent the school—take a book in which the history of the Reformation is given in such a way that Catholic children cannot be taught from it. Clearly in such a case you cannot insist on the use of such a book; you must have regard to the opinion of the majority of the managers who understand the
54
nature of the secular instruction which is suitable. The difficulty is much greater as regards secular instruction than it is as regards religious instruction. From religious instruction you can withdraw the children; from secular instruction you cannot. The minority managers, if they do not belong to the denomination, have not the qualifications required of managers of such a school. If I were appointed by a County Council as a minority manager of a Roman Catholic school, I should distinctly decline to act in such a capacity, because I should consider myself to have nene of the qualifications required in the management of a Roman Catholic school. You cannot alter the character of a denominational school. I defy you to undenominationalise the secular part of a denominational school Of a denominational school I say, sit ut est aut non sit. In giving a hybrid character to such a school you attempt an impossibility; and I for one should not be prepared to explain the contents of this Bill as regards the management of these schools to any meeting of educational experts on the Continent of Europe; I know I should be met with derision.
I say again, the Act of 1870 was infinitely more favourable to the independence and autonomy of denominational schools than will be your Bill when it becomes an Act. It is true that the Act of 1870 recognised all vacancies in a denominational school. That I admit. The practice of the Department has always been correct; the practice of the Department has always been that vacancies in a Roman Catholic School were not taken into account for other denominations. One of the best feartures of this Bill—I am sorry to say it is the only one feature, the one important improvement, with which I do agree—is that those vacant places will now legally no longer be taken into account. You confirm the practice of the Department. But otherwise, to call this Bill, as the noble Duke did last night, the offspring of the Act of 1870, is an absolute contradiction if it is the offspring, it has none of the features of the parent.
The noble Viscount opposite (Lord Goschen) alluded last night to pictures on the walls of schools, and complained that the Department had interfered with the pictures. Now the pictures on the walls

55
of some denominational schools are essential. A greater impression is created on the minds of the children by the pictures than by any teaching of the catechism. Again I ask, will you give the local education authority the power in a denominational school to order that the pictures shall be removed in such a school although the pictures are those which are absolutely necessary to give what the noble Viscount called the tone of the school? The school by this cumbrous machinery does not become more suitable for the children for whom it was not intended. All you do is to create a petty annoyance for managers of the voluntary schools which fails to achieve its object. I say, if that is the natural outcome of giving rate aid, then rate aid ought never to have been proposed. My belief is that rate aid contains in it the germ of the destruction of denominational schools, which I for one do not want to see destroyed. Where the ratepayers will discover, and they must sooner or later discover, that the amount of control which they can exercise over the denominational schools is absolutely illusory, obviously they will claim more, and then you must either put the denominational schools back under the conditions of the Act of 1870, or you must take a step forward and absolutely undenominationalise the denominational schools.
The noble Viscount said last night that the denominational schools pay a heavy price for rate aid. Yes, they do. The price is too heavy if they retain their denominational character, and it is a great deal too slight if they are henceforth to be considered as national schools—schools which are suitable for all children. I have nothing but cordial feelings towards denominational schools. 1 do not wish the London voluntary schools to be disturbed or transformed. Leave them as they are. Give them a larger grant if you wish to do so. These schools have their own province, and as long as they do not encroach on the province of undenominational schools, I recognise them as a valuable and an integral part of the educational system of the Metropolis. I hope that the noble Duke will at all events not say that I have shirked the challenge which he threw out yesterday as to our views regarding voluntary schools.
56
In the big towns hitherto there has been no religious difficulty. Denominational schools in the big towns fulfilled their purpose. Henceforth, when this new machinery comes into operation, I am not at all sure that difficulties will not arise. When I say that in the big towns hitherto there has been no religious difficulty, I speak from experience. In London it does not exist. Parents who send their children to board schools are satisfied with the religious teaching. The cases of withdrawal of children are almost nil, and where such withdrawals have occurred, they did not occur on the ground that the religious instruction in the school was not dogmatic enough, and was too vague; the complaint was that it was too dogmatic. Quite lately a clergyman of the Church of England told me that he considered that too much notice was taken of a certain dogma. Perhaps it will be said that the parents are indifferent, and that therefore there are no difficulties, but there are an immense number of children belonging to the Church of England in the board schools. Would those children be sent there if there was any fear that they would be detached from the Church of England? No; they are sent there because it is well known that by frequenting the board schools they will not be worse, but they will be better, members of the Church of England. I was very glad to hear the right rev. Prelate who preceded me speak of the religious teaching in board schools, and especially in the London board schools, and say that it was very good; but I cannot overlook the fact that last night the noble Duke spoke of that instruction as colourless and hardly different from secular. And the system has been called, I believe, a "rotten"system. Now I wish to say a word about this rotten system. I am not going to indulge in generalities. The House must forgive me if I enter for a moment into detail. I hold here in my hand the syllabus of the religious teaching in a board school. This syllabus has not been specially selected; I asked that a syllabus should be given me taken at random. This is the kind of teaching I find there: "The second coming of our Lord"("The Transfiguration" as a "Manifestation of Trinity);""Rules for guidance of Christian life; judgment on others; the importance of prayer; the narrow entrance to the Kingdom; false guides, the test of true guides; the wise and foolish builders;

57
true subjects and false." My Lords, is this or is it not dogmatic? Is that definite Christian teaching or indefinite?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): What security is taken that the gentleman—
LORD REAY: I fully expected that question to be put to me, and I am going to answer at the same time the right rev. Prelate who preceded me. The first security you have is the training the teacher received. The next security is that the teacher him or her self draws up such a syllabus, and therefore, unless you impute to the teacher hypocrisy, you must take it for granted that they believe these solemn truths. In addition there is this safeguard, that a teacher who does not believe these truths is exempted from teaching them, and that he or she would decline to teach them. There can be no doubt that the great majority of our teachers do teach on these Christian lines. If my noble friend opposite, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asks me to what Church the teacher belongs, I cannot give the answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. He interrupted me before I had finished my question. My question is a much simpler one. What security is taken that the lady or gentleman who gives this instruction on such sacred subjects is really qualified to do it?
LORD REAY: Of course according to the Code His Majesty's inspectors do not deal with this instruction. Our own inspectors do. Of those eight inspectors, I think I am justified in saying that seven belong to the Church of England. I have consulted them and asked them this very question that the noble Lord asks:—"Is this teaching real, and is there any guarantee that the teachers who give it do so really believing it." And my information is to the effect that we have every guarantee that could be required.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But what is that guarantee? That is the question.
LORD REAY: The guarantee is, as I say, the Christian convictions of the
58
teachers and the inspection. Our inspectors see that the teaching is given in such a way as to convey to the children that the teacher is in earnest. Now these truths, I admit, are not taught as truths having a denominational character or as emanating from any particular denomination. They have another sanction. They are taught as Divine truths, as having a sanction superior to that which can be derived from any denomination. They are the common inheritance of all Christian Churches. I ask, Does that weaken their authority? Will the faith of a child belonging to the Church of England be shaken because these truths are imparted to it simultaneously with Baptist, with Congregationalist, and with Wesleyan children? Will not the fact that these truths are the common inheriance of various denominations rather strengthen the effect which they produce on the mind of the child? And, my Lords, is not this common Christianity a pearl of great price; is it not one of the causes of our national greatness? That is, at all events, what the parents think; that is what the teachers believe who belong to the Church of England, and who give this instruction. Therefore, you can easily conceive what the feelings of those teachers are, who teach these truths with absolute devoutness, when they are told that the system is a "rotten" system. Ask the clergy of London whether the religious knowledge of the children who go to these schools, when they prepare them for confirmation, is not excellent The religious teaching in the board schools of London is uniformly good. The inspectors state that there is hardly any subject which is so well taught as the subject of religion. And what is the effect—what atmosphere is created in the school? Not the secular atmosphere, but a distinctly Christian atmosphere. The other day I was at a public meeting and I spoke of the "moral and intellectual instruction" given in board schools. I was corrected. I was told that I ought to have used the words "moral, intellectual, and religious." And who was it who corrected me? A clergyman of the Church of England. I was very glad of the reproof. And let me add that I consider

59
it a great privilege to have been associated these last years with a large number of clergymen of the Church of England, as well as with clergymen of other Churches, in providing for the children of London this teaching of which I have given you a specimen from this syllabus, and that never has there been any difference of opinion among these clergymen of various Church about the nature of the teaching or the method in which it should be given in the schools. But there is other evidence that I can give you. Occasionally a Church of England school is transferred to the Board, and then the teachers are also transferred. Now, ask the teachers who are transferred from a voluntary school, from a Church of England school, whether the religious teaching given in the Board Schools is of such a nature that they feel in any way hampered or feel that there is really such a distinction as is material to the religious instruction that is to be given to the children. We have never had the smallest difficulty. Then, can the managers of the voluntary schools who allow them to be transferred be charged with a dereliction of duty, as they would be if this was a rotten system?
I say therefore that there is no religious difficulty in the towns, and quieta non movere ought to have been your policy. There is a difficulty in the one-school districts, although that difficulty is not insuperable with the exercise of Christian charity. Is there anything to show that parents in one-school districts are animated by different feelings than those of the majority of parents in towns? The whole point is, what are the feelings and wishes of the parents. In how many parishes of England would the parents object if the Catechism which is now taught for one or two days in the week—because it is not taught in the schools every day—were taught independently on another day? And I ask again, How many parents in rural parishes in England would object to religious instruction being given by a Nonconformist teacher? Nonconformist parents do not object to Church of England teachers; why should Church of England parents object to religious instruction being given by Nonconformists? Are the parents in the rural districts more denominational than those in towns? Do you think that Chris-
60
tianity would suffer in rural schools by the admission of teachers, who (and that is our experience in our London schools) materially contribute to the development of a religious atmosphere in our schools? Their virtual exclusion in the one-school districts, even in districts where Nonconformist parents are in a majority, is an anachronism and a cause of widespread resentment. It is not a financial question; it is not a question of the rights of property; full value should be given for the use of the building, but in a one school district the school should be such as to meet the wishes (I mean the ascertained wishes) of the parents residing there. In nine cases out of ten in a one-school district, you would have no difficulty; but what we contend is that the wishes of the parents in these districts should not be over-ruled by any trust deed or by any private owner of the school. The parents must have a sense of absolute security that in sending their children to such a school they will not be brought under influences which are opposed to their own conviction. Where the State compels parents to send their children to school, the State is responsible for the atmosphere of the school, not the owner of the building or the founder of the trust.
Would the clergy in accepting popular control be eliminated from the management of schools? I think not. I think that in most cases the parish rector or the vicar would be at once elected on the representative body. What has been our experience in Scotland? In 1872 we established popular control of schools in Scotland. The clergy of Scotland wisely accepted popular control, and what is the result? On those School Boards, you will find the minister as the elected representative of the people. The influence of the clergy is not weakened by election, but the very fact that they are there as popularly-elected representatives increases their influence; their influence is on a much sounder foundation than before; and it is only in those cases where a clergyman has made himself absolutely unpopular that he probably would not be elected.
What the nation wants is a school rooted in the national soil, representative of its national religious life; tolerant,

61
but not indifferent; open to all; equally serviceable to all denominations, hostile to none; having the confidence of the parents, because he representatives of the parents have full control. For parents who desire it, denominational schools can be provided wherever the circumstances will admit of such schools being efficient. My Lords, we have been hitherto free from the lamentable antagonism which afflicts foreign countries where the nation is divided into two camps—a clerical and an anti-clerical camp. The magnitude of this antagonism, the peril which it causes to the religious life of a nation, the dissensions which it promotes, are only too well known to those who have lived in such an atmosphere. It has been one of the greatest blessings of this country that we have remained free from that antagonism. I wish I could believe that under this Bill that antagonism will not arise. It is mainly because I fear that we may see it arise that I shall have to give a conscientious vote against this measure.
The LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel considerable reluctance in rising to speak tonight, in the first place, lest I should in any way interfere with the most able speech by the right rev. Prelate who has well represented the Bishops on many points with regard to this Bill, and also because I cannot Profess to treat with the same entirely full-voiced approval every point which is before us in the Bill. But I wish to say a few words now with regard to the very fair speech that we have heard from the noble Lord who has just spoken, and also with regard to the speech that was made by one who is as much respected on our Bench as any man in England, and that is the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in this House. I rather address my remarks to the speech which was made by the noble Earl who leads the Opposition, because I distinctly understood when I heard him speak that he wished for a system of universal School Boards. Now, I understand that the Noble Lord who has just spoken does not wish for that at all. But it is with regard to the position of the Church in regard to School Boards that I want to say a very few words tonight.
62
In the first place, I want to speak with all my heart of the excellence of the men and women who are teachers in our board schools. I lived for nine years in the middle of the slums myself, and I have found them our kindest possible helpers and friends on every occasion, and we ourselves think it a privilege to serve as managers of the schools, Secondly, we find that many of them are not only capable but are very anxious and would be quite ready to give the full instruction which they would love to do as members of our Church, Thirdly, in speaking of School Board instruction we must remember that it is being given side by side with the denominational schools existing in London at the same time, and I think we hardly recognise that we owe to the toning up of the religious instruction in the board schools the existence, side by side, of the denominational schools. Fourthly, the teachers of whom we are speaking have been largely trained in Church training colleges. Yet when you get all those four points before you, can it be said that the system of board school religion is a satisfactory system? My Lords, it is impossible for me to say that. There are three flaws in that system as I have seen it working which I wish to put before your Lordships. In the first place, the tie that is placed upon the teacher in interpreting the Holy Scriptures is something which hampers him at every turn. It is one thing to have a syllabus of instruction—it is another thing to be able to teach what is in the syllabus. I ask your Lordships, if you had to teach the Gospel of St. John and had to teach it—I use the words of the Leader of the Opposition—without dogma at all, I ask you to picture to yourselves what your task would be. Why the whole centre and core of the Gospel of St. john is that our Lord Jesus Christ is Divine as well as human. If that is not a dogma, what is? We find time after time that better instruction is given than the system would warrant, but you have to take the system as a system, and the first point about that system, which I venture to say is a rotten system—I am not afraid of the word—is that it hampers the man or woman who is teaching the Holy Scriptures from giving the full instruction which that teaching really implies. Or, take the

63
book of the Acts of the Apostles. Some of your Lordships may have tried to teach it. If you have, you know how impossible it is to teach the book of the Acts of the Apostles without entering on great controversial issues and without touching upon baptism or confirmation or other subjects which are absolutely woven up into the very texture of the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Then, secondly, I will put this before your Lordships. The London School Board is the very best instance that could possibly be taken by friends of the School Board system. There are School Boards throughout England who rule out any religious instruction at all. What security have we that there will be any religious instruction at all for our children under this vaunted system? As a matter of fact, we know that there are School Boards that have no religious instruction whatever. Thirdly, the position of managers is most ridiculous. I have been manager of three large board schools for years. A man comes before you who is going to be entrusted with the religious instruction of our children; you are not allowed to ask him a single word about his qualifications for that position. The right rev. prelate who spoke last from our Bench put before us how absurd it was to appoint a man to draw, when you could not find out whether or not he could draw; but it goes to my heart just as much, as a teacher of religion, to have someone coming before me to teach the children religion when I may not ask him a single question as to his fitness for the work. I ask, is that system one which I am not justified in calling a rotten system of religious instruction? I admit that as it has been worked out, the system has worked better than we could have expected, but it is a system which we, as the Church, cannot admit to be a right system at all.
Let me turn from the system itself to the results. During those nine years which I spent night by night in the district of Bethnal Green, I had passing through my hands, I suppose, during that period, literally thousands of lads of the ages between 14 and 15 coming straight from this much vaunted system where the religious instruction is said to be so excellent, and I suppose so permanent in its results. Without the slightest idea of any controversial purpose, but merely as a matter of curiosity, we used to put a
64
mark against every boy's name at the age of 14 or 15 as he came into one of our institutions (holding 500 boys) as to whether he went to any place of religious worship at all. If he went to a chapel or any little mission room, down would go a mark against his name that he went somewhere. Out of these thousands of boys, what do you suppose the proportion was when the list was added up? There were more than eighty out of a hundred with "G.N." against their names, which meant "goes nowhere." Now, after all is said and done, the test of any system is the permanent results. Take, again, a number of men of the age of 30 or 40, and I find that only one in 80 went anywhere at all. And this was a sample population for our poorer districts! Why do I attribute these results to the system: For this reason: We ourselves, by being taught at our public schools, are attached to some sort of organisation all your Lordships have an innate affection for the school from which you came; but the board school system leaves a boy and girl attached to nothing. Why, when I took on one of the poorest parishes, I found in the parish among the band who stood around me through thick and thin, there was a body of men and women who had been brought up in the school of the Church, and the school of the Church had left them attached to the church. Therefore my argument is this: that this Board School system of which we have heard so much praise to night, when you test it by its results, does not leave the boy or girl attached to any church or chapel. I have constantly said to myself that I would have done anything to have found some 40 or 50 of those boys who came into the club attached to some chapel, if they could not be attached to some church—if they had found their spiritual home somewhere. That, my Lords, is the result as I tested it by personal experience in my own district. Therefore I wish to express my gratitude to the Government for having, by their scheme, safeguarded the denominational system as part of the religious system of this country.
The moment that this Bill came before us I invited eleven Nonconformist leaders to come down and meet me in conference at Fulham; and I should like to bear witness here to the great fairness, and, I thought, the almost touching willingness with which they came at once to meet

65
me in conference upon this subject. We had some six hours together; therefore it must not be supposed that we had not most closely inquired into the grievances which Nonconformists may feel. Dr. Hugh Price Hughes, who has so lately passed away, was one of the most conciliatory. Then we had Dr. Clifford there himself, and I can hardly express in how kindly and conciliatory a way he stated the case on his side. Therefore when I say that we believe that we are not unfair to Nonconformists in supporting this Bill, it is not because we have not in a most careful way gone into what the Nonconformist grievances are. What are their grievances? I take, for instance, this grievance—that the Church is trying to proselytise the children of Nonconformists. That was not asserted by the noble Lord who has just sat down, but it is often asserted in the country. To what do I point to show that that is not true? In Convocation we made this offer, which has never been withdrawn, that we would give full access to the Nonconformists to teach their children in the Church of England schools if we had similar leave given us to teach our children in board schools. Now, could a 'body that wanted to proselytise the children in an unfair way make such an offer as that? The offer was not accepted by the Government, but at any rate I think it shows that we wanted to be fair. Therefore I think that the first accusation that we want to proselytise the children of Nonconformists is shown not to be well founded by that proposition which we have made in the most public way. Then, secondly, comes the accusation that the Nonconformists' money is to be taken to pay for our denominational teaching. I would ask your Lordships to listen to an argument which I tried to put before the great meeting at the Albert Hall, but which was in some extraordinary way entirely misunderstood by Mr. Bryce in the other House. That argument was, that we place at the disposal of the country buildings the rental of which was equal to £750,000 a year; if you take the amount of your teaching as equivalent to one-eighth of the school time, that would amount to no more than £175,000 a year. On this the accusation was founded that I had priced the cost of repairs at £175,000 a year. Your Lordships will understand that that is a totally different assertion. My point
66
was this, and I put it to the leaders of the Nonconformists themselves, that the Church of England was going to give this large contribution towards education, that the contribution which it should pay for its own distinctive teaching could not come within one-fifth of the total cost which we ourselves paid, and therefore that they were under a total mistake if they imagined that their money out of the rates was to be taken for our teaching. So again we have asserted that in single-school areas the greatest possible fairness ought to be shown to the Nonconformist children. In any scheme I had control of, I myself should be perfectly ready that Nonconformist children should be brought up in any way that the parents wished, and taught the tenets that their parents held. We ourselves in single-school areas would naturally look for the same leave to be given where the only school was a board school. In spite of the whole of England being ransacked to find a grievance, I think your Lordships will agree that the case of any grievance of Nonconformist children has entirely broken down.
For these reasons I am compelled by my sense of what is right to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But I cannot sit down and leave your Lordships under the impression that everything in this Bill satisfies me, or many of those who sit on my Bench. It is only honest to say what is in one's mind in a question like this. There is not the slightest doubt that the Kenyon-Slaney Clause has stirred up a deeply felt spirit of indignation and alarm among the clergymen of the Church of England. I want your Lordships to know what those clergymen have done. I went to a school the other day in a very poor district. The clergyman there had been for very nearly ten of fifteen years trying to get a new wing built to the school, by collecting cards and boxes, and so on. At this little evening function at which I was present the clergyman made the announcment that they had at last got the new wing for which they had been begging for the last fifteen years. Can you wonder at a man like that, living on bread and cheese as it were, sending his children out as governesses in order to provide for that wing, feeling a grievance when he imagines that he will have to go hat in hand before the

67
managers before he can enter that school which he has built by the sweat of his brow?
What, then, I do hope the noble Lord and the Government will see their way to do is to accept a slight change which will be brought forward at a later period to deal with this point which shall safeguard this—that it shall be the normal thing for the clergyman to go in and teach in his school. If for any reason the management find that the influence is bad, or the teaching is unsatisfactory, they should have a perfect right to appeal to the bishops as the trust deed lays down, and on appeal to the bishops they should have the power, but not till then, of excluding him from his school. It seems to me that as the Bill stands at present there is reason to a certain extent for this widespread alarm, and even indignation, through the Church of England clergy in the country. I shall move an Amendment in Committee dealing with this point, but I did not like to speak upon the Second Reading without making my position clear with regard to it.
The other point is the question of repairs. I have the figures before me from five schools in the country which demonstrate this, that those who manage those five particular schools will have, under the Bill, to find £70 a year more than the amount that they have received from all the subscriptions during the last five years. In these circumstances I would ask the Government this question: Where is the relief to this intolerable strain coming in? Personally in the counsels of the Church I have fought this matter of repairs, simply because the slum schools which I know so well will, I fear, some of them have to close their doors. That was on the question of what were called the landlords' repairs and extensions. Now I understand that tenants' repairs are also to be placed on the schools. What a terrible comment it will be if after this Bill, which has involved such an infinite amount of pains and labour, becomes law, numbers of poor schools in the slums will have to close their doors because they cannot pay their expenses. I hope the word "structural" will be put in before the word "repairs," and that this very great defect in the Bill will be remedied before it leaves this House. I
68
am confident that the brave and determined attempt of the Government to carry out what they believe to be a true and lasting reform ought to be possible by this means, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, on the understanding, and with the hope, that on these two points it will be amended before it leaves your Lordships' House.
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate's speech, to which, I need not say, I listened with the greatest interest and attention, divided itself into two heads. On one it dealt with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, which, I humbly think, I had better leave to the noble Duke in charge of the Bill to settle with the right reverend Prelate, as it is rather a domestic quarrel than one in which the Opposition has any part. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate dealt with the subject of religious education. I feel some diffidence in following him into that domain. I myself was brought up at one of the great public schools, and my recollection of the religious instruction there leads me to think that we did not receive, at any rate in my days at Harrow, much more religious instruction than is now taught in the Board Schools in this country. But, I take it that the grievance that the right reverend Prelate and others have when they denounce the undenominational religious teaching in the board schools is that they are afraid—and it is a fear which, I am sure, we will notice with respect—that the children of this country may drift into irreligion. Well, my Lords, I would humbly ask the right reverend Prelates whether they think that the age in which we live is less religious than in days gone by. If my knowledge of history is right, I venture to think that the great writers and the great thinkers of the end of the eighteenth and the commencement of the nineteenth century would have held up their hands with astonishment if they heard the people of this country, as they are now, quarelling about the dogmas and tenets of religion. Speaking myself as a Broad Churchman, a section of the Church which is not so popular now as it used to be some years ago, if I ventured to give my opinion upon religious instruction in our public schools it would be this, that I should.

69
hope that all sections would endeavour to unite and not divide those tenets which are common to all the Christian sects; and, it would be better in my humble opinion, to leave those higher mysteries, which some of us feel a difficulty about even in our older age, to be taught when the intellect of the child is more mature and more able to understand them.
My noble friend, Earl Spencer, alluded last night to the difficulties which this House has to encounter when it has to discuss a measure which, like this, has received so much attention in the other House of Parliament, and on the platform, and in the Press, and if my noble friend felt a difficulty about that last night, surely I must feel much more difficulty tonight, when your Lordships have had inflicted upon you the intolerable strain of an unusual prolongation of our debates. But I hope your Lordships will kindly give me your indulgence (as I do not often venture to interfere in the debates of this House) while I will explain why I find it necessary to take the course I shall take when we proceed to vote upon this Bill.
My first complaint against the Government (perhaps it is presumptuous of me to put it forward) is that they have lost a golden opportunity of settling this question, and I say that for this reason. From all the speeches that have been made, and from everything that has been said on this question, no one can doubt that the necessity for additional educational advantages is generally admitted, and surely there never was a better occasion for dealing with that subject than now, because never before in our history, perhaps, have the people of our country looked more to the future destiny of the empire, as well as to the more immediate and the more selfish present; and never before, perhaps, have they taken a larger interest in the wider destinies of our country. I think it will be admitted that no Government has ever before had so great a power to bring about a beneficent Act for this country. The Government has an unprecedented majority in the other House, and it always has the ample and abiding confidence of your Lordships in this House. And, my Lords, the necessity
70
being admitted, the opportunity being there, and the fullest power being in the hands of the Government to carry out this measure, I venture to think that the country had a right to expect from the Government on this occasion a truly national measure of education, a wide-minded and fair-minded and far-seeing scheme which would have aroused, as far as possible, in the public, general support, and which would have minimised and not emphasised, those sectional differences which unhappily divide our common religion.
My Lords, we must not, of course, venture to ask for the impossible. I know well enough that there are cranks in the Nonconformist chapels, and there are cranks in the Established Church, whom it would be quite impossible for a heavenborn Government to hope to conciliate or appease. But I think we had a right to hope that the settlement of a great question like this would have been such as could be accepted by an over whelming majority of the people whom it so deeply affects. The scheme should surely, as far as possible (I recognise the difficulty in making it so) have been a national scheme and not a Party scheme. My complaint against the Bill, and my complaint against the Government, is that this is essentially a Party measure and a Party measure alone. I do not for a single moment impute anything but the best intentions to the Government. I am quite sure that the Government would have preferred that it should have been a national scheme, and they probably believe in their hearts that it is a national scheme, and that it is for the benefit of the whole country at large. But the mere formulation of the details of this Bill has aroused a Party spirit in this country which we have not seen since the Home Rule Bills of Mr.Gladstone in 1886 and 1892, and that fact surely proves in itself that this is a Party scheme and not a national one. It is impossible to deny that it is a Party scheme, and any scheme which is to be administered in the villages and hamlets of the country by all sorts and conditions of men of every kind of political complexion, if it is to have a chance of success, if it is to have any hope of permanency, should be tinged as lightly as possible with Party spirit, and should rest as much as possible on a national and not a Party basis.

71
I venture to think that national education should —and here I speak entirely for myself—be provided by the State, and by the State alone, and that no private interests, no private persons, should stand as stumbling blocks between the State and the all-important task which it has to carry out. National education now-a-days seems to me a matter of national defence—almost as much a matter of national defence as our Army and our Navy. Education is the national weapon with which we have to arm our people to fight the contests of the future—peaceful contests perhaps, but as far-reaching upon the power and prosperity of this country as some of the battles which our soldiers and sailors fought for us in the past. It is the duty of the State to over-ride if necessary— but of course on just and equitable terms—all those interests which stand between the State and its great task of national education. Your Lordships will remember that before the Act of 1870 there were various schemes of education brought forward, and they all fell to the ground; and they fell to the ground for the same reason—because of the private interests which stood between the State and the schemes it had to carry out. Surely it is a significant fact that the one great success of Mr. Forster's Bill of 1870, which after all was a compromise, is the large School Boards, the bodies which fulfil, as far as they are able under the Bill, the proposition for which I am contending, namely, direct control over educational matters, without complication of conflicting interests.
Now, I would ask whether the Bill in any way fulfils what is the bed-rock of any good scheme of national education—whether this Bill does contain the primary feature of what I consider best for education. If it does so I certainly am willing to vote for it; if it does not, then I shall certainly vote against it. I think your Lordships will admit that it does not do so, and I think that is a proposition that cannot be denied, because on the one hand it perpetuates and extends the dual system of education which has so seriously retarded our progress in the past, and on the other hand it subsidises by public money the private and sectarian interests of a section of the community; and it does this, moreover, without giving the ratepayers who have
72
supplied that subsidy any control over the application of the money.
I would venture to grapple a little more with the details of the Bill than I have done hitherto, and in doing so I fear I must be somewhat wearisome, but it is absolutely necessary to disentangle from the innocent pages of this Bill the real meaning which it contains, and it will be necessary for me in doing that to go somewhat into detail.
We have heard a great deal about the unity of administration. I quite agree, as everybody who knows anything about, or who takes any interest in, education, must agree, that the unity of education authorities is the real key to any successful scheme, and that without this unity there will not be brought about that very desirable result to which we all look, namely, a ladder from the elementary school up to higher education, and so assisting bright boys and girls to make themselves useful totheir country atlarge. A quotation has already been made this evening from a distinguished Member of the other House, whose speeches, though I do not always agree with them, I always hear and read with much admiration, I mean Lord Hugh Cecil. He said that his ideal of an elementary school was one with one door opening from the street and another door opening from the school into the church. Far be it from me to say that I do not want a door which shall open from the elementary school into the church, so long as that church is the church in which the scholar and his parents believe, but if I wished to put before your Lordships the ideal institute with which the State has to deal, I would venture to say this, that the church should have a door opening from the street, and another door inside leading into the higher education school. That seems to me to be the ideal of an elementary school.
Well, my Lords, unity of administration is, I venture to say, the key to any proper scheme of education, and unity of administration divides itself, I think I may say into two heads—the co-ordination of authorities, and the simplification of finance. Now, we have heard a good deal about the co-ordination of authorities. It is one of the things of which the framers of this Bill especially boast. I must ask your Lordships to follow me and see

73
how many authorities exist at the present moment who had to be co-ordinated, and how many authorities will be created under the present Bill. The authorities under the present system (I shall be corrected by my noble friend if I am wrong) are first of all the Board of Education; secondly, the County Councils acting through the Technical Instruction Committees which have to report to the Councils; thirdly, the School Boards; fourthly, the school attendance committees which are appointed by the Poor Law Guardians in non-School Board Districts; fifthly, the managers of voluntary schools; and sixthly, the voluntary schools associations which as your Lordships know were created by the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897. There are six authorities at the present moment. As we hear so much about the results of co-ordination in this Bill, I conclude that its framers imagine that the present authorities do not sufficiently co-ordinate education. Now, how many authorities are there under the present Bill? First of all there is the Board of Education, with very much increased powers; then the County or Borough Councils; then the Borough or Urban Councils (for secondary purposes under Clause 3), then there are the education committees under Clause 18—(and I may say in passing that those education committees have the power to appoint sub-committees again from outside their own body, so that if I were pressing the matter home I might claim these as another authority under the present Bill); fifthly, we have the "non-provided"school managers, with power to appoint the teachers, and to control relogious education; sixthly, we have the "provided"school managers, that is as your Lordships know, the old School Boards (and it is interesting to remark in passing that these provided school managers are the only authority, as far as I can make out, created by this Bill, that has not independent power, but has only powers delegated to it by the County Council); seventhly, we have the Voluntary Schools Associations (I have no doubt the noble Marquess well knows that Voluntary School Associations are not to be abolished, although, of course, the reason for which they created—
74
that is to allocate the 5s. aid grant—is abolished. As far as I can see, the only reason they are maintained is that they may be represented, as we were told in the other House they will be represented, on the education committee, and so to import some remnant of the old voluntary system into those bodies which we have been told on high authority are to give the entire popular control over secular education). And, eighthly, we have yet another authority, that is, the managers of secondary schools. Although there is no provision as to the appointment of managers of secondary schools in the Bill, yet, I suppose, as you give the County Councils power to set up secondary schools, these must of necessity have managers. So that it comes to this, that we have six authorities in all under the present system, and in order to simplify and co-ordinate and reduce this multiplicity of authorities you have created eight new authorities by the Bill. It does seem to me rather extraordinary that if you cannot get six authorities to co-ordinate you should think it possible that eight can do so in the future.
I pass from the co-ordination of authorities—which, as I have said, is one vital part of unity of administration— to the other, which is a very important one, and to which I would ask attention (though I am bound to say it is a very dull subject,) and that is, the simplification of the finances and the sources from which these new authorities that you have created are to derive the money by which the schools are to be kept up. Let me say at once that that is a very important question, because if you are going to have one account for one thing and another account for another, with a management for each, I really do not see where your co-ordination is going to come in. I will give a concrete case which illustrates what I mean. No doubt if I am wrong, I shall be corrected. I have said that simplification of finance is of the highest importance in order to bring about unity of administration. Now, we all know that there is one account for higher education under Part II. of this Bill, and there is one for elementary instruction under Part III. I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the definition Clause which has

75
been imported into this Bill; I am not sure if it has ever been discussed in the other House; I rather think that it came in under the shadow of the guillotine; it is Clause 23; there we find for the first time a definition of what elementary education is to be—
"The expression 'elementary education' shall not include any school carried on as an evening school under the regulations of the Board of Education where any part of the education given is other than instruction in reading writing, and arithmetic."
In other words, there has been imported into this Bill, for the first time, a definition of what elementary instruction is in the opinion of the Government; we now know that it is reading, writing, and arithmetic. I have already pointed out that there are two accounts—one for higher education and the other for elementary education, defined in the Bill. Now imagine an evening school in some mining or in some maritime district, an evening school at which there will be pupils, some—as there are unfortunately in all parts of the country, of fifteen years of age and upwards, whose elementary instruction has been neglected, and who are anxious to take advantage of this evening school. At the same time there are other youths, who in the mining districts are anxious to learn something about engineering, or in the maritime districts something about navigation; they also go to the evening schools. Therefore it will he brought about that under one roof you will have one set of youths being taught what the Bill calls elementary education under Part III. and paid for out of one account by one set of managers, and on the other hand you will have other youths being taught the higher education of Part II., paid for out of another account by another set of managers. I cannot for the life of me see how the simplification of accounts comes in by the Bill.
But I must trouble your Lordships, if I may do so—for this really is much more a Local Government Bill than an Education Bill, and therefore it is necessary for one to go into these local government questions—I would ask you to consider, with regard to this simplification of finance, what are the sources of income which we have under the present system. They are very long, and I will try to name them as briefly as
76
possible, so as not to weary your Lordships. First of all, there are the Exchequer Grants, of which there are seven in all, namely, the Parliamentary grant, the fee grant, the aid grant for voluntary schools under the Act of 1897, the population grant, the training college grant, the necessitous Schools Boards grant, and, lastly, the grant under the Agricultural Rating Act. Your Lordships may remember that when under that Act half of the rates were remitted, the State agreed to make up the other half of the rates by an Exchequer Grant, so as to raise the rates of the School Boards to what they were previously. Those are the grants from the Exchequer. Secondly, there are the local sources of income—that is, the rates; they are three in number: there is the School Board Rate, the County Rate for technical instruction, and the Poor Rate, which is drawn upon to pay the expenses of the School Attendance Committees. Then, thirdly, there is the money which comes from the Local Taxation Act of 1890, which we may better recognise under the more popular name of the whisky money. Then, fourthly there are the voluntary subscriptions; fifthly, there is another source of income which, under the present system, the schools get—that is to say, concerts and bazaars got up to help the schools; sixthly, there are the school fees; seventhly, there are the endowments. So that there are at present seven sources of income from which you draw your expenses we are told. Now, how many will there be under the Bill—which is going to simplify our finances and co-ordinate our authorities? First of all, there are the Exchequer Grants as before; secondly, there are the rates, which consist of the County Rates for primary education, the County Rates for secondary education, and the Borough and Urban District Rates. In passing, there is rather a curious and complicated matter which I should like to have explained by someone who knows the Bill better than I do Under the Bill the County Council is empowered to raise a 2d. rate for higher education in the county; at the same time, the borough and urban districts are allowed to raise a 1d. rate for higher education in their districts.

77
but by the conditions of the Bill as I read it, the County Council is empowered to levy this 2d. rate all over the county, and therefore in the borough and urban districts as well, so that in the borough and urban districts they will be paying not only the 1d. rate but the additional 2d. rate, which is levied by the County Council. It seems to me to be somewhat of an anomaly, but it may be good finance. Then there is the whisky money as before, there are the voluntary contributions as before, there are the school fees, which will still be paid, and then there are the endowments, and, lastly, as a new source of income which has been absolutely invented by this Bill itself (and that only the other day) there are the rents of the teachers houses. Under this Bill these will have to be paid by the county authority, and they will go towards the upkeeping of the schools. Therefore, it comes to this, that in this great scheme for the simplification of finance and the co-ordination of authorities, you have at present seven sources of income, and under the Bill you have seven sources of income too, so that as to the sources of income they are exactly the same under the present scheme as they were before. I thank your Lordships very much for having listened to the dry and dreary details that I have ventured to put before you, but I think we may say that when we come to talk about this boasted unity of administration, whatever else this Bill may do, it dots not, if my proposition is correct, give us that in any sense.
My Lords, unity of administration is one of the conditions of a good scheme of education. The second condition is undoubtedly a good scheme of higher education. That is a subject that has been dealt with already, and as I have already detained your Lordships rather too long I shall not go into it now, but I think it has been admitted by every one that the scheme of higher education set up by the Bill does not come up at all to the expectations that were entertained. Practically what does it come to? There is no scheme in the Bill at all, and there is no indication to the County Councils as to how they are to carry out higher education. There is no power under
78
the Bill to deal with endowments, which anybody who knows anything about secondary schools will admit to be a matter of the greatest importance. There is no power, as far as I understand, to determine whether the teachers in the school are efficient or not. There is no power to deal with private owners to take over schools and give compensation to the owners if it is wished to do so. It may be said, and no doubt it is said, that if the Government had brought in a great and full scheme of secondary education under the present conditions of Parliament it would have been impossible for them to have carried it in conjuntion with the highly contentious scheme they had to bring forward for primary education. With regard to that, I would venture to say that for my own part I would rather have seen their scheme of primary education hung up for some time and that they should have brought in a scheme dealing with higher education; and I say that not without reason. The noble Marquess this afternoon rather depreciated the present position of elementary education in our schools, which was one of the reasons given for bringing in this Bill, but when we turn to the Report of the Board of Education for this year, what do we find is the official view? It says—
"The general efficiency of public elementary schools throughout the country is maintained at a higher level, and while there was still room for improvement in many schools very few wholly failed to provide adequate instruction for the children altogether."
No doubt we all wish to see primary education brought to the highest pitch, but here is the admission that in 1902 there was no great fault to find with it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think I said that in the rural schools it was generally acknowledged that the education was good, but there was more done in the higher branches of elementary education than was originally intended under the Act of 1870.
LORD BURGHCLERE: All I am pointing out is that the report with regard to elementary education is not one which would make us think that it was absolutely imperative now to bring in another Bill. That was my only contention. But there is another

79
paragraph which does seem to use more urgent words with regard to the teaching staff. I venture to think if the Government had allowed the elementary schools to remain as they are for another four or five years, and had brought in a scheme to reform their teaching staff in the meantime, and also brought in a good scheme of higher education, they would have been supported by the Opposition, and they certainly would have done better.
There is only one other point that I wish to make, and that will be very short. This is what I call the third condition with regard to any successful scheme of education. There should be within the Bill some chance of its being a permanent and a final settlement of the question. Now I venture to ask whether the most sanguine supporter of the Government imagines that in this Bill there is a final settlement, or even a settlement for our generation, of this great and important question. The noble Marquess and I think the Bishop of Winchester remarked that the "artificial feeling "which had been created against this Bill was dwindling away. Well, I think they had forgotten that my noble friend behind me presented only yesterday to this House a petition from the whole of the Free Churches of this country, representing eight or nine millions of people. Surely if the feeling is dwindling away it is dwindling away in a very peculiar way. The Nonconformist body, after all, is a large one in this country and is a great electoral force. If I were a Nonconformist I should say this Bill is not a settlement, it is a challenge. If that be true, if the Nonconformists consider it a re-endowment of the Church, if they consider that it puts upon them a stigma, a mark of inferiority on the minister of the chapel as compared with the clergyman of the Church of England, then I ask your Lordships how is it possible that this Bill can be a lasting and a permanent settlement? I notice that Sir Richard Jebb, speaking in the other House, said that under this Bill the country was going to take a real and living interest in education. My Lords, it has taken a real and living interest in education for the last six months on every platform, in the Press, in Parliament,
80
and in my humble opinion that is the kind of interest in education which this Bill will create, and with which we are threatened for years to come.
My Lords, the gift of prophecy is as rare as it is valuable, and I certainly do not venture to put myself amongst the prophets, but if two and two make four there are within the corners of this Bill elements which must make for disturbance, and not for the better improvement of education. Therefore it is that I can honestly say that never in my parliamentary life have I given a vote with greater conviction, or with a clearer conscience, than that which I shall give tonight, being confident that my vote against this Bill will be a vote for the improvement of education and the advancement of Imperial interests.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I can truly say, what I doubt any other noble Lord who has addressed the House to-night can say, that when I came down here this evening I had not the slightest intention of breaking silence in regard to this Bill. But some of the things which have been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and by my fellow countryman, who is Chairman of the London School Board, have seemed to me to make it necessary that I should trouble the House with a few words on some of the subjects which have been discussed this evening. I venture to make this preliminary observation in regard, not only to the speeches which I have more specially alluded to, but in regard to the great majority of the speeches which have been made against the Bill, that those who are its opponents seem to me to very insufficiently recognise the underlying difficulties of the existing situation in this country, or to take note of the complications of the subject with which the Government undertook to deal. We begin the consideration of this subject without the advantage of what is termed, in another relation in politics, the clean slate. We have to take account of the existing situation and the interests which are involved, of the agencies which have been created and the work they are doing. It is all very well to express an academic preference for what is called the secular

81
system of education. It is all very well for those who prefer the separation of secular education from religious education altogether to express their admiration for it. All I can say is that I believe them to be in a hopeless minority in this country. And it is all very well to praise the Scottish system and to say that it works well and should be tried here. The conditions that obtain in Scotland are not parallel to those in this country, either with regard to the religious divisions of the two countries or with regard to the history of education. Therefore I say no more about those two propositions than this, that it seems to me that neither of them in the present state of public opinion in England affords the slightest prospect of a hopeful solution of the undoubted religious difficulties which surround this question. You have, therefore, to start from the arrangement of 1870, which recognises the denominational school system of this country, which this Bill is intended in the fairest possible way to develop and to make more suitable to the requirements of the present day rather than to overturn and to abolish. There has been no diminution of effort on the part of those who are supporters of voluntary schools. Their subscriptions are at a higher level than they were in 1870, or at any subsequent time. What has brought about the difficulty of the present state of matters is the increased demand which was made—and rightly made—for education owing to the altered circumstances of the country and the greater necessity for the development of educational facilities. That being so, I venture to say that there was no alternative before the Government which they could consider for a moment, than to introduce a scheme which must have been more or less upon the lines of that scheme which is under discussion tonight.
The attacks upon this Bill have been framed chiefly upon three grounds. It is made a charge that the Government are destroying School Boards, that the management of elementary schools is not sufficiently under public control, and that fresh tests are being imposed upon those who are engaged in the teaching profession. We have heard tonight various opinions about the desirability
82
of unity of administration. The noble Lord who spoke last made it one of the main subjects of his speech. He desired to see unity of administration from top to bottom, but the noble Lord who spoke for the London School Board said, "Whatever you do, do not destroy School Boards. You might have left School Boards alone and yet have passed a great measure of educational reform." These two arguments are mutally destructive of one another. If you are to have unity of administration you must either interfere with the present powers and constitution of the School Boards of the country, or you must take from the great municipal bodies to which they had been given the powers in regard to secondary and technical education which they now possess. If, therefore, you are to have unity of administration, you must take one or other of these lines, and the line which the Government, after full consideration of the whole circumstances, wished to take, was that it would be better to unify administration by making the public authority for the administration of education one which was already universal over the whole area to be dealt with, and not the School Board, which is not universal and which now, according to law, has not any power whatever in regard to technical or secondary education. The noble Lord who spoke last seemed to derive great personal satisfaction from adding up the number of educational authorities which he said existed at the present time, and those which he said would exist in the future. But he will not dispute—and on one who has read this Bill can dispute—that, so far as secondary or technical instruction is concerned there will under this Bill be one authority in each area and one authority alone, and that will be the county authority. As I understand the Bill, as far as the counties are concerned, they will be under one authority for secondary and technical education. In adding up the authorities which the noble Lord said would be responsible for elementary education, be put in the County Council, the Educational Committee, and the school managers, and counted them as three; but surely they are one. These subordinate authorities—the education committee and the local managers—are, so far as secular education is concerned, so

83
far as finance is concerned, one authority. They are not independent and conflicting authorities as from the noble Lord's speech I thought he intended to imply.
LORD BURGHCLERE: No.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If I am misrepresenting the noble Lord I hope he will put me right, but I understood him in the list of authorities he made for elementary education to count not only the County Council, but the education committee and the school managers as different authorities.
LORD BURGHCLERE: So they are.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I ask whether that is a fair interpretation of the Bill. The Education Committee is appointed by the County Council. The school managers, so far as finance and the control of secular education are concerned, are absolutely and entirely the creatures of the County Council, which controls them in every detail of their secular work. Surely, therefore, it is not fair to count them as three different and conflicting authorities. I think I have made my point clear, and I will not elaborate it. One of the other points on which we have been most attacked is that of the management of the schools. The noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board said that in certain cases the County Council might decree books which would be distasteful to the managers of the local school. Of course, if you are not to presume a certain amount of common sense on the part of those who are to work a Bill of this kind, you can raise all sorts of imaginary difficulties, but I believe that class of difficulty is one which is raised from the imagination of noble Lords. I do not believe that when the local authorities get to work they will do anything so entirely unreasonable and impossible. So far as the unity of authority is concerned, I believe that this will be a great educational advantage. Noble Lords opposite, and others who have spoken against the Bill, have praised the Scottish system. They have pointed out how much good is done by various kinds of higher education, not only the secondary schools, but that most important part of higher education which is provided for those of the
84
population who must leave school necessarily at about the age of fifteen or sixteen. I agree that at the present time the advantages which are offered in Scotland are greater than those offered in England, but it is because I believe that for the first time under this Bill there will be a local authority legally capable for the whole area of the county of providing these advantages, that I support this Bill. The noble Lord the Chairman of the School Board for London was good enough to compliment me on the Code for continuation schools. I believe that under this Bill the County Councils will have the power of providing a precisely similar Code, because they will be able to do out of the funds of the locality what is now done in Scotland by local effort, and I believe they will then, for the first time, be able to gain for the whole area of England the same educational advantages which we enjoy in Scotland. It is because I think that the present area of local administration, even where there are country School Boards, is too small to enable that to be done, that I believe this is a great measure of educational reform, and will be fraught with great advantages.
The noble Lord who last spoke made great fun with regard to Clause 23, which, he said, made a division between elementary and higher education in the continuation schools. That seems to me a reasonable distinction. Surely, if the local school has not been able to do the work of elementary education, it is fair that it should continue it for the time that it is necessary in the evening school, but I do not think that that part of the work of a continuation school should be mixed up with the higher functions of dealing with those who, having regularly attended their elementary school, and acquired a knowledge of elementary subjects, now that they are going into their life's work, desire to attend evening schools and gain higher education. I think it is a reasonable thing that those two functions should be kept separate—that the one should be done more largely at the expense of the locality, and that the other should be under the control of the higher education authority of the district. I know quite well that there are other speakers to follow, and I do not desire to occupy more time than is

85
justly my due, but there is one point which has been already the subject of some, I hardly like to use the word interruption, but of some interpolation on my part to the noble Lord, the Chairman of the London School Board. It is part of the case against this Bill that for the first time it will impose, as it is said, a new set of religious tests on the teaching profession. I associate myself entirely with the arguments of the right rev. Prelates the Bishops of London and Winchester, that if you are to have these denominational schools at all, if you are to have denominational or dogmatic religious instruction, it is only the due of those who desire it and who are anxious to see it properly carried out that they should be allowed to secure that the individual who is to give that instruction is fitted both by belief and by training to do so. But in answer to that the noble Lord the Chairman of, the London School Board, says:—"Look what magnificent religious instruction there is in the schools of the London School Board." I have always heard, and what the noble Lord said tonight confirms it, that in that matter the London School Board was a model Board, that it took a great deal of pains to secure efficient religious instruction so far as the statutory authority under which it acts allowed it to do. The noble Lord's argument, and the illustrations he gave us, seemed to me altogether to destroy the fictions put forth from the opposite side that we are providing a new series of tests for the teaching profession.
EARL SPENCER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting him. The complaint is not of new tests, but of tests under very aggravating circumstances on account of the enormous increase in public grants.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUKLEIGH: That is exactly an illustration of what I ventured to say at the beginning of my speech, that noble Lords opposite will not have regard to the elementary problems of the situation. I understand that argument if you are to have no denominational instruction at all, but it is part of my case that you must maintain, in accordance with the feeling of
86
the immense majority of the people of this country, denominational instruction; and if you are to have that instruction it follows, as a matter of right and of fairness, that you must allow the religious denomination, whatever it may be, to satisfy itself of the fitness of the person who is to teach its creed. I will assume that the religious instruction given in the schools of the London School Board is everything that its most enthusiastic admirers say it is. But I ask noble Lords opposite, do they expect us to be satisfied with the teaching of those doctrines unless we are sure that the people who are engaged in their teaching believe in them, in their sacredness and in everything that they mean to those of us who do believe in them? I can conceive of nothing more repugnant to any man of right feeling than going through the form of attempting to teach those doctrines unless he genuinely believes in them and has been trained in the duty of teaching them. It is on that ground that I think it is useless to pretend that you can avoid having some sort of test of the efficiency of those who are to be engaged in the teaching profession when this subject is part, as it is in the schools of the London School Board, of the normal course of instruction, I will only touch on two other matters. The first is that of finance. I cannot go into all the details which were brought before us by the noble Lord who spoke last. I do not know that it would be a very fruitful theme of discussion here, because, after all, I doubt very much whether we can touch those Clauses at all. But this I say, that so far as secular instruction is concerned, whether in elementary or secondary schools, the object of the Government is that there shall be equal financial support for secular instruction in every class of school, and I do not think it can be said that those who want denominational teaching in addition to the secular instruction are paying less than they ought to pay for their privilege. Those who desire denominational teaching have provided, and will provide in the future, at least a fair share of the cost. One other point. We have been threatened over and over again. We

87
were pointedly threatened in the peroration of the noble Lord who spoke last that this was to be no permanent settlement of the question. The Opposition are, when they come into power, to reverse this iniquitous Bill. They are to get a mandate from the country for its reversal. That will have the least one advantage for us, for we shall then know, at any rate, what is the scheme they propose in its place.
LORD BURGHCLERE: I never made any promise as to what a future Liberal Government would do. I am not in a position to do so. What I referred to was the innate confusion which must come about by this Bill being a partial settlement and not a complete one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to put on the noble Lord any argument which he did not use, but we were distinctly told by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition last night, and also I think by Lord Tweed mouth, that in all probability it would be their object to reverse this legislation and to substitute something in its place. Then, at any rate, we shall know the issue we have to meet. When they do that they will, at any rate, have to say what their scheme is, and then will be the time for us to see whether their difficulties will or will not be greater than those which we have had to encounter, and which, I think, we have successfully surmounted. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but I could not, after the pointed challenges that were made, sit altogether silent in regard to this debate.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I cannot but think that the present aspect of your Lordship's House to some degree represents the attitude of the country towards this Bill. The empty seats represent somewhat faithfully the attitude of the laity of the Church towards this question, and the indifference which they feel towards the Bill. The large attendance on the Episcopal Benches shows, on the other hand, how great is the interest taken by the higher Prelates of the Church in the Bill. So also the speeches have reflected the opinions which are held in the country. Some
88
of the most destructive criticism of the Bill has come from those who are, nominally, its supporters. I should like to associate myself with what fell from Viscount Goschen last night, when he expressed his deep regret that the fog of religious controversy had involved the whole question. I wish he had pursued the investigation of the cause of this fog of religious controvery. It is not the fault of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House; it is inherent in the Bill itself. When we consider that the Church of England claims by this Bill so large a share in the management of religious and secular education in this country, the noble Viscount should not be surprised at the amount of controversy which has been aroused. The Church of England makes a somewhat exaggerated claim in this matter. Her position is not that of the Churches of other countries. When we speak of the Christianity of France, our thoughts turn at once to the Roman Catholicism of that country. In this country things are very different, and, having regard to the great Nonconformist movement, surely it is inadequate that a Bill dealing with religious teaching should take into account only the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate has spoken as if the voluntary schools were the private property of the Church of England. This is far from being the case. In the first place, large sums of money have been contributed from the State to the voluntary schools. A Blue Book was recently presented to your Lordships in which the large sums of money presented by the Treasury are set forth with much clearness. I shall not weary the House with any lengthy statistics, but your Lordships will be able from your own examination of this Blue Book to ascertain that in many countries, and in many dioceses, generally a quarter, and sometimes as much as a half, has been contributed to the erection of the voluntary schools. More than that, the trust deeds by which these schools are managed do not in any way convey them as a property to the Church of England. They are maintained partly for religious education, and partly for secondary education, and even the model trust deeds of the National Society for the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church themselves lay down that religious instruction shall be in accordance with the principles of the

89
Church, but that "due regard is to be had" to the secular education of the children.
It is obviously impossible to separate the interest of the Church from the interest of the State in the voluntary schools. They are simply ordinary charitable foundations, and those who have subscribed to the voluntary schools would indeed be injured if the schools were diverted to any other interest. It seems to me, therefore, that we have heard a great deal of wild talk on the subject of the closing of the schools in the event of the Bill not being passed in exact harmony with the wishes of the Church of England. If any such thing were done it would be necessary for the Church in the first place to repay the sums of money she has obtained from the State for the building of these schools. What might be an ideal position for the Church of England was laid down by the Diocesan Inspector for London, who said—
"There is only one object that the supporters of voluntary schools need be anxious to tight for, and that is ability to teach their own children the faith of their forefathers in all its fulness."
I do not think any noble Lord on this side of the House would raise any objection if the Church of England asked no more than that. But when the Church of England asks for some 60,000 appointments in what is practically the Civil Service of the country, and for the management of those public institutions to which the State contributes already £4,000,000 a year, and to which the Church in future will contribute scarcely £60,000 a year, it seems to me the Church of England goes beyond what is a just and fair claim. I wish that the right rev. Prelates could be persuaded to trust in the people a little more. If the right rev. Prelates will not think me disrespectful, I should like to say that they remind me of a row of boys standing tremulously on the brink of a chilly ocean. I think if they would only take the plunge into the sea of public opinion they would not sink, but would enjoy the exercise and find it invigorating and beneficial. There is one question to which I am most anxious to obtain an answer. We hear a great deal, if not in this House
90
at least outside, with regard to the undenominational system of education in the board schools. There are many earnest laymen in the Church of England who are perplexed that the right rev. Prelates should be willing to neglect the Church of England children who are in the board schools. Why should the Church of England children in the board schools be neglected while there is so much insistance on definite dogmatic teaching in voluntary schools? Is this dogmatic teaching necessary in the voluntary schools and unnecessary for Church of England children in the board schools? Why is not some protection claimed under this Bill for the latter? Most of your Lordships will remember what is the amount of dogmatic teaching given in our great public schools. It does seem to me that as long as Members of this and the other House are content that their children should receive instruction of the kind given in those great public schools, it is unnecessary to insist that the children of the poor should receive dogmatic instruction.
There was one remark which fell from the noble Duke when he introduced this Bill, to which I should specially like to call attention. He spoke of the absurdity of a child of fourteen being under different management from a child of fifteen, and he spoke of this Bill as doing something to remedy the inconsistency. It is difficult to see where and in what way that inconsistency is removed. There are the boroughs of over 10,000, and the urban districts of over 20,000, which are excluded from the operation of the County Council in respect of elementary education, but the authority for secondary and technical education will be the County Council. I think it is inconvenient that that should be the case. The establishment of a continuous system, which would have allowed a child to go from elementary to secondary instruction under the same management would have been far more desirable. In the county of Essex there will be two authorities for secondary education—the County Council with its education committee, and the Borough Council of West Ham with its education committee.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: West Ham is a country borough.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There will be, in addition, eleven authorities of elementary education, made up of the two elementary Councils I have just mentioned—the County Council and the Council of West Ham—and the authorities of the nine small areas which are either boroughs of over 10,000, or urban districts of over 20,000.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Council of West Ham will be an entirely separate authority.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Since the mention of one of the authorities which the Bill creates confuses the noble Duke, I will leave "West Ham out of the question altogether. I will give the noble Duke another illustration from a single parish in Yorkshire. There will be one authority in that parish for secondary education, namely, the County Council committee. In addition to that, there will be no less than nine authorities for elementary education—the County Council committee and the authorities of the eight small areas within that one parish. I could give another instance where in the West Riding of Yorkshire there will be six authorities for secondary education—the County Council committee of the West Riding and the five County Boroughs which happen to be within that area, and in that one county there will be fifteen authorities for elementary education. The noble Duke has described the Bill as being the natural offspring of the Act of 1870. That seems to me a curious expression to use in connection with a Bill the chief object of which is to kill the School Boards which were the children of the Act of 1870. That is the deed of an unnatural offspring. I think we on this side of the House have a right to complain that these new bodies have been introduced without mature deliberation, that we had no hint beforehand that they were going to be established, that they are being introduced at one fell swoop, and no attempt is being made to find out whether they will be able efficiently to discharge the work which is to be entrusted to them. For my own part, having regard to the share which, at any rate, some County Councils have taken in extending the work of technical instruction, I am not very hopeful of the way in which they will discharge their new duties. An extraordinary thing about the new county authority created by the Bill is
92
that whilst it is allowed the help of managers it is not allowed to choose them. Those noble Lords on this side of the House who think that the education will remain in the same hands as in the past, namely, in the hands of the denominational managers, are surely in the right, because the share which the County Council will take will be almost limited to paying the bill. I wish that noble Lords would imagine a similar principle applied to any other business in the country. Imagine a farmer who was told that in managine his farm he must do it with the help of the Parish Council, of whose members he is only allowed to nominate a third; imagine the London County Council being told that they were to manage the business of London through a Committee of the Carlton Club; and you have something of the position of the new education committees throughout the country. What this Bill fails to do in regard to secondary education has already been referred to by noble Lords, and I have no desire to detain your Lordships longer. For my own part, I have a high ideal as regards the educational system of this country. I think it should be one that would allow English children to be educated at least as well as children in any other country in the world. Our material is as good as that which exists elsewhere; it is only the machinery which is at fault. If I saw any prospect that this Bill would improve that machinery, I would willingly vote for it. But as it appears to me that the measure will not have that result, but will tend rather to retard the progress of education, I shall give my vote against it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I feel some reluctance in addressing your Lordship on this occasion, because I have no claim to speak as an educational expert. But there was a remark which fell last night from the lips of Lord Coleridge which gives me no little encouragement on this occasion. He told your Lordships that experts were an unreliable body of people at the best, and he went so far as to say that the educational expert was the greatest fraud of the lot. Well, my Lords, that is a phrase which is not very complimentary to such people, for instance, as the Chairman of the London School Board,

93
who, I believe, is the greatest educational expert amongst noble Lords on the other side of the House. But if it is not complimentary to him, it is, at any rate, encouraging to me. I confess that it has been very difficult for the lay mind to understand exactly what this Bill really does do. I think that the Parliamentary draftsman has in this case been even more successful than usual in concealing his meaning by the skilful use of words. We have heard discussions in the House of Commons in which the most eminent lawyers have been entirely unable to agree as to the meaning of certain Clauses, and we have had evidence in this House of the obscurity in which the Bill us wrapped. Lord Coleridge raised some doubt in the debate last night as the exact meaning of Clause 2 of the Bill, and whether it placed an optional or a mandatory authority to deal with the needs of education in the country. Well, my Lords, when we turn from the Bill itself to the speeches of those who profess to understand it, our confusion is even greater. We find, on the one hand, the Prime Minister—who, if anybody understands it, does, I suppose, understand the Bill by now—we find the Prime Minister telling us that the Bill establishes complete popular control over all the secular education of the country. But noble Lords on the other side of the House tell us that it does nothing of the sort, that on the contrary it establishes a system of nomination and selection. Then the noble Duke who introduced the Bill laid great stress on the fact that it established one authority for the schools of the county, and noble Lords opposite if they are not agreed as to the exact number, are all agreed that the authorities are more than one. Lord Burghclere made a calculation which brought the authorities out at eight, and the noble Lord who spoke last discovered five and twenty in one county. My only surprise is that upon that sort of calculation noble Lords stopped where they did. I wonder that they did not count up the number of County and Borough Councils in the country and tell us that the authorities ran into many hundreds. Then again, last night Lord Ribblesdale had a good deal to say on the subject
94
of tests, and he tried to prove that the Bill established a religious test in the selection of school teachers, and he so puzzled the noble Duke thereby that, for a moment, he was unable to recognise the Bill he had introduced a short time previously. In the midst of all this confusion and difference of opinion, the unlearned in this matter must be left to draw their own conclusions, and support or condemn the Bill according to the result they believe it will have, what ever its meaning on the education, of the most country.
It is because I believe that, the result will be far-reaching; because I believe that its influence on the educational system of the country will be in a large measure for good, and purely for good; because I believe it will remedy many of those defects in our present system which we all deplore, that I venture to think the Bill is the most important and the wisest piece of legislation which, has been before Parliament for many years. The chief opposition of the Bill has centred round two points the new educational authority which is set up and the question of religious education. In regard to the first, we are, think, all agreed that the schools should be placed under the control of one authority. We all deplore the evils of the present system of subdivided authority. It is only when we come to the question of what that new authority should be that there is any difference of opinion between us. Of the two existing authorities for education, the Government in this Bill have chosen the County and the Town Council, whereas noble Lords opposite think they ought to have chosen the School Board. It is not for me to say which would be the better of the two on educational grounds, but there appears to me to be two very good reasons for choosing these great local governing bodies to undertake education. In the first place, they are already in existence, whereas, if the Government had set about establishing universal School Boards, they would have had in many cases to call those bodies into existence. The second reason, and the one to which I attach greater importance, is this: If these great municipal bodies are to fulfil the duties which they were created to perform they must be prepared

95
to accept, and Parliament must be prepared to entrust to them, an ever increasing measure of the public business of this country, and I can think of no more important duty, and no duty which they are better qualified to undertake, than that of regulating our educational system. As time goes on the duties of these bodies must necessarily increase and largely develop, and I think it is a wise step to place this new responsibility upon them, so that, instead of being in any position of possible contact in the future with another local authority in a matter of such great local interest as education, they will themselves be the people who have to provide, maintain, and keep efficient that machinery which is to keep this country in a position to compete with its industrial and commercial rivals. I should like to say one word with regard to the education committee of this new authority. One noble Lord last night—I think it was Lord Ribblesdale declared that the Government were worshipping a fetish in this matter in their use of the word "co-ordination."
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I mentioned the word "co-ordination,"but "fetish "is not a word I ever use.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If that was not his metaphor, it was this, that co-ordination was put forward as a sort of "Mesopotamia" in which all that was wrong was put right. I admit that co-ordination has been the chief object of the Government in framing this measure. May it not be answered in return that noble Lords opposite have their Mesopotamia also, and that their Mesopotamia is the expression "ad hoc authority," a phrase they are always using in their criticisms of the Bill. In the first place, they tell us that these County Councils are not elected for the express purpose of dealing with education, and they go on to say that the committees which will do all the work of the County Councils are not elected by the people at all. It is quite true that the County Councils are not elected for any one specific purpose, but they are elected to perform adequately and efficiently all the duties which fall upon them as local administrators, precisely in the same manner as the representatives of the people in Parliament are elected not for any one specific purpose but in order to safeguard the interests of the country
96
and to carry out such measures as they think necessary for its government. Noble Lords opposite say that the Government has no mandate from the people for this measure, but that is only another instance of their worship of this particular phrase. They desire ad hoc authority from the people for every piece of legislation which is introduced into Parliament. For my part, I think that if the Government had failed to undertake this most pressing duty of organising our educational system after the conclusion of peace, they would not only have forfeited the confidence of their supporters but would have brought on themselves the condemnation of every patriotic Englishman. And so it is with the County Councils. They are elected to fulfil many duties, and they appoint in turn a number of Committees to do their work. As Lord Northbrook pointed out in an earlier stage of this debate, all the work of the County Councils is done by committees, but by committees of the Council, and not of the Carlton Club, as the noble Lord who spoke last seemed to think. I would remind your Lordships that this committee will be composed of men, and of women, too, if necessary, who will be the best qualified to advise the Council on educational matters. It is true they will not be elected directly by the people, but I do not think they will be any less efficient on that account, because they will be elected by a body who will certainly put the interest of education before anything else, inasmuch as they will be responsible to the people for the efficiency of that education.
I pass to the question whether the Bill does or does not maintain the principle of religious liberty. Many noble Lords have regretted that the subject of religion should be brought at all into this discussion. I can only congratulate your Lordships on the uncontroversial spirit in which your debate on this Bill has been carried on, but I fear that to exclude religion altogether from our discussion would be impossible. It is admitted by everybody to be the duty of the State to organise the control of education, but directly you deal with education you are immediately and inevitably brought in contact with the religious beliefs and disbeliefs of the people. Education must deal not only with the intellectual but also with the

97
moral and spiritual development of mankind. I think the people of this country are divided into two large bodies of opinion—those who think that religion is the most important subject in the education of children, and those, on the other hand, who think that religion should play no part whatever in a national system of education. But if the State were to decide in favour of the latter it could not any longer claim a position of impartiality, whereas, if it decides in favour of religious teaching, there are still two duties which the State has to perform. One is to provide a sufficient number of schools for the children of those people who do not desire religious instruction of a denominational character, and to hold the balance evenly between the different sects in those schools where religious instruction is given. I believe that was the scheme aimed at in 1870, but there was a defect in it from an educational point of view, inasmuch as it did not give equally good secular education to every child in the country. It is obviously unfair that any child, because it desired to have religious instruction, should be placed at a disadvantage as regards its secular education. This present Bill is a great advance in that respect, because for the first time, secular education in every school in the country is made the direct care of the State. Viscount Llandaff made an eloquent speech last night in which he pointed out how much the Roman Catholics of this country dreaded interference with the teaching by their priests in Roman Catholic schools, but he forgot, I think, that the terms of this Bill which deal with the election and provision of managers secure that in every Roman Catholic school, as in every other denominational school, the majority of the board of managers shall be Roman Catholics. The discipline of his Church will, I think, be sufficient to safeguard the priest even in the event of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause being retained in the Bill, against any interference on the part of managers who are themselves Roman Catholics. I have said that the object of education provided by the State should be, on the one hand, not to undermine religious influence, and, on the other, to give no unfair advantage to any sect; and it is because I believe that, that is what this measure
98
will do that I give it my support tonight. I believe that if all persons in this country, of whatever shade of opinion they may be, will but co-operate one with the other in the interest of education as a whole, and show a real spirit of tolerance for the susceptibilities—aye, and the superstitions where they are so regarded—o those who think differently on religious matters, they will find in this Bill a workable modus vivendi. In view of the great position this country is called upon to hold in the world, and in view of the ever-increasing demand for national energy and vigour, we cannot afford to neglect any of those springs whereby the country draws its life and health, I look forward to the cessation of all religious controversies when once this Bill has passed into law, and I hope we shall then see the forces of religion ranged side by side with the forces that make for knowledge and for progress, and that in the training of future generations these forces will be found yoked in all excellence of noble end, and jointly striving to raise the standard of human endeavours.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, this is an interesting occasion, interesting chiefly as a means of discussion, because, although the noble Duke in his peroration, for the purposes of his peroration, seemed to hint at the possibility of the House of Lords rejecting the Bill, no one for a moment thinks that there is any possibility of the kind. We all know perfectly well what is the fate of a Bill produced by a Conservative Government in this House, just as surely as we know what is the fate of a Bill produced by a Liberal Government in this House: and, therefore, all we could hope for in these two nights was for opportunities of discussion, of explanation and protest—unavailing discussion for the purposes of the vote, unavailing protest, and, I fear, so far as my hearing has carried me throughout these two days, unavailing explanation as well. There is another element of unreality in this discussion. Frequent allusion has been made to the fight which has been carried on in the House of Commons for the last seven months against this Bill. That fight, it is truly said, has been in the main carried on by Nonconformists, of whom the great protagonist has been Mr. Lloyd-George,

99
who has fought this Bill with a readiness of resource to which speakers on both sides of the House have done justice. But here in this House we have no representative of that great living force against this Bill, and we are compelled to discuss it quietly, intimately, as it were, between ourselves, as members of the Established Churches of England and Scotland. That gives an unreality to this discussion which cannot fail to mark the contrast with the discussions in the other House of Parliament.
There is a point to which I wish to call attention before I go any further, and I hope I shall not have to detain you so long as some of my noble friends have detained you in the course of this debate. It is a point which I myself do not fully understand. It is the almost morbid haste with which this Bill has been forced upon this House. It was read yesterday morning in the House of Commons for the third time. A few vigilant Peers connected with subordinate offices in the Government were kept in great discomfort in this House—although I trust that the Hereditary Steward attended to their requirements—they were kept up to a late hour and at great personal inconvenience in order to read the Bill a first time. They could hardly have snatched a moment of well-earned repose before they were called on to read it a second time yesterday afternoon. There is some reason, I do not doubt, for this. The noble Duke yesterday began his speech by a long preamble in which he alluded to the unexampled delays which the Bill had encountered in the House of Commons. He even compared that delay unfavourably with the delay of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. The Bill, as I understand him—for I have not taken the trouble to check his calculation, but have taken it in full faith as he gave it—had taken some ten days longer than the Home Rule Bill of 1893.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said longer in Committee.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Duke is singularly frank and honest in making that admission. I take it as longer in Committee. But I think he forgets that there is one underlying difference between the two cases. Those who opposed the Home Rule Bill in the
100
House of Commons in 1893 were animated by as full and strenuous a conviction as any that has animated the Nonconformists and others who opposed this Bill in the House of Commons. But they were not fighting with their backs to the wall. They knew that there was a resource here, and that even if they were defeated by the forces, the united forces, which then supported Mr, Gladstone's Government, they had only to bring the Bill across the lobby to the House of Lords and they were perfectly certain of its ignominious defeat. I hope that this policy of haste, of almost indecent haste—for this is a Bill which interests every one of your Lordships just as much as every member of the House of Commons—will not be carried into the proceedings of the Committee. I trust we shall have a full and fair warning of the Amendments that are going to be introduced in Committee, and time to consider them. Let me allude to one. There are one or two subjects in this Bill which are treated as skeletons in the cupboard. Government speakers, sometimes, I think, are about to approach them, but then they make a graceful flourish and do not come near them. To one of them I will allude presently, but one of them I will name at once. It is the Amendment which has given a permanent place in history, I trust, to my honourable school-fellow, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney. I am sorry that, in an unavoidable absence from the House, I did not hear what has been described to me as the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of London. He says, as it is reported to me, that the Amendment has excited widespread alarm and justifiable indignation throughout the United Kingdom.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Among the clergy.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Among the clergy! I thank the right rev. Prelate for the qualification. It is most important. But if it has excited these feelings amongst the clergy, it has excited an equal feeling, shall I say of exultation? I will not go so far as that—but certainly of relief, among the great mass of the laity. And what I think we have had a right to ask for from the Government

101
all through this discussion, and as to which we have not had one syllable, one hint, one breath of their intention, is this—what do they propose to do with regard to that Amendment, which now forms a substantial portion of the Bill? We hear rumours of Amendments. The Attorney General has announced in the House of Commons that the Government will introduce an Amendment making clear what we had hoped, after the discussions in the House of Commons, was perfectly transparent, that which is the intention and object of the Amendment. Then we hear—I do not know if I may attach faith to the rumour—that Lord James of Hereford is about to introduce an Amendment also with regard to it. Whether these two Amendments are the same, and whether they have the same object, are points on which I think this House has a right to be enlightened before it is asked to go into Committee on this Bill. We have heard a great deal about the advantages which are conferred by this Bill on the various branches of education. We have had the blessed word co-ordination reiterated almost ad nauseam. We have had explanations of that term from both sides of the House. The noble Duke yesterday gave us a list of the various reforms which have been i introduced by this Bill and for which we are to be grateful. Among them was some advantage to be gained by technical education. As to these advantages I will only say this, that you could have had the Bill, with all these advantages, through in six weeks or two months if you had chosen to leave out the bedrock principle which I am about to advert to.
But with regard to technical education I will make one remark in passing. I am not quite so certain that the advantages conferred by this Bill on technical education are so great as is generally supposed. It repeals the Bills of 1889 and 1891, I think. No doubt it gives a greater power of raising money, a greater power of giving money for that purpose. But in the Bill of 1889 there were two provisions which were of greater importance, and to which I should like to call the attention of His Majesty's Government. The first was this, that there was to be complete religious freedom in all the schools which were to be assisted by that grant, and in the
102
second place—I would venture to call the noble Duke's particular attention to this—that every public authority contributing in any way to the support of a school was to be represented in proportion to its contribution on the governing body of that school. And therefore it is without the slightest surprise that, on referring to the schedule of this Bill, I find that the very first Act which is to be repealed is that of 1889. Before I proceed to what I consider to be the main principle of this Bill, let me say this, that while you say on six or seven heads that you have conferred material boons on the nation—boons which could have been conferred in much less time and by a much smaller majority than you possess—you have done nothing, or practically nothing, to meet the two grievances which have been admitted by the Government themselves through the mouth of the Prime Minister, I mean the grievance of the single-school parishes and the grievance of the practical exclusion of the Nonconformists from the training colleges of this country.
But, after all, these are ancillary matters. On all these matters we could have arrived at some agreement with you. There is nothing to draw a broad line of separation between us here. There was always opportunity for compromise and agreement on these points. Where there is no opportunity and no field for compromise or agreement is in the treatment you have chosen to adopt to what are called the voluntary schools. Some call them Church of England Schools, though my noble friend. Lord Beauchamp, in the very pointed speech he addressed to us tonight, submitted reasons why they should not be considered, in the strictest sense of the word, to be Church of England schools. With regard to that I should like to contrast his opinion with an authority I am afraid I must place higher than his—that is, the authority of the Prime Minister. He has given us in all their nakedness, if I may so express myself, his views of the schools which you are about to maintain entirely—except as regards structure—out of public money. He says these schools are not State schools, nor are they in the acceptation of my noble friend Church schools, they are "public elementary schools belonging to the Church of England"—that is their full style and title. Well, I think that my noble friend Lord Beauchamp

103
gave us some reasons showing that they are not so entirely the property of the Church of England as that definition would appear to imply. But I take the definition as true, and I rest the case upon that definition. That definition is this—that these are schools for elementary education belonging to a great, wealthy, and powerful ecclesiastical corporation, and that you propose to deal with such schools as no other country deals with such schools in the whole civilised world. Now you are going to take these schools under your wing, you are already—though they are said by the Prime Minister to be the property of the Church of England—you have already given them grants amounting to at least one-and-a-half millions a year. You are now going to take them entirely under your protection, and with a minimum public representation you are going to find the whole of the funds for the instruction given in those schools out of various sources of revenue in the country.
The noble Marquess at the head of the Education Department told us to-day that this Bill is supported by some eminent Liberals. I do not think it is supported by any and considerable number of eminent Liberals, but their weight may be greater than their number. At any rate, he must not be unaware that these provisions of the Bill shock a very considerable. There is a name never mentioned in Ireland or in this House without honour, the name of the eldest son of the Duke of Abercorn, who certainly represents a very considerable body of Protestant feeling in the North of Ireland, and he has written saying that he cannot support this provision. There is another member of this House, Lord Manvers, and there are Sir C. Welby, Sir J. Dickson-Poynder, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Younger, and other Members I might mention who say, though they are staunch supporters of his Majesty's present advisers, they cannot support this provision of the Bill.
Now, there is a second point in the Bill up to which I have observed several members of the Government skirmish, but which they have never actually touched. The only member of this House who, speaking from a Government point of view, has had the courage to do so and to grasp the matter with a resolution worthy of a better cause is the right
104
rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who delivered such an extremely able, eloquent and interesting speech tonight. Now what were the principles the Bishop laid down? He laid down as his first maxim that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the clergy for their exertions in the cause of education when the laity were indifferent to it, and I gather that we are to infer from that that they have a claim for this extra assistance which is now about to be given them by His Majesty's Government. He had the unkindness to quote a memorial addressed by a Committee of the Quarter Sessions of Hampshire, in which was displayed a melancholy and regrettable indifference to education. The right rev. Prelate claimed that the Church had a right to expect a contribution at our hands, and it seems to me that exactly the same claim might be made on behalf of monasteries, who could say they had a prior claim for having preserved learning when it was perishing in every other part of the world; and perhaps it may not be beyond the province of some members of your Lordships House to propose that some grant be accorded to them, in recognition of their services in former years. The right rev. Prelate intimated also that these exertions on behalf of education had already met with some portion of their reward in the amount of confidence with which the clergy were treated in School Board districts. Some of them, he said, figured in exalted positions on School Boards in large towns, and I am not in the least prepared to deny that. But he must recollect that in other cases distinguished ladies, and even Roman Catholic priests, owing to the cumulative vote, occupied prominent positions on those Boards. So it does not do to lay too much stress on the gratitude of the laity to the clergy, for their exertions in this respect.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: What I referred to was not the fact that such clergy are members of School Boards, but that they are the elected Chairmen of the Board, and such election does not turn upon the cumulative vote, but is due simply to their educational capacity.
THE EARL of ROSEBERY: I am quite aware of that, but the chairman is elected

105
after the Board meets, and, therefore, the position of chairman is a comparatively limited expression of popular support or gratitude. Well, as 1 said before, the rev. Prelate claims that the control in return for the cash advanced by His Majesty's Government is practically complete over secular education given in the schools. Is that so? The secular education in the schools will be controlled by a Board of six managers on the spot. Of these, four, as we know, will be what are called foundation managers, a close corporation instituted in most trust deeds by the clergy. The minor local authority which has not the expenditure of the funds will appoint another manager and there is only one representative of the local authority for public control. What does this mean? Contrast the treatment of provided or board schools. In the board schools the managers will all be appointed by the local authority. But in these schools, so fully maintained out of the public funds, and over which, according to the right rev. Prelate, the public control is so complete, the local authority will appoint exactly one-sixth. But the right rev. Prelate pursued another method in dealing with this question in which a great example has been given by no less a person than the Prime Minister. He treated the whole question of managers as if it were a question of the appointment of the teachers; and he pointed out that the appointment of the teacher must naturally lie with the managers, and that the teacher must be a Church of England man in accordance with the general character of the school. If that were the only function of the manager, surely it would have been more generous and wise of the Church of England to throw the election of the managers somewhat more open. There would have been no difficulty in coming to an arrangement, if that were the managers' only function, by which the teacher should be limited to the Church of England in schools which have belonged to that denomination, and by which there should be a far more liberal representation of the popular element on the board. But the right rev. Prelate knows as well as the Prime Minister that that is not the only function of the managers. That is why they fight so
106
hard for this two-thirds majority on the Board. Therefore it is not by asserting an artificial control which does not really exist that you can convince the small Opposition in this House, or the much greater mass in the country that this system of management of State-supported schools is either expedient or just.
I should have thought that the very liberal provisions of this Bill would have been sufficient to satisfy the Church of England. They are to receive the whole of the cost of the teaching in the schools. They are, according to some sound calculations, by the receipt of fees and endowments and the rent of teachers' houses, to make not a bad thing even of the structural maintenance of the schools. I will not insist on that point, because we have had no figures upon them, and the Government do not seem very anxious to provide the figures. But, at any rate, surely it is a pretty good bargain to make a contribution which is as one to twelve, equal to a two-thirds majority in the management of the school. Why, if that system of rule-of-three were to prevail in this House, the Liberal Party would be in control of this House. At any rate, it is not an illiberal provision. But I am sorry to find from the speeches of the most rev. Primate and Lord Goschen that they are by no means satisfied with what is being done under the Bill. I do not want to enter into even the most friendly controversy with the venerable and pathetic figure who is not with us tonight, and whom we heard with so much pleasure and reverence last night. But I trust that my noble friend Lord Goschen will allow me to point out that his attitude in regard to this Bill—the inadequacy of its provisions and the apprehension they caused him—reminded me very much of the incident of the embassy of the children of Gideon in the Old Testament. The children of Gideon, in order to produce a certain effect, came with mouldy bread and ragged clothes and empty vessels to the children of Israel. They imposed on Joshua; but I doubt whether the representation of the noble Lord will impose upon the people of England at this moment. To make them imagine at this juncture, after all that has been done, that the bargain which has been made by the Church of England is a hard

107
bargain, is more than even all the rhetoric of the noble Viscount, who brings to us all the freshness of a House of Commons delivery, could achieve.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I said that I did not deal with the bargain at all. I abstained from touching that question. The noble Earl must have misunderstood some of my remarks.
THE EARL of ROSEBERRY: I fear it was the most rev. Primate; but as he is absent, I trust that my noble friend will not mind bearing his share of the burden on this occasion. At one point the noble Viscount almost moved me to the verge of tears. I struggled with emotion as I heard of the rural parish which is privileged to have the noble Viscount as lord of the manor. It seems to be a perfect Garden of Eden in which he wanders; apportioning the fruit of the tree of knowledge with no sparing hand, and materially assisted by the vicar of the parish. Why, he told us in accents which had quite a note of pathos in them, that so large-minded was the vicar in the parish that, at his own instance and without any hint, as I gather, from my noble friend, he took to his arms a single Nonconformist—a single Nonconformist, because there were many Nonconformists in the school—and I presume that, with the help of my noble friend and the other managers, he felt even safe, with their protection, in the presence of that ravening wolf. I do not deny that there are crumpled rose leaves in that garden of Eden. There is the question of pictures—that was a very terrible scene which my noble friend presented to us. Then there were the visits of inspectors, which my noble friend resented in a manner which caused me some surprise. There is an inspector who came to see him, whom he mentioned, I think, the Government inspector; then there is the diocesan inspector, whom he did not mention, yet who does, I think, pay visits to the voluntary schools. And then he was afraid of a new inspector to be appointed by the local authority, as to whom he has been reassured by the Minister for Education this evening that the strictest economy will be used in regard to inspectors, and, therefore, we may hope that my noble friend will not be unnecessarily harassed by that
108
inspector. The inspector of the past he cannot do away with, or the impression he has left upon my noble friend's mind, but he will endeavour to guard my noble friend against the depredations of the inspector of the future. The inspector of the past is a pestilent fellow; he goes to my noble friend's school and finds a picture, a descriptive picture, as I understand it, and, not being satisfied with the picture, he orders another at once. He is apt to do the same with the school books and works of history provided. But my noble friend may be at ease. The inspector may change the pictures and books as often as he likes; my noble friend will not have to pay; for the future that will come out of the pocket of the taxpayer and ratepayer, and, even if every inspector brings a new picture and a new book with which to supply the school, they will be supplied subject only to the control of the one-sixth representation of the local authority on the Board of management. That brings me to the question who these managers are, because, after all, that is really the point of capital importance in this Bill. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London described them—I hope by an inadvertence, an ungrateful inadvertence, if I may say so—as Squire Westerns the other day in his speech at the Albert Hall.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? There was a misapprehension with regard to this in the House of Commons. I was quoting from a letter which I had in my hand, and in which that application was made. I did not make it.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am delighted to have given this opportunity to the right rev. Prelate of disclaiming it. It was so unlike his gracious manner in private and public life that I thought there must be something wrong. Because, after all, it is not grateful to those who belong to this class—the former supporters of the voluntary schools, among whom I suppose I may reckon every member of the House I am now addressing—to describe them as Squire Western's. As a squire, I think Squire Western's instincts were sound, but he was apt to express them in somewhat forcible language. Who are the managers who are really to have the control under this popular system?

109
We can tell by looking at the trust deeds. It is apparently a calumny, according to some of the orators we have heard, to accuse the Church of having too much control in matters of this kind. But according to the trust deeds the clergy-man of the parish must be a member, and must be the chairman. And he must be chairman not merely with a vote, but with a casting vote. His curates must be members, he has the right to appoint all his curates, and in certain districts where you have three curates you will have these four managers. That is not really contemplated, I suppose, by the Government in their system of education. What is the constitution, what the electorate of these managers, and what is their tenure of office? On those points I should be very glad to receive some explanation from the Government tonight. They will be elected, I suppose, next year. Every subscriber of a sovereign, I think, according to the trust deeds, has a right to vote. I suppose some precaution will be taken by the Government against subscribing sovereigns for the purpose of getting votes. As far as I know, as the foundation managers are to be elected under the trust deeds, there is no such guarantee that that may not be done. What is the duration of their tenure? It is for life, it is perpetual, there is no limitation, they can go on for ever.
Well, let us see how that works. You have schools to which the Church of England, or the supporters of the Church of England, undoubtedly have contributed large funds, but since the building of those schools the Government grants have been growing until at last the sum contributed by the Government largely out-values the fee-simple of those schools. As years go on, if that system is to continue, that in-equality will increase until at last the original cost of those schools will entirely disappear in the aggregate of the contributions made by the State. Yet these schools will always continue to be governed by two-thirds of the body which found the original sums of money, which have disappeared, and by only one-sixth of the local authority. Do you think this is a state of things that can continue? Do you call it equity, or justice, or common sense? You say this is a national system; I venture to say it is nothing but an ecclesiastical subsidy.
110
I take another question, of which we have heard a great deal to-night, and that is the question of tests. The noble Duke spoke with some justifiable pride of his exertions in the cause of the removal of University tests, but he said this is a case which is widely different. These schools, he said, belong to the Church of England, and it is perfectly right that in the selection of teachers the Church should exact a test. My noble friend must excuse me for saying that these are the very arguments he rebutted so triumphantly thirty years ago. The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge—at Oxford, at any rate—made exactly the same claim, and with even greater justice. They were founded by great prelates, pious Churchmen, yet they pleaded, and in vain, at the knees of my noble friend that they might be allowed to preserve their tests for the Church of England. What is the difference now? I freely admit that in denominational schools, which are maintained mainly by the denomination, there may be as strict a denominational test for the teacher as you can exact; but I am bound to say that when you make these schools national, as far as you can, by the lavish expenditure of public money it is a monstrous claim in these days to make that the headships of these schools shall be closed to the Nonconformists of this country, and to maintain that this is a national system. The noble Viscount said that in a matter of this kind you have to consider the parents. I entirely agree with the remark; there is no part of his speech to which I subscribe so enthusiastically. What means have the Government taken to ascertain the wishes of the parents? Why, they had pressed upon them, when the Bill was in another place, more then one Amendment by which the parents should have been represented on the governing body of managers; they have always rejected them. I venture to say that if you adopt the principle of the noble Viscount and elicit the wishes of the parents in the selection of the managers, you will have gone a long way to settle the question of the denominational schools as regards the country at large.
Now, they say that there is no alternative to their scheme. If we have no

111
alternative, we are in a very bad way, because even so enthusiastic a Churchman as Lord Hugh Cecil expressed in the last stages of the Bill in the House of Commons his misgiving that this Bill would never settle the religious question in this country, and in that view I am able entirely to concur. But are there no alternatives? There is the Scottish system. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland says (rather dogmatically) that the system is entirely suited to Scotland, but by no means suited to England. I do not deny that may be the case, but I do say this, that I believe the Nonconformists and all the opponents of this Bill as a mass would infinitely prefer the Scottish system to the plan of this Bill. And why is that? The right rev. Prelate taunted in his good-natured way, or, if that is too strong a word, he reproached, one of the opponents of the Bill with having used language at one time inconsistent with the acceptance of the Scottish system and having turned round to some acceptance of that system. Why was that? Because in the Scottish system there lies the essence of public control, and though the opponents of the Bill have all through as a body disliked and abhorred the application of public money to denominational teaching, yet they would prefer that alternative with popular control to having no popular control at all. Then there is another desperate course, which I admit is an heroic course, and one which noble Lords here would not be prepared to face, because they have nothing to do with finance. But I say frankly, not as an absolute statement, but comparatively, that as compared with the settlement in this Bill I would infinitely rather purchase or rent the schools of the country, or build new schools, so as to recover for the nation the birthright of all nations—its control of its system of education.
Sir Edward Clarke, at the Albert Hall meeting, said, amid frantic applause, that the schools were not for sale. I should be surprised if they were for sale after the passing of this Bill, because their value has been so materially raised by this Bill that they are almost beyond the resources of England to purchase. But I believe that, as compared with this Bill, if you are driven to that last and desperate course—as it is from some points of view—it would be better to purchase, or rent, or build than to keep the schools
112
of this country under ecclesiastical subordination as they will be under this Bill. Then there is a third course. My Lords, you represent yourselves to be—and I am quite sure with truth and with honesty—a party of Imperialists. But let me say that while you are willing to take assistance from the Colonies in time of stress when they are willing to volunteer it, you are not quite so willing to receive the indication of policy which they also show you. The Colonies, young and vigorous countries, have long outstripped you in their educational course. They have shaken themselves loose from this ecclesiastical subordination. If you look all through Australia and Canada you will find a system as different from this as one system could be from another, but which conciliates the principles of liberty with the vital interests of religion. You have scripture lessons with facilities for dogmatic instruction at the beginning and end of the school hours in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, Tasmania, Manitoba, and New Brunswick; and in Ontario the Roman Catholics have accepted that system of education. In Queensland and New Zealand you have a similar system. I am bound to say that, I too, am an Imperialist, but I am an Imperialist all round. I am prepared to take the educational indications given by the Colonies as well as the more material assistance they give us in time of war.
My Lords, that is all I have to say. I am sorry to have detained you so long at this late hour. I confess that it is not with a light heart—though it is with a clear conscience—that I vote against this Bill. There is something intensely saddening in the whole scope of this measure. You might have made it a national measure; you have chosen to make it a Party measure. But what, I confess, is sadder still is the religious aspect of this question. That nineteen centuries after the birth of Christ the Reformed Churches of this country cannot agree among themselves upon a form of religious education which might be taught to children under fourteen years of age is, I think, a grave subject of reflection and meditation to the friends of all those Churches. I re-echo the eloquent eulogy passed upon the clergy of the Church of England by my noble friend Lord Goschen as to their exertions in our great cities. But I would go a little further, and while I remember

113
the exertions of the Church of England, I do not forget those other Christian Churches that vie with her in the work of the reclamation of the wretched. But I maintain that these exertions of the clergy, however meritorious, do not give them the right to control the education of the country. It is for these reasons—that that control is one which prevents the system of education in this country from being national and efficient; that because, in my judgment, the provisions of the Bill with regard to taxation and representation strike a vital blow at one of the most treasured maxims of our Constitution; because you have unsettled a settlement which was, at least, tolerated, which produced peace, while you have produced a plan which can leave nothing but civil war behind it—it is for these reasons that very deliberately and very regretfully, but with the fullest conviction of the truth of the opinions which have been expressed on this side of the House, that I record my vote against this Bill.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I shall not detain you for more than two minutes. There are many things I wish to say on this important question, but I shall postpone them for another occasion. There is, however, one thing which I and it is this. The noble Earl who has just sat down, whenever he speaks delights us with his wit and his eloquence, but I venture to think that the speech he has just made neither advances the solution of the very grave and serious question before the House, nor was it quite worthy of the subject. The noble Earl is fond of scriptural quotations. I will answer him with one. Then has not been a speech made against this Bill which has not proved to demonstration that the question before your Lordships is whether undenominational teaching under the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause is, like the lean kine in Joseph's dream, to devour the definite religious system of the denominational bodies. That is the question. Those who have spoken against this Bill will, perhaps, have some respect for the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. How did Mr. Gladstone characterise undenominational education? He said it was a moral monster professing to give what it could not give, and obtaining a position
114
under false pretences. I say that undenominational religion under the provisions of the Conscience Clause is either a denial of Christianity or a sham; and I will prove that when we are in Committee. The question is, are the children of the masses to be brought up as Christians or not? Hand them over to teachers who may believe anything or nothing, and you have cut at the root of all religious education. You say you do not wish to have a definite and distinct religion taught in the schools. Indefinite, undogmatic religion is a sham, and the cause of Christian morality cannot be separated from Christian doctrine. It was not a hazy, indefinite, undogmatic Christianity that created modern civilization; it was definite, distinct Christianity—Christianity founded on the doctrine of the Incarnation, on the belief in the triumphant resurrection of the Eternal Son of God; and it is those two things the most distinguished representatives of the undenominational system in this country wish not to be taught to the children in the board schools. This is not what I consider a perfect Bill, but if I had ever had any intention of voting against it, the speeches delivered on the Opposition side of the House would have made me vote for it with all my heart.
THK DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, before I attempt to make any reply to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Earl who sits below the Gangway, I will give some answer to one or two questions which have been put to His Majesty's Government in the course of this debate. Several speakers, and among them the noble Earl himself, asked questions on the subject of the provisions of the Bill which relate to secondary education, and some complaints have been made—complaints not altogether confined to one side of the House as to the insufficiency of those provisions. Regret has also been expressed that more mandatory instructions are not proposed to be given to the county authorities, imposing on them more strongly the duty of making adequate provision for secondary education. I think noble Lords who have dwelt on that point, rather under-rate the difficulty of laying down any precise instructions by which it would be possible to guide the action of local authorities in the

115
matter. The existing facilities for secondary education, as well as the need for secondary education, vary greatly in different parts of the country, and I think if any noble Lord would try his hand at it, he would find it an extremely difficult task to embody in any Clause of the Bill the instructions which he would consider it necessary to give to the authority. Perhaps with regard to this point I may be allowed to read a paragraph from the Report of the Secondary Education Commission, which was, I think, appointed by the noble Earl. I do not quote this Report as being completely in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. Your Lordships will see that it goes somewhat further than we do.
"We conceive"(the Commission state) "experience to have conclusively shown that private enterprise cannot entirely be relied on, and that the duty of seeing that an adequate supply of secondary education is provided must he thrown on a public authority. In our opinion this duty ought to he imposed by statute on each local educational authority, and the Central Office should be empowered to see that the duty is properly fulfilled."
Well, my Lords, our Bill certainly contains no provision which will enable the Central Office to compel the local authorities to take action in this matter. The Report continues—
"To define this obligation, and to say what is to be deemed an adequate supply, is a more difficult task. … It is, in our judgment, safe to leave the working out of the general principle above enunciated to the action of an enlightened public opinion, working both within and from without upon the local authorities, and re-inforced in extreme cases by the action of the central executive. We believe that the occasions for this re-inforcement are likely to be few; and the executive, when it has occasion to use its ultimate right of insisting on the fulfilment of the statute, will be well advised in using (as we believe it will) this right very cautiously, with a large regard to the differences between one locality and another and a perception of the truth "—
and these are really the words to which I particularly wish to direct your Lordships' attention—
"that more can generally be effected by leading local authorities than by attempting to drive them."
I quite admit that that recommendation goes a little further in some respects than we have now gone; but I think we have acted, and have been wise in acting, entirely in the spirit of the concluding words of the recommendation. The moderate tone in which the recommendation is couched is all the more remarkable
116
when we recollect that by what seems to have been an extraordinary and not altogether a wise course of action this Commission was composed almost entirely of gentlemen and ladies who were specially and mainly interested in the question of education, and that, with the exception of my right hon. friend Sir John Hibbert, and my hon. friend Mr. Henry Hobhouse, and, I think, one other Member, there were not on the Commission any persons who had had any general experience of either official or local government questions. The Report was therefore almost entirely drawn up by persons actuated, as they would themselves have acknowledged, mainly by their interest in educational questions. I think it is very remarkable that, looking at the composition of that Commission, their recommendation should have been of so moderate a character.
The noble Earl expressed some regret that we had repealed the Technical Instruction Act, and that we had omitted to re-enact some parts of the provision which he considered to be of importance. He first referred to the provision as to religious instruction contained in that Act. They have been re-enacted in the fourth Clause with some modification, and I think that if any one is of opinion that these modifications are in a disadvantageous direction that question may very well be left over for discussion at the Committee stage of the Bill, but the Clauses relating to religious instruction specially remain as they were under the Technical Instruction Act. The noble Lord asks what has become of the Clause which provided for the representation of the local authority on the governing body of assisted institutions. It is quite true that this Bill removes this obligation, but it is perfectly competent for a council, whenever it thinks fit to give aid to any educational institution, to attach such condition as to representation as is considered necessary. In our opinion this will work far better than the rigid rule which was laid down in the Act of 1 889, which, in practice, has been found in its extreme rigidity to be inconvenient in its working. I regretted somewhat to hear last night from the most rev. Prelate, whose speech we all listened to with so much sympathy, some expression of feeling on his part that the treatment of

117
the Church in this Bill had not erred on the side of generosity. I understood the most rev. Prelate to say that he thought it was a poor requital for the educational services rendered by the Church that they should still be made liable for the structural repairs of the voluntary school. I admit that there is a minor question as to the liability for what are called tenant's repairs in contradistinction to those which are called landlord's repairs. That, I think, is not a very large question; but I must remind the most rev. Prelate and the Episcopal Bench that one of the distinct conditions which, on the part of the clergy, the Joint Committee of Convocation put forward and were willing to accept on behalf of the Church, was that they were prepared to offer the authority the use of the school and to undertake the necessary repairs in addition. Therefore, I think it is rather hard that we should now be taunted with want of liberality in having accepted an offer which was freely, and, as far as I know, unconditionally made on their part.
My noble friend Lord Goschen, in the extremely interesting and animated speech which he made last night, expressed some anxiety on the score of the local inspection to which schools would become subject. I do not think that my noble friend need entertain any great anxiety on that score. I think he must have forgotten that the London School Board, and, I believe, the School Boards in other great towns, already have inspectors of their own. So far as I know, no complaint has ever arisen of any friction or inconvenience caused to the school by the action of those inspectors as well as of the inspectors under the Board of Education. It appears to me that these are perfectly distinct functions which may be very usefully discharged by these two sets of inspectors. The inspector of the Board of Education can only inspect as to the general efficiency of the schools; it is not his duty to report on, or to give directions as to the suitability of the school to the district. That, I take it, will be more directly and immediately the province of the local authority's inspector in the cases where they think it necessary to appoint one and use their powers of inspection. It may well be that a school which is perfectly efficient may be found to be, in
118
the opinion of the local authority, of a type not suited to the particular needs of that locality, and the information which would be given to the local authority by its inspector on such a point as that could not, I think, fail to be of value both to the authority and to the managers of the school.
The noble Earl who has just sat down said that we had carefully avoided approaching the subject of what is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I did not think that it was incumbent on any Member of the Government to approach that subject, because I believe until tonight it has not been mentioned by any speaker in this House.
EARL SPENCER: I mentioned it last night.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I regret to say I do not recollect what the noble Earl said about it. I did not catch his observation. All I can say on that subject is, that the interpretation which is placed upon the Clause by the Government and by the legal advisers of the Government, has been fully stated in the other House. If, when we go into committee, that interpretation is questioned, if it is not accepted as being the true meaning of the Clause, it may become necessary, as was indicated by the Attorney General in another place, to consider some Amendments which may make its meaning perfectly clear. Now. my Lords, I come to the attack which has been made by the noble Earl, as well as by others, upon the elementary provisions under the Bill. I think the criticism has almost entirely turned on two points, mainly—the absence of proper control, and what may be called religious tests. It is extremely difficult to separate the question of popular representation on the management of schools from that of the character of the religious instruction to be given in these schools. But they are distinct points, and I shall endeavour to keep them as far as I can separate. The noble Earl in the speeches which he has made elsewhere, and to a great degree in the speech which he has just delivered, has put it on what I may call the arithmetical argument, but I think I can show that that argument is entirely fallacious. I am not sure whether to-night he repeated his rule-of-three sum, but I think in his speech at

119
Edinburgh he adopted from Mr. Asquith the allegation that the Government's rule of arithmetic appeared to be that as eleven was to one, which was the proportion of the Government to voluntary contributions, so was two to four, which was the proportion of representation between the local authority and the denominational managers. Well, my Lords, I say it is not difficult to show that this arithmetical argument is entirely fallacious. On what ground is it contended that the local authority representing the ratepayers are to have a large majority, or a majority at all, upon the management of these schools? Noble Lords do not seem to consider what are the sources from which the maintenance of schools is derived. It is derived from three sources, first from the voluntary subscribers who have provided the schools and who will still have the charge of the necessary repairs. That, I admit, is not a very large, although it will not be an altogether insignificant, portion of the cost of the maintenance of the schools. Next comes the contribution of the State, which is by far the largest part, and, lastly, comes the contribution which is hereafter to be made by the ratepayers. As I said, I think, in my speech yesterday, it is very difficult, in fact it is impossible, to make any accurate calculation of what these relative proportions will be, but I think it may certainly be said that on an average the contributions given by the State from the taxes will amount to something like two-thirds, and the amount contributed by the ratepayers about one-third. What possible claim can there be that the ratepayers should have the complete, or even a preponderating share in the management of these schools? If anyone has a right to be represented on the management of the schools in a majority it is not the ratepayers but the taxpayers.
THE EARL Of ROSEBERY: I never asserted it on behalf of the ratepayers. I asserted it on behalf of the public.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is exactly what I say.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: What representation has the public?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is just what I am going to tell the noble Earl. If we are to constitute these boards
120
of management in proportion to the contributions there will be a certain number appointed by the ratepayers, a certain number appointed by the ratepayers, a certain number appointed by the voluntary subscribers, and a certain number appointed by the State, but as it is manifestly impossible that the Board of Education can send representatives to act as managers of every school to the support of which it so liberally contributes, the State must be content with the control which it exercises, which is and will continue to be a very real control, in the inspection it conducts of these schools and in the action which it can take if it thinks necessary on the report of its inspector. I deny altogether that any majority appointed by the ratepayers will adequately represent the interests of the State, of the taxpayer who contributes the greater part of the cost of the maintenance of these schools. It seems to me to follow from this that if the State has a right to a controlling voice in the management of the schools which it does most to support, it also should have a controlling voice in deciding what is to be the character of the instruction given in those schools. If the State is of opinion, as it is at present, as represented by His Majesty's advisers, that in that instruction definite religious teachings should not be excluded, then it appears to me to be incumbent upon those who represent the State in this matter, that they should take precautions to prevent the management of the school being so constituted as to defeat that intention on their part. I have said that it is very difficult to separate the question of popular local representation form the religious question, and I believe it is really impossible, because if we are of opinion that definite religious teaching is not to be excluded from State-supported schools, it is, in my opinion, impossible to see how that object can be accomplished if you are going to give a preponderating representation, which may be—it will not be in all cases but it may be in some—entirely subversive of any such intention. How, if you insist upon a popularly-appointed majority on the Board of Management of every school, are you to secure that the teaching in those schools shall retain a distinctive religious character? The Board of Managers may decide, for example, that the Catechism shall not be taught,

121
and they may abuse their power of appointing the teacher by the appointment, not only of a Nonconformist-but even, if they think fit, of a Roman Catholic teacher in a Church school. I ask, how are we to secure the maintenance of the definite religious teaching for which a school has been founded unless some security is provided in some form or another that the teacher shall be of the faith which the school was founded to further?
The noble Earl said that it was monstrous that in schools which were wholly supported by the State it would be impossible for Nonconformists to become head teachers. It is equally monstrous that it should be possible for a securalist to become head teacher. But if it were possible for Nonconformists to be head teachers, what security is provided for maintaining the definite religious character of the school? If this is your view, you have nothing to do but to propose a provision which shall exclude religious teaching from the schools altogether, or, if you prefer an undenominational system, you have simply to enact that the Cowper-Temple Clause should be applied in future to every school which receives State assistance. But, as I endeavoured to point out in my speech yesterday in moving the Second Reading, noble Lords opposite have never committed themselves to either of those propositions, and I believe many of them to be as opposed as any of us to the establishment of a purely secular system in our schools. I have endeavoured, in vain, to extract from noble Lords opposite, whether they are prepared to say that the teaching in these schools shall, in future, be purely undenominational or not. They have shrunk from any definite declaration on that subject, and it only remains to be seen whether, in Committee, they are prepared to move—and this is a simple way of clearing up the matter—a definite Clause, enacting the Cowper-Temple Clause in every State-assisted school. The noble Earl, at the close of his speech, expressed great admiration for the Scottish system, and indicated that that system might,
with advantage, be adopted in this country. He also expressed his approval of the system, which he briefly described, prevailing in some of our Colonies. But I ask the noble Earl whether either the Scottish system or the system which obtains in the Colonies, can be adopted here consistently with the retention of the Cowper-Temple Clause'? I ask the noble Earl whether he is prepared, whether his friends are prepared, or whether the Nonconformists of the country are prepared, to give up the Cowper-Temple Clause as it now exists in every provided school? If they are not so prepared, it is impossible to adopt either of the alternatives which the noble Earl has suggested. Believing as I do that, much as the Nonconformists dislike and distrust the provisions of this Bill, they would still more dislike and distrust any proposal to abrogate that Clause which they consider to be the great protection of their rights, I hold that we should have been very badly advised if we had substituted for our proposals any of the proposals suggested by the noble Earl. Many anticipations have been expressed in the course of this debate as to the probable working of the Bill. Many noble Lords have indulged in something approaching prophecy. I wish it were possible for any of us to feel sure what would be the working of a measure so complex and so full of difficult controversial questions, as any measure on this subject must necessarily be. But if I had to express my opinion of how the Bill is likely to work, I could, with the greatest confidence, say that I share the views expressed by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who addressed your lordships tonight with much ability, and most confidently expect that the great portion of the passions and excitement aroused by the Measure will subside at its passing, rather than the views of the noble Earl opposite, who, in language of at least some exaggeration, expressed the opinion that the Measure was going to lead to a civil war.
On Question whether "now "shall stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:-Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury (L. Chancellor.)

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Grafton, D.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Bedford, D.

Wellington, D.

Halifax, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fingall, L. ((E. Fingall)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Forester, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Knutsford, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bath. M.

Llandaff, V.

Glanusk, L.

Winchester. M.

Peel, V.

Glenesk, L.

Zetland, M.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.)

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Abingdon, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Amherst, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Hillingdon, L.

Belmore, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Camperdown, E.

London, L. Bp.

James, L.

Cawdor, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

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

Dartmouth, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Denbigh, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

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

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Egerton, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Eldon, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Lindley, L.

Feversham, E.

Ludlow, L.

Howe, E.

Addington, L.

Macnaghten L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Allerton, L.

Manners, L.

Lindsey, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Londesborough, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu L.

Lucan, E.

Balfour, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Lytton, E.

Barnard, L.

Muncaster, L.

Manvers, E.

Barrymore, L.

Newton, L.

Morley, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

North, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Belper, L.

Northbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Braybrooke, L.

O'Brien, L.

Northbrook, E.

Bray, L.

Rathmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Redesdale, L.

Romney, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Robertson, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Burton, L.

Rowton, L.

Selborne, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Carew, L.

Seaton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Shand, L.

Tankerville, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sherborne, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Chelmsford, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Verulam, E.

Clifford and Chudleigh, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Colchester, L.

Stanmore, L.

Wharneliffe, E.

Congleton, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Tenterden, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Teynham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Torphichen, L.

Falkland, V.

De Manley, L.

Tweeddale L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Falmouth, V.

Dunboyne, L.

Windsor, L.

Goschen, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, I.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Heneage, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudown)

Reay, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Boyle, L. (E. CorkandOrrery.)

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, E.

Brassey, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Durham, E.

Burghelere, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Kimberley, E.

Coleridge, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

Portsmouth, E.

Davey, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Rosslyn, E.

Denman, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Russell, E.

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

Wandsworth, L.

Spencer, E.

Welby, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Farrer, L.

Hampden, V.

Headley, L.

Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m., to Monday next a quarter before Eleven o'clock.