Sitting of 30 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANS-FER) BILL,
HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES) BILL,
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL,
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM-WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL,
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House [29th July], considered, and agreed to.

WIGAN CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered; A Clause s added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [LORDS].
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders Confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From South Shields (six); Plymouth; Rochdale; Woolwich; Oadby; and Saltcoats; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From East Hull: Southampton; and Yateley; to lie upon the Table.
  FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GODDEN, JOHN.
  Petition of John Godden, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Wolverhampton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Copy presented, of Statistics of Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1902, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 26th July, 1902, declaring that Alfred Cook, boy, third class, Royal Gunpowder Factory, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (county of Middlesex) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (county of Glamorgan) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (county of Chester) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of General Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors on Science and Art Schools and Classes and Evening Schools, and of Examiners in Science and Art, for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (IN TELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1891, and other Acts for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Railway Shunting—Tow-roping.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade,
  120
  in view of the dangers arising from the practice of tow-roping, will he consider the expediency of representing to the railway companies throughout the Kingdom the desirability of a discontinuance of the practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) One of the rules framed by the Board of Trade under the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, provides that, after twelve months from the coming into operation of the rules, tow-roping shall not be allowed, except in cases where no other reasonably practicable means can be provided for dealing with the traffic. This rule has been confirmed by the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission, and will now be formally made and become operative

  Post Office Savings Bank Accounts.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state for the year ending 31st December last the number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank with balances of less than £50, and the aggregate amount represented by these accounts; and will he state the number of accounts with balances of £50 and upwards with the amount which they represent.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General regrets that the labour and expense of ascertaining in respect of last year the particulars desired by the hon. Member would not be warranted. He thinks, however, that the following figures for 1899 may, perhaps, serve the hon. Member's purpose:—Accounts with balances of £50 and less, 7,211,244, £42,502,887; Accounts with balances above £50, 805,436, £87,615,718.

  Cruit Island (Donegal) Postal Facilities.
  MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.); To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that upwards of 1,100 letters and parcels were delivered during the year 1901 at Cruit Island, Kincasslagh, County Donegal; and whether he can arrange to meet the wish of the inhabitants, numbering fifty-two families, for a daily service of letters.

  121
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No record has been kept by the Post Office of the number of letters and parcels delivered during the year 1901 at Cruit Island, Kincasslagh, County Donegal; but assuming the hon. Member's figures to be correct, the Postmaster General fears that he would not be warranted in incurring additional expenditure for the purpose of affording a daily delivery in lieu of the existing delivery on four days a week.

  Customs Senior Assistant Clerks—Annual Leave.
  MR CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering that second division clerks and Customs port clerks are granted an additional seven days annual leave, exclusive of bank holidays and the King's Birthday, after five years service, and in London the port clerks enjoy a further seven days after ten years service, arrangements can be made whereby an additional amount of annual leave may be granted to the Customs senior assistant clerks whose length of service, established and unestablished, ranges from fifteen to twenty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am unable to alter the decision contained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant.†

  Telegraphists on Special Service—Sub sistence Allowances.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a number of telegraphists who have been sent to telegraph offices at race meetings and other special events during the last two months have not been paid their subsistence allowances; and whether, seeing that these men have been put to considerable expense as a result of lodging away from home, the sums due to them can now be paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Austin Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General is only aware of one case, in which, owing to the official
  †See preceding volume, p. 1008.
  122
  papers having been unfortunately mislaid, the subsistence allowances have not been duly paid. Instructions have now been given for payment to be made.

  Walsoken (Norfolk) Telegraphic Accom- modation.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the population and character of the industry of the district, he is now prepared to recommend that a postal telegraph office be open at Walsoken.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General has already authorised an extension of the telegraph to New Walsoken, to be carried out in connection with a guaranteed extension to West Walton.

  India—Military Hospitals—Surgical Appliances
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements have yet been made to withdraw from the Military hospitals in India surgical instruments fitted with wooden handles, and to supersede them by instruments with metal handles and of modern type.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The whole question of the provision of aseptic instruments and appliances for Military hospitalsin India is now under the consideration of the Government of India. The steps to be taken in the matter will be reported by them as soon as possible.

  Burma—Opium Scheme
  MR. H.J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can lay upon the Table the draft of the new opium scheme for Burma, of which particulars have appeared in India, and which has been under consideration for some time past; also what means are being taken to ascertain Barman opinion on the new scheme, and whether it is calculated to lessen the evils produced by opium consumption in Burma, as set forth by Chief Commissioners Sir Charles N. Aitchison, and Sir Alexander Mackenzie.

  123
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not as yet received a copy of the regulations for giving effect to the revised arrangements for the licensed sale of opium in Burma, which I have sanctioned with the object of suppressing smuggling and checking illicit consumption. These arrangements were the result of careful and prolonged inquiries on the part of the Government of Burma, and I have every reason to think that due account was taken of the wishes and habits of the people.

  Channel Islands—Charge of Stealing a Boy.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware Mr. Liuvee Harris, sometime resident in Jersey and Guernsey, was charged at Weymouth with stealing a boy whom he had adopted and maintained for twelve months with the full consent of the parents, and although the justices refused to entertain the charge was subsequently arrested on a warrant of the jurats of Guernsey, where he was taken in custody and sentenced to three months imprisonment; whether he will consider the propriety of repealing the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, as regards the Channel Islands, and leave such cases to the operation of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881; and whether he will recommend compensation to Mr. Harris for the imprisonment he has undergone.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Ritchie.) I have no reason to think that Mr Harris was wrongly convicted, nor is this a case in which the suggestion of compensation could be entertained. I cannot undertake to legislate in the direction desired.

  Vaccination Prosecutions—Grimston (Norfolk) Case.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the case of Sydney Ed. Pratt who, on Monday the 21st instant, was prosecuted before the Bench at Grimston, Norfolk, for failing to have his child vaccinated, and fined 10s. and 12s. 6d. costs, though he had on two occasions appeared before the same Bench asking
  124
  for a certificate of exemption on conscientious grounds; and will he say whether he is prepared to promote legislation to deal with such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Ritchie.) If, as would appear from the Question, the defendant had not established his claim to a certificate of exemption, it is not clear on what grounds it can be suggested that the conviction was wrong, or that any action on my part is called for.

  Coronation Naval Review.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what arrangements have been made to enable Colonial and Indian guests to witness the Naval Review.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty are in communication with the Colonial Office and India Office, and, as soon as it is known what their requirements are, arrangements will be made to meet them as far as is practicable.

  Dunquin Dingle (Kerry) Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the necessity for a pier at Dunquin Dingle, and the present rates and circumstances of the district, he will advise the Board to increase their grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are no funds available at present, but, as I said on Monday, I will give the matter my personal attention.

  Boyle Magistrates.
  MR. M'KEAN (Monaghan, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many justices of the peace there are permanently residing in the petty sessions district of Boyle; of this number how many are Roman Catholics; and will he consider the advisability of appointing additional magistrates for this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Exclusive of ex-officio justices under the Local Government Act, there are six ordinary magistrates who have residences in or

  125
  immediately adjoining the Boyle petty sessions district, of whom five are Protestants and one is a Roman Catholic. There are also ten other magistrates, of whom three are Roman Catholics, who were authorised when appointed to attend the Boyle petty sessions, but they are not resident in the district. The Lord Chancellor and the Lieutenant of the county are always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified persons that may be brought to their notice.

  Irish Agricultural Inspectors— Mr. W. H. Crawford.
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down Co., S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. W. H. Crawford, an Inspector under the Agricultural Board for the nomination of bulls, has, through himself and through relatives, bought and sold bulls which subsequently received nominations; and whether he can state how many nominations were made by Crawford at the Cork Spring Show, at which some animals were sold for over forty guineas.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Crawford is occasionally employed as inspector of pedigree bulls for premiums under the Department's live stock schemes. The Department has no cognisance of his private transactions as a farmer, and has no reason to doubt his integrity. Eleven bulls were selected for premiums at Cork.

  Army—Re-enlistment Bounties.
  MR. KENNETH BALFOUR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the grant to time-expired men who have served more than one year after their period of service with the colours, if they now return to civil life, of a bounty of 14s. for each month completed beyond the extra year they have served, will be extended to those who would otherwise be eligible, but who have elected to prolong their period of service with the colours instead of passing into the Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Soldiers extending their service or reengaging will receive the special gratuities to which they would have been
  126
  entitled had they been transferred to the Reserve or taken their discharge.

  Guard Room Beds.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the advisability of abolishing the guard bed, which consists of sloping planks with a wooden head-rest, and which is at present in use in guard rooms in the United Kingdom; and if so, whether he will state what action has been taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Experiments are being made with new guard beds, and I hope we may be able to add to the soldier's comfort when on guard.

  South African War—Return of Parole Prisoners.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether prisoners of war on parole, at present in England or elsewhere, are allowed to proceed to South Africa provided they are prepared to pay their own expenses and duly declare their acceptance of the position of subjects of His Majesty King Edward VII.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Prisoners of war on parole, provided they are burghers of the late republics, come under the arrangements explained to the hon. Member on the 16th instant in regard to prisoners of war generally.

  Army Officers' Resignations.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House of the total number of applications for resignation that have been sent in (from the conclusion of peace to the present date) by the officers of the Regular Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Sixty-five such applications have been made.

  Pay of Non-commissioned Officers and Privates.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the new scheme of pay for

  127
  the Regular Army, the non-commissioned officers receive any increase, and, if so, what proportion does it bear to the increase to be allowed to the rank and file.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Non-commissioned officers and privates participate equally in the new advantages, and it has been decided to considerably increase the number of the paid lance ranks.

  Hong Kong Municipal Council.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of establishing a Municipal Council in Hong Kong, on lines similar to the Councils which have already been established at Shanghai, Singapore, and Penang, is again under consideration; and, if so, will he say when he expects to arrive at a decision on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have not received any representations on this subject lately, and there has therefore been no occasion to re-open the question.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South African War—General Inquiry.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now inform the House what will be the order of reference to the Commission to be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the war, and how the Committee will be composed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have not been able to get on with the formation of this Commission as quickly as could be desired, but I am glad to say that I hope confidently that we have been able to secure the services of Lord Elgin as chairman. Lord Elgin is a gentleman who has taken no part in the controversies connected with the war, and I think he commands universal respect. We propose that the Commission shall not be a large one. I should be disposed, without committing
  128
  myself absolutely, to confine it to about seven with Lord Elgin as chairman. I do not propose to put a political element upon it at all from either side of the House if I can possibly avoid it. As to the reference to the Commission, I think it ought to be in general terms, and yet I do not want to throw upon the Commission the intolerable burden of inquiring into every kind of transaction throughout the whole course of the war. I thought if we could frame the reference so that no question connected with contracts of any kind made during the war should be outside their purview, and which would also enable them to inquire into the preparations for the war, we need not have any military events inquired into after the occupation of Pretoria. I think that would be some relief to the Commission, and I do not think that it would do any injury to any of the interests which are anxious for the inquiry. The sort of reference I should suggest would be "to inquire into the supply of men, munitions, equipment, and transport in connection with the South African war, and into the military operations up to the occupation of Pretoria." I have given to the House a full account, perhaps a fuller account than I ought to have given, of a matter which is still pending, but I wanted to take the House into our confidence, so that there should be no secrecy about the matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it intended that the Commission shall be composed of civilians or soldiers or both civilians and soldiers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My idea of the composition of the Commission is that we should have a civilian chairman, and that probably civilians should be in the majority; but I think that there should be a military representative and also a naval representative.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Will the inquiry include land as well as sea transport?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I want to include everything. I am very anxious that nothing should be kept out.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): May I ask whether the reference will cover the work of the Intelligence Department before the war?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it is certainly intended to cover the preparations for the war.

  Repatriation of Boer Prisoners.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken for the repatriation of the Boer prisoners of war still kept in Bermuda; whether permission will now be given to such of those prisoners as may be willing to pay the price of their own passage back to leave Bermuda in order that they may return to South Africa; and how soon transports will be sent to Bermuda to convey to South Africa those prisoners who desire to return thither, and are not able to pay for their own passages.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): 350 prisoners of war have sailed already, and 1,000 more will leave Bermuda about 10th August. Arrangements will be made for further batches to leave as soon as they can be received in South Africa. Those who are willing to pay their own passage may do so, provided they obtain permission from their Camp Commandant and secure the concurrence of the High Commissioner: only three have applied for such permission up to the present.

  Volunteer Colonists for South Africa.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what facilities are being given to active service volunteers who desire to remain in South Africa to obtain employment, and what steps Volunteers should take in order to secure such employment.
  LORD STANLEY: Active service Volunteers who obtain employment will be allowed to take their discharge in South Africa. I have no information as to the grant of any special facilities to such Volunteers for obtaining employment, but they will retain their right to a free passage home up to twelve months from the date of discharge.

  Reservists on Working Furlough— Gratuity Grievance.
  MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the steps taken by the War Office to inform reservists to whom working furlough had been granted prior to the issue of the Army Order 200, of September, 1901, of the terms of that Order; is he aware that men were allowed to continue on furlough in ignorance of the effect of the Order in depriving them for every week they remained on furlough of the gratuity earned by one month of service, until the whole of the gratuity earned during mobilisation was forfeited, and were in some cases not informed of the fact until after their final discharge; and, seeing that officers engaged in making up the accounts of reservists prior to demobilisation included the full gratuity earned, and that subsequently the gratuity, or a portion of the gratuity, was deducted from the amount paid, will he state the number of men so treated, and consider the desirability of paying them the full amounts to which they were led to suppose themselves entitled.
  LORD STANLEY: This information was, as usual, promulgated by Army Order. It is not practicable to communicate with each man on furlough as to the nature of Army Orders published during his absence. It is not proposed to add a furlough gratuity to the furlough already granted to these men. I am not aware of the numbers of men so treated.

  Garrison Churches in South Africa.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of questions which have arisen in India, the regulations for the use of the garrison churches in South Africa, erected in whole or in part by public funds, will be so framed as to provide for equal rights as to conducting services therein by the chaplains of the Presbyterian, Anglican, and other communions who desire the use of such fabrics.
  LORD STANLEY: The churches at present in use in South Africa are, with

  131
  one exception, under local, and not military, control. The question raised will be carefully considered when the contingency arises.

  Remounts—The Studdert Case.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the law officers of the Crown have yet completed their inquiries as to the possibility of a prosecution in the Irish remounts case.
  LORD STANLEY: The case referred to is still under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. No time is being lost in this matter.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I shall repeat the Question this day week.

  Russia and the Persian Gulf.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any information as to purchases by a Russian consul of land in the Island of Bahrein, in the Persian Gulf, and, if so, can he state what is the extent of those purchases; and whether, with a view to prevent complications in Persia, His Majesty's Government will take advantage of the approaching visit to England of the Shah of Persia to concert with His Majesty and also with the Russian Government measures calculated to secure the independence and integrity of Persia by a formal Treaty to be substituted for the expression of views and the assurance of desiresand intentions which form the understanding embodied in correspondence between 1834 and 1888 and now existing.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. I am confident that neither the House nor my hon. friend will expect me to make any statement as to the subjects which it may be possible to discuss with the Shah of Persia during his visit to this country.

  Alleged Boycotting at St. Helens.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting held last week at St. Helens, when it was decided to form a combination to boycott people dealing with the local co-operative society; whether a vigilance committee was started, and a list of workers and others having connection with the co-operative society was exhibited; and whether the Home Department have given any instructions to magistrates to investigate the conduct of the shopkeepers engaged in these proceedings.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have no information on this subject beyond the reports which I have seen in the newspapers; and I have no power in any event to give the magistrates such instructions as are suggested in the Question.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt the accuracy of the report in the newspaper?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Consumption in Elementary Schools.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he has any official information showing that consumption is more prevalent among teachers in elementary schools than in other classes of the community; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of the application of remedial measures.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education have no such information and no reason for supposing that consumption is specially prevalent amongst teachers. The remedy for such disease as exists would be better ventilation of schools.

  Irish University Commission — Expenditure.
  MR. ROCHE (Galloway, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount

  133
  expended on the Irish University Commission up to date, and also the the amount received by each member of it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire): The expenses of this Commission up to the present time are, in round figures: salaries, £450; travelling expenses, £1,200; shorthand, £570; printing and miscellaneous expenses, £1,000. No remuneration is paid to any member of the Commission.

  Pauper Domicile—Yorkshire Paupers sent to Ireland.
  MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state on what grounds he cancelled the granting of 5s. a week out-door relief by the Pontefract Guardians to John Gilmore and Bridget Gilmore, who are at present domiciled in Mohill Union, Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Will the hon. Member allow me to reply to this Question on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman. The relief in this case appears to have been ordered by the Guardians under a misapprehension of their powers. They had no legal authority to give relief to these persons whilst they were residing out of England. This my right hon. friend pointed out to the Guardians. He did not cancel their order. Indeed he sanctioned the payment up to the end of the June quarter; but he could not sanction the indefinite continuance of an expenditure which would be illegal.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Ponte-fract Union sent to Mohill Union, Ireland, seven years ago, a couple named John and Bridget Gilmore, allowing them 5s. a week out-door relief; and whether, as this relief has now been stopped by the Pontefract Union, the Local Government Board will consent to these parties being sent back by the Mohill Guardians to Pontefract.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The allowance was stopped by the Pontefract Guardians,
  134
  the English Local Government Board having advised that there was no legal authority for its payment. The Irish Department is not empowered to consent to the return of the parties to Pontefract, nor would the guardians of the Mohill Union be acting legally in expending the rates for this purpose.

  Jury Challenging at Cork Summer Assizes.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Cork Summer Assizes within the past week, in the case of a man named Edward Horgan, indicted for a dangerous assault, twenty-seven or twenty-eight jurors were challenged by the representatives of the Crown; and will he say if this action had the sanction of the Irish law officer; and, seeing that in the case of Quartermaster Sergeant Rammage, of the Royal Engineers, indicted for breaking into the Sacristy of a Roman Catholic Church, no jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand by, will he explain why a different course was adopted in regard to this soldier.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The Crown solicitor, in setting aside twenty-eight jurors in the first mentioned case, acted strictly in accordance with the instructions issued to him in February, 1894. No special directions were given to him by the law officers. Jurors are only set aside where the Crown solicitor has reason to believe that, if sworn, they would not find a true verdict on the evidence. No such apprehension was entertained in the second mentioned case. The defendant was a complete stranger to the city and county of Cork. Moreover, counsel for the Crown advised the Crown solicitor that the charge against him could not be sustained in law, and by direction of the judge he was acquitted.
  MR. FLYNN: Was there any reason to believe that a true verdict would not be returned in Horgan's case?
  MR. ATKINSON: The Crown solicitor must have had reason to believe that the jurors set aside would not return a true verdict.

  135
  Other hon. Members rose to put supplementary Questions, but were stopped by the Speaker.

  Land Purchase in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the delay that has occurred in proceedings for the sale of O'Brien and another estate in Comakelly and Corglass, County Longford, he can direct the Land Commission to obtain a request for a sale of these lands to the tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate is being administered in the Court of the land judge, where the proceedings have not yet reached the stage at which a request for an inspection under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896 could be issued. The Land Commission has no power to take the initiative in obtaining a request.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this stage has not been reached?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; it is altogether outside my province.

  Small Dwellings Acquisition (Ireland) Act.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to have the rules under the Small Dwellings Acquisition (Ireland) Act remodelled, so as to obviate the necessity of the present guarantee in cash being required from the poorer class of tenant purchasers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rules referred to were issued in pursuance of the Act and cannot be remodelled in the direction suggested. The Act itself prescribes the limits within which a local authority may advance money for the purchase of houses, and legislation would be necessary to effect any alteration in those limits. I cannot undertake to introduce such legislation.

  Craughwell Murder (1884).
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if a constable
  136
  named Redington appeared as a witness in the prosecution of two men, named Finegan and Muldowney, for murder at Craughwell, County Galway, eighteen years ago; whether he can state Redington's present rank and where he is stationed at present?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sergeant Redington was a witness in this case. He was promoted to the rank of district inspector in September, 1897, and is now stationed at Granard, County Longford.
  MR. TULLY: Was he the district inspector in charge of Sheridan?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a resolution has been passed by the Mohill Board of Guardians praying for the release of a prisoner named Muldowney, convicted of the Craughwell murder eighteen years ago; and whether he will have a further inquiry made with a view to the remission of his life sentence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not my province to act as suggested in this Question. Any representations in favour of a mitigation of sentence should be addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, in whom alone is vested the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

  W. L. Rae's Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the receiver on the estate of W. L. Rae, Killorglin, Kerry, sent a telegram directed to Mr. Doyle, to be given to the inspector of the court while valuing the estate, asking him to give certain plots in possession of Leane to Doyle; and will he state what steps will be taken in respect of the receiver's action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The receiver states that he sent no such telegram.

  Rathfarnham Court House.
  MR. MOONEY (Dublin Co., S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  137
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the fact that during the recent elections under the Local Government Act, a meeting was held in Rathfarnham (County Dublin) petty sessions court by the Conservatives, in furtherance of the candidature of Colonel Hercules Rowley, of Marley Grange, Rathfarnham; and will he state what steps, if any, were taken by the authorities to prevent a political meeting of this kind from being held in the court-house.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that Colonel Rowley was not a candidate at the elections referred to, and that no meeting was held by Conservatives in the court house on the occasion.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Votes are to be taken tomorrow, and in what order; also as to Monday and Tuesday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Tomorrow (Thursday) I propose to take the West Indies Vote for a grant in aid as the first Order, and the Excess Vote as the second Order. We ought to get the latter in the course of the sitting, in order to enable us to close up Supply in due course. To follow these I shall put down the Report of the Army Votes obtained on 17th July. At the evening sitting two Irish Bills will be taken. Friday will be devoted to the Education Bill, and Monday and Tuesday, of course, to Supply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Report of Supply to be taken include the Vote for the Ben Nevis Observatory? There was, I think, an understanding that we should have an adequate opportunity of discussing that Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope I shall be able to find time on Tuesday for a discussion of the Vote for Ben Nevis Observatory on Report of Supply.
  MR. BRYCE: May we assume that the Food and Drugs Act Amendment Bill will not be proceeded with?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take that Bill tomorrow night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the two Irish Bills will take up the time. I will put it down on Thursday in next week.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With reference to the Excess Vote, and the statement that that must be obtained to-morrow, are we to understand that if the West India Vote occupies all the sitting the Excess Vote will be taken without discussion? This is very important, as it involves an expenditure of nearly £3,000,000 not sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do my best to bring the discussion on the West Indian Vote to a conclusion in time to give opportunity for discussing the Army Excess Vote. With regard to Report of Supply, the Army Votes must come first, as the War Office is very much in need of funds.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Can the Secretary to the Treasury say when the annual explanation of the Public Works Loans Bill will be circulated?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was under the impression that it had been. I will inquire.

  IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Ninth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 7—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local

  139
  education authority are the council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district they may if they think fit appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine.
  (2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four i appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed—(a) where the local education authority are the council of a county, one by that council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.
  (3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is or has been during the last twelve months a scholar in the school.
  (4) The "minor local authority" means the council of any borough or urban district, or the parish council or (where there is no parish council) the parish meeting of any parish, which appears to the county council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the county council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority the county council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  (Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RUNCIMAN: On a Question of Order. There is a discrepancy between the Parliamentary Paper circulated this morning and the White Paper just distributed. Four Amendments which were on the former have disappeared—one was in the name of the hon. Member for Horsham; two in the name of the hon. Member for the Morley Division, and one in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax. By which Paper are we to be guided?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that these Amendments appeared by mistake on the Blue Paper. The reason is this. There was an Amendment on Monday evening in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax, which I ruled out of order. That appeared on the Blue Paper after it had been disposed of, and at the last thing at night the other three Amendments were handed in. We had, however, passed the point at which they
  140
  could be inserted, and they ought not, therefore, to have appeared on the Blue Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Is it not the fact that the Blue Paper is the effectual Notice Paper, and not the White Paper?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The White Paper is the Paper on which the House works. If the hon. Member had been here during the last twelve sittings he would have seen hon. Members working on the White Paper.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said that when the Prime Minister agreed to report Progress on Monday night it was understood that hon. Members should when Committee was resumed be perfectly free to move Amendments to the second sub-section.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I fear there has been some misunderstanding. On my marked Paper I have struck out the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford, and also that in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax. They dealt with subjects which it had been agreed should be brought up at a later stage.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)moved to insert at the commencement of this subsection the words—
  "Except in cases where only one school exists within the area of the minor local authority."
  The object of that would be manifest to hon. Members.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Before we go on with that, I should like to ask the hon. Member how he proposes to deal with these schools.
  MR. DILLON: I have a subsequent Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This question has already been considered by the Committee. Has the hon. Member any fresh proposal to make?
  MR. DILLON: Yes, I have a consequential Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see it, please.
  [The hon. Member then brought the Amendment to the Table.]
  MR. DILLON, continuing his speech, said his Amendment raised an exceedingly important issue. A great deal had been heard in the debate of the grievance under which the Nonconformists of this country laboured in 8,000 rural parishes in which there existed only one school. He had been struck from the outset of the debates by the fact that on the other side of the House no man had got up to say that the grievance was not a real and substantial grievance. Two or three days ago, when the question was raised in a totally different manner by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Monmouth Boroughs, it was felt, even by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, that the case was one which required some solution, and he undertook to lay one before the House and the country. The Prime Minister on the contrary admitted the grievance, but declined to propose any solution. In his opinion, as one interested in the preservation of one section of the denominational schools in this country, he felt that a real crisis had now been reached, because if this Bill were forced through the House by the weight of the Government majority, without showing a desire to meet this grievance, the denominational schools were doomed. He ventured to express that opinion on the Second Heading, and on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monmouth. and what had happened since then? Could any one pretend to ignore what had occurred? They had had an election in North Leeds. The action of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in crossing over to that side of the House was not less significant. If these signs of the times were not taken notice of and followed by an effort to arrive at an amicable settlement, there would be a reaction, and in the flow of that reaction the denominational schools would be submerged. These were not the only significant signs to be taken into account. Most hon. Members had read that morning in The Times the letter of the Bishop of Hereford, who in this connection was a very
  142
  important person. He was not only a Liberal, he was also a Liberal Churchman and a wiser supporter of that Church than many hon. Members opposite. No doubt in his letter he expressed the opinion of many members of the Church of England. He called attention again to the proposal for dealing, he says—
  "With the 8,000 parishes where, as is commonly asserted, our Church school is the only school available."
  and he suggests once more the following solution—
  "That in these schools the managers appointed by the Church shall be one-third, of the whole; the local educational authority shall nominate one-third, as proposed in the Bill; and the remaining one-third shall be elected either by the parish council or by parish meeting. The great mass of reasonable Nonconformists,"
  he says—
  "would accept this. Consequently it would save the country from the threatened religious strife and all its bitterness, as also from the humiliating spectacle of conscientious men refusing to pay their rates and having their goods distrained."
  Personally, he did not go so far as to say that it would save the country from all bitterness, but it would give every chance for the voice of moderation and compromise to be heard in this great struggle. The words "humiliating spectacle of conscientious men refusing to pay their rates and having their their goods distrained" used as they had been by the Bishop of Hereford, filled him with considerable alarm. It was clear the Bishop contemplated there would be a war of the rates, and although they had been told in the course of the debates that the threats of refusal to pay rates were merely wild words, he looked forward to that prospect as most dangerous and disastrous for denominational schools. On these grounds, and in the spirit of compromise, he appealed to Members opposite to show some conciliatory spirit. The proposition of the Prime Minister was to divide schools into provided and not provided, with distinct management for each class. But it had been made manifest during debate that there should be a third category to meet the case of parishes in which only one school existed, and his proposal was to have the difference between these cases and those where

  143
  parents had a choice of schools for their children recognised by the application of a different system of management by a body consisting of a third nominated by the trustees, a third by the minor local authority, and a third by the parents of the children on the school books. He was aware that this would not meet the views of Members above the gangway, and that they would not accept it as a settlement of their claims, but he put it forward as a friend of denominational schools, with a desire to preserve them, and the hope that it would draw some of the venomous bitterness that would result from the operation of the section as it stood. If the Amendment were accepted it would, at any rate, leave the way open for consequential Amendments as regarded the composition of the Board of Managers. All he desired to affirm by it was that in the case of one-school districts there should be a greater amount of popular control than in the case where parents had a choice of schools. It would not affect Church schools in populous centres like London, Manchester, and Liverpool, and the Church would have nothing to fear from it in the one-school districts. He could not sec his way to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Monmouth Boroughs, because it would have deprived the Church School Trustees of representation on the Board, and he did not think that, in view of the fact that these Trustees provided considerable endowments for the schools, a just proposal. His Amendment would give the Trustees one-third of the seats, and the local authority, which might be more or less under the influence of the Church, another third; while as to the parents, it was quite possible, in a great proportion of the 8,000 parish, the majority of them would be Churchmen also. It was only fair that when the majority were Nonconformists, the parents of the children should have some voice in the management. Two Amendments had been placed on the Paper by representatives of the Church party—who undertook in the recent debate to provide a remedy for this grievance. What was the effect of them? They gave the parents no additional voice in the management of the school, and where the majority of the children in a Church school were Nonconformists, the management of the school
  144
  would be solely in the hands of Churchmen. The only possible escape from that was that the minor authority might appoint a Nonconformist.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge): The County Council also might appoint a Nonconformist.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was very cold comfort indeed. They had no security that it would be done. Under the proposal of the hon. Member opposite there would be five Churchmen as against one Nonconformist on the managing body. Surely that was not a real attempt to deal with the grievance. Then there was the proposal that ministers of every religion should be at liberty to go into the school and give religious teaching. That he submitted was an unreal proposal, outside the limits of practical politics. The Free Churches as a body had already declared against it, and had asserted that it would make bad worse.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEX: It is not the whole proposal. There is the provision as to outside religious instruction.
  MR. DILLON: As to outside religious instruction, the hon. Member must know that the parent can get as much as he likes.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Not in the time now set apart for religious instruction.
  MR. DILLON MR. DILLON said the offer was no concession at all. The scheme was impracticable. It would lead to religious conflicts in the schools, and he therefore dismissed it as not worth discussing. Were the Government prepared to make any concession in respect of the management in one - school districts? There was one other point. He thought that a real, substantial, and almost intolerable grievance had been made out in regard to the question of the appointment of teachers. Could the Prime Minister imagine for a moment that this country was going to accept as a permanent settlement a proposal under which the teacherships were to be closed to Nonconformists altogether in a district where there is only one school, and the majority of the children in that one school

  145
  are the children of Nonconformists? If such a proscription were allowed, he did not hesitate to tell hon. Members opposite that they were laying the foundation for the ruin of their schools. No system could be maintained which was based on a great injustice like that. Although he admitted that his Amendment did not meet that grievance fully, still he believed that if they would allow on the Board of these non-provided schools, in districts where Non-conformists were strong, a representation of the parents of the children with the local authority at their back, they would insist upon Nonconformists being treated fairly. His idea was not only to give in those parishes where the Nonconformists were numerous and strong a certain voice in the management of the school, but also give them a leverage by which they might insist that Nonconformists would have free access to all the ranks of teachers. Catholics were in a very small minority in this country, and against Catholic schools there did not exist the smallest trace of animosity. They did not represent a dominant religion, or an Established Church. Catholic schools never sought to use their position for purposes of political or religious propaganda, they sought only to educate their children according to their own Faith. Owing to the unreason of the Church, and the reaction and bitterness on this side of the House, if some friendly understanding was not arrived at it was becoming plain that the Catholic schools would be wiped out.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, at the beginning insert the words, 'Except in cases where only one school exists within the area of a minor local authority.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman in the character of a friend of denominational schools—a rather strange character after the speech they had just listened to—had made an appeal to the Government to treat this controversy in a spirit of reason and moderation. So far as he and his colleagues were concerned, they had never had any desire
  146
  from the very beginning of this educational controversy but to deal with the different questions in a spirit of reason and moderation. Every Amendment not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and not detrimental to the cause of education which had been supported by any large body of opinion in the House, they had been glad to accept. Whether hon. Members opposite liked or disliked this measure as a whole, he hoped they would, at all events, recognise that, subject to the limitations he had referred to, the Government had done their best to meet them. The Government were now asked by the hon. Member for East Mayo to go a step further and adopt an Amendment, which, if carried, would manifestly threaten in every case, and destroy in many cases, the denominational character of these single schools, because it would practically hand over all these denominational schools to a majority which in many cases would be undenominational. [Cries of "No, no!"] As long as four was more than half of six his argument would hold good.
  MR. DILLONpointed out that this applied only in parishes where other denominations were in a majority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not necessarily. Ho did not at all deny, if they were to go back to first principles, that there was a great deal to be said for allowing each locality to determine what was to be the denominational teaching in its district. But the Nonconformists would not have that. The hon. Gentleman's new friends would not look at such a scheme. They did not want that freedom of religious teaching which the hon. Member seemed to suppose, and they would not allow denominational teaching to be taught in Board Schools whatever the majority might be. Let them not appeal to that then, as a kind of bed-rock principle of eternal justice. It was not within the limits of practical politics in England. He was aware that the system had worked well enough in Scotland, where the conditions were widely different, but everybody who had discussed the question, including the Nonconformists, had come to the conclusion that this system was not adaptable to this country. Therefore they should not talk as if that was the

  147
  principle of justice to be followed out, because it was not the principle which would be accepted by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman said that if something of the nature of his Amendment were not adopted, the voluntary schools were doomed. He had never posed as a prophet, and he did not know what the future of education was going to be. He thought, quite frankly, that there would be a change in many Church and denominational schools in consequence of this Bill. If the voluntary schools did not flourish under it, it would be the fault of the voluntary schools and those who supported them. But what he could not consent to do, and what he would never consent to do, was to take away from those schools by force majeure the denominational character which they now possessed. The hon. Gentleman looked with equanimity upon this, because he thought that the schools of the denomination to which he belonged would not suffer by it. He had seen attempts made in more than one quarter of the Opposition to try and draw a distinction between Roman Catholic schools and other denominational schools, entirely to the advantage of Roman Catholics, so that if those hon. Members had their way there would be two endowed religions in this country. He did not believe that this would be tolerated either in this House or outside of it. The hon. Member opposite might be perfectly ready to sacrifice, with a glad heart, the thirty-one single schools of the Roman Catholic denomination on the altar of the friendship of his new allies, because he knew that they were but a small proportion of the total number of Roman Catholic schools, and that it was worth while to throw them overboard in order to protect the others. But he would not protect the others, for did the hon. Gentleman seriously suppose that, if that House laid down the proposition that, consistently with maintaining the denominational character of the school, only one-third of the managers should belong to the denomination, the principle was going to stop there? Did he or the Bishop of Hereford think that a principle so affirmed by the House was going to be confined to single schools?
  148
  Not at all. If that proposition were once laid down it was inevitable that it should be extended to practically every one of the denominational schools, whether they were Anglican, wesleyan, or Roman Catholic.
  But why on earth was the hon. Gentleman's Amendment restricted to schools not provided by the local authority? The hon. Gentleman's sense of justice apparently led him to say that, wherever there was only one school in the district, it must be undenominationalised, and that if the majority happened not to belong to the same denomination as those who had built and provided, and possibly endowed, the school, the school was to be taken away from them and given to the majority. But why was that confined to voluntary schools in single school districts? There were Board schools which were also the only schools to which a child could go. [An HON. MEMBER: There is unsectarian education there.] He perfectly understood the principle of saying that they were not to have religious teaching at all; but why was it in conformity with the eternal and sacred principles of religious liberty that they should teach religion in a manner which evaded the Cowper-Temple Clause, but inconsistent with those external principles that they should teach it in a form that contravened the Cowper - Temple Clause? Was that logic, common sense, or common justice? Whatever principle they chose to adopt in single school districts they, must apply to the board schools as well as to the voluntary schools.
  The hon. Gentleman said he moved his Motion in the interests of peace, as he was deeply impressed with the amount of bitterness which this struggle had most unhappily aroused in this country. So was he himself; nobody desired peace more than he did, and nobody, he thought, would say that he had used words which, consistently with the principles he held, had tended to aggravate the bitterness of feeling between the different sections. But did the hon. Gentleman and his friends sincerely suppose that if they had their way in this matter peace would be secured? In the case of schools which, from the time they were built had belonged to particular denominations, which had been

  149
  built by their money—[Opposition cries of "Partly"]—which, had been endowed and managed by them, consequently and naturally managed by them, they took away by this Bill two rights which they now possessed, the whole responsibility and power over secular education. [A LIBERAL MEMBER: Which they do not care about.] He was sorry hon. Gentlemen did not care about it; after all it was not the least important portion of the education given, and secondly, they introduced into their body a third, not appointed under the original trusts, who might be, and in many cases would be, members of a different school of thought, and of a different denomination from those who built and endowed the schools. That was what the Bill did, and yet it was contended that that did not go far enough, and that the whole school must be handed over to those who did not build and endow it, and then, forsooth, a universal calm in religious matters would reign. If the proposal were carried out there would be ten times as much bitterness, there would be a storm of indignation, very natural indignation in his opinion, in all quarters of the kingdom, and the fires of controversy would be heated seven times hotter. He was not going to deal with the unfortunate threats of a rate war. He suspected that quite as many foolish people, if he might say so without disrespect, would be ready to refuse to pay rates if one solution were accepted as there would be if the other were accepted. In the nature of things there could be no arrangement satisfactory to both parties as long as the militant Nonconformists would be content with no solution which did not hand over the denominational schools to them [Cries of "No"]—in many cases to them [Cries of "No"] as long as they put forward these pretensions, which he could not help regarding as extravagant and unjust, so long was it clearly impossible that they should come to terms over this matter. He had hoped that educational interests which this Bill could do, and would do, so much to foster might have caused hon. Gentlemen for one moment to mitigate those bitternesses, but he was afraid this would not be the result. No one regretted it more deeply and bitterly than he did; but in the meanwhile he supposed they had no alternative, but according to their own lights to attempt
  150
  to do justice in this matter—to attempt, if they could not reconcile every opposing; interest, to do the best they could to carry on this controversy without unnecessary bitterness. He asked whether the hon. Member for East Mayo or anybody else would hand over those schools, to a majority of managers who do not represent those who built and endowed them. [An HON. MEMBER: That endowed them.] In many cases endowed them. Did the hon. Gentleman never hear of endowments given to primary education in this country? [Cries of "Rarely," and "One in a hundred."] So long as that pretension was put forward by any section in this House, so long it seemed to him that merely as a matter of justice and equity, and he would add, merely as a matter of pursuing that course which in the end was most likely to conduce to the interest of education itself, so long would the Government resist the proposal.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said the right hon. Gentleman, in describing what the Bill proposed to do, had omitted one very important, novelty which it contained, namely the imposition on the ratepayers of the country of the duty of maintaining and paying the entire cost of the education carried on in these schools. That seemed to him one of the elements in the controversy which was too often forgotten. It was not a question exclusively between church and chapel, there was a third party to the controversy, the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and what was really the bed-rock principle of the greater part of the opposition to the Bill was that it was a vital constitutional element in our national system that wherever public money was paid, public control should, accompany it. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to understand this before he slammed the door against all compromise, which he thought would be a most lamentable event. He wished him to understand the grounds on which the Opposition and the Liberal Party throughout the-country based their hostility to the scheme. The Nonconformists had two separate grievances of their own in connection with this Bill, first in connection with religious teaching, and secondly with the exclusion of Nonconformist children, from the profession of teaching. He would not dwell now on the latter point,

  151
  as to which the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of meeting them, but he ventured to say that there could be no compromise on the point that public money should not be handed over without control to private management. The right hon. Gentleman said that that meant undenominationalizing the denominational schools, but that was not the proposal of what had been called militant Nonconformity. The great bulk of the Nonconformists, he was sure, recognized that they could not wipe out this part of the education question. They had arrived at a most anomalous state of things in this country, but they must deal with facts as they were. There were 3,000,000 children in voluntary schools, schools which in the main had been built out of private funds for the purpose of maintaining and teaching certain religious principles, and he felt that neither Parliament nor the country would deprive the owners and trustees of those schools without adequate compensation. What they had to deal with was the question of the management of those schools when the cost was to be provided out of the public purse. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these schools were going to be handed over, but that was not so. The owners of the schools would retain them absolutely and exclusively on Sundays, and Sunday schools played a not unimportant part in the education of this country. At present upwards of 6,000,000 children were on the registers of our Sunday schools. Nobody wanted to interfere with the Sunday schools, whether they were Church of England or Nonconformist. And in Sunday Schools religious instruction was given without either a Conscience Clause or the Cowper-Temple Clause. Then the buildings would be left in the hands of the owners for secular purposes, local business meetings, and so forth. Under Mr. Forster's scheme in 1870 one-third of the cost of the voluntary schools was to be paid by the denomination, one-third was to be paid by the parents, and the other third, out of the public purse, subject, of course, to the limitations of the Cowper-Temple Clause. But that state of things had been altered. The parents no longer paid fees, and now the hon. Gentleman came with this Bill and said that the one-third formerly paid by the
  152
  denomination should be defrayed out of the local rates.
  He knew that the right hon. Gentleman would say that there was control by the local authority. That was in a sense true; but they were now dealing with the mode or instrumentality through which the local authority would act, and though the managers would no doubt be responsible to the local authority, they should be in touch with the people by whom the rate was paid. It was a sound principle that where they had money raised for local expenditure they must have local control to secure local efficiency and economy, and he could fancy few more extravagant modes of expenditure of public money than to dissociate it from all control by the local ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman said that it meant undenominationalizing unless they left a majority of the denomination on the management of the school. But what did he want the management of the school for? It could not be for secular education; that was admittedly put under the control of the local authority. He defied them to divide the control and management of a school into two separate compartments and say that one belonged to religion and the other to secular matters. The body which controlled the one must inevitably control the other. As to the objection that the denominational schools would be deprived of their denominational character, he did not think that any parish would be found in all England where the majority of the parishioners would take away from a church the religious teaching which its school was built specially to promote. He knew something, at any rate, about Nonconformists, and he was satisfied that they would never attempt to deprive the school of another denomination of the religious teaching which was on the lines of that denomination. These schools were all held in trust. He would ask the Prime Minister why there should not be a school with two-thirds of the managers elected and yet bound to preserve the religious teaching of the denomination to which the school belonged. But he wished to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this question was not now ripe for compromise. He would

  153
  appeal to him to let this part of the Bill stand over, and give them time. He was satisfied, having some knowledge of the facts, that a compromise was at all events within the range of possibility, and that they could secure on the one hand the legitimate control of public money by the public authority without trenching upon the rights of the denomination to which the schools belonged. He was not going to extemporise a scheme now. It would require a great deal of consultation and consideration They must bring the public feeling of the country to bearuponit, and he thought the public feeling of the country was now getting pretty well aroused upon this subject. He thought they had heard the chapel bell rung, and it was in the interests of peace that he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman. If he would make no concession, of course he might carry his Bill through by the force of his majority, but it would have no shred of public opinion behind it. It would be a mere temporary victory of this Parliament and this session, but it would be a victory which the next Parliament would be bound to, and, he believed, would, undo. It would be the beginning of a fresh war. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take the Clause as it stood—that the managers should be appointed as "hereinafter provided," so that the composition of the Boards should stand over till October, and then he thought the moderate, sensible, and statesmanlike opinion of the country would insist on public men in that House coming to some reasonable settlement. He agreed that it could not be applied to one class of schools and not to all. He had seen the difficulty of making one scheme applicable to large schools, where there were efficient voluntary schools, and where there was a choice of schools, and rural villages where there was only one school. He could not quite follow his hon. friend the Member for Mayo in the suggestion he made, but he recognised that he had struck upon one of the real difficulties in this problem, and it was something that an hon. Member who was outside the controversy between the Church and the Nonconformists should make a suggestion with a view to attempting a com-
  154
  promise. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the case was to be fought out there, that would be lamentable. If the right hon. Gentleman would let this session end in comparative peace, and postpone the definition of the authorities by which these schools were to be managed until the country, the Government, and the Opposition, and the contending parties in the Churches, had had time to consider the position, he believed a peaceable and workable solution was within measurable reach. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was influenced by his party, or even a large minority of his party, but by a minority of extremists. He believed it was beyond the power of any man to conciliate what he called the minority of twenty-nine, but he believed that nine out of ten of the Churchmen on the other side of the House, and the laymen of the Church of England, were willing to do what was just and fair to the Non-conformists in this matter.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would listen to the weighty appeal addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. The hon. Member for East Mayo had revealed to the House what the real object of the Bill and of this particular Clause was. Up to the present time the representatives of the Church had argued that it was the recognised right of the parent to give to his child the religious teaching he desired. An opportunity was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo to test the honesty of the contention. If it was simply a question of giving the child the religious teaching the parent desired, why not give to the parents the deciding voice in the election of the Board of Management? That was the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He quite agreed that there would be no Cowper-Temple Clause in these particular schools. The right hon. Gentleman would see that in these cases they could not abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause, but there was no Cowper-Temple Clause to abolish. He

  155
  did not say that the compromise proposed would settle the whole of the Nonconformist grievance, but it would remove the most crying part of the grievance. What was the position? The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment were carried it would simply deprive the Church in those parishes of the schools they had built and endowed for the purpose of teaching their denominational doctrine. But it would not deprive the Church of a single school. The fabric of the school would still belong to them, and if they were not prepared to concede their own position that the parent had the right to decide the kind of teaching his child was to receive, the result would be that they would not place their school at their disposal and the Board of Management would have to find another fabric. His hon. friend's Amendment would not deprive them of the fabric of the school, it was simply that no Government grant should be given unless they were prepared to introduce the element of parental representation. The only basis on which the Government could support their Bill was the right of the parent to have his own doctrines taught to his child. That was not the right of the Church, for it was the right of the parent. Why should a parent not be allowed to dictate what doctrine he wished his child to be taught? There were 3,000,000 children in the denominational schools, and over 2,000,000 of those were in the 8,000 parishes with only one school. What right had the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich to speak on behalf of the parents of these million children and say,—"This is the particular doctrine these parents want to bo taught?" The noble Lord placed himself in loco parentis in regard to these children, and they were not his children. Why would he not allow the parents of these children to say—"This is the doctrine we want taught to our children? In a parish where they had a Ritualistic elergyman doctrines which the parents repudiated might be forced upon the children.
  How would the majority be elected? Not by the laity of the Church of England, but by the subscribers. Who were they? Just such men as the elergymen cared to pick out. Very large subscriptions would not be needed, and all the elergymen had to do was to get a half-a-dozen men to
  156
  subscribe and they would be placed upon the Board of Managers. They would not be representative of the laity of the Church. This debate showed that the Prime Minister did not believe in his own case. The case of the Government was that there was a great demand in the country for the teaching of dogmas in the schools. If that was so why did they not leave it to the parents of the children who attended those schools? What right had the Prime Minister to enforce dogmatic teaching upon the people who repudiated it? The North Leeds election was an expression of the antipathy of the body of the people to the clerical control of education. The Prime Minister asked—Was it common justice to enforce Cowper-Temple teaching upon a parish? The Cowper-Temple teaching was simply that teaching which the majority of the religious men in a particular community agreed to, without I teaching the creed of any particular denomination. In one Welsh parish they had agreed upon a syllabus of religious instruction drafted by the rector of a parish, and agreed to by all the Nonconformist ministers in that parish. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what injustice was it to Church children to give them a religious instruction in accordance with a syllabus which their own clergyman had drafted? In the Colony of Victoria the ministers of all denominations agreed upon the religious instruction to be given and the only denomination which could not agree was the Roman Catholics. All the Protestant denominations in Victoria agreed upon the religious instruction and what injustice was it to any Protestant to be taught a religious instruction which all their leading ministers agreed upon. The right hon. Gentleman said that no solution satisfactory to both parties could be conceived. Why not? There had been a solution found in every other country but England, and in every part of the British Empire but this country. The other day he instanced a number of colonies, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich talked in a sneering fashion about those colonies. The colonies were all right when they were backed up by the Government, but the moment they got the Colonies solving a question

  157
  of this kind they were mixed up with China and Peru. Surely it was worth while for the noble Lord to postpone Clause 7, in order to study the way in which the religious difficulty had been solved in the Colonies, for there was not a singles olution in any of those Colonies which was not better than the one suggested by the Prime Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked—"What is your plan? They had suggested a variety of plans, every one of which they could quote a precedent for. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not examine those plans? Why did he not point out why those schemes which had worked so well, and had put down religious bigotry, could not be applied in this country? He thought the right hon. Gentleman was making a great mistake. He seemed to think that this suggestion about the ministers of different denominations coming in was going to settle it. They practically said—"Our religion is to be taught at the expense of the State, but we give certain indulgences to other religions." That was not equality. The Prime Minister said that Churchmen under this Amendment would feel a natural indignation which would result probably in the refusal to pay rates. The Amendment was a proposal simply providing that the parents should say what teaching they wanted their children to receive, and if such a proposal was viewed by Churchmen with natural and justifiable indignation, what did the Prime Minister think of the indignation of 2,000,000 Nonconformist parents in this country, whose children would be taught doctrines which they repudiated, and who would be excluded from teacherships in those schools? What kind of language would the right hon. Gentleman use for indignation of that character?
  When he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the other day that he thought the Committee should be made cognisant of facts which affected the working of this measure, and when he suggested that the indignation of Nonconformists was so great that they would not stop short of anything honourable to break up a system which perpetrated such an injustice, he said he did not believe it.
  158
  What about the natural indignation of Churchmen? Had Nonconformists no feelings or consciences which might be outraged? Let the right hon. Gentleman put himself in the position for a moment of the Nonconformist parent whose child was excluded from teacherships and promotion in those schools. It was perfectly clear from the discussions what was wanted. It was patronage that the Government were fighting for—patronage for their own sect and for their own people, clerical patronage and exclusion of Nonconformists except upon terms which would enable the Church and the clergy to proselytise them. That was the crux of the whole business. It was absurd to say that religion had anything to do with it. Religion above all other things was just and equitable, but where was the justice of a proposal of this kind? This proposal had never been placed before the country; and to utilise a majority got for another purpose, to utilise Nonconformist votes obtained for a totally different purpose, to utilise the votes of men who from motives of patriotism subordinated all their grievances—if this had not been done in the name of religion every man of honour in this House would have revolted against such a proceeding.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)said that in his opinion the Amendment under consideration would be far more advantageous to the Church school than the Clause as it now stood. It would be so, because it removed or mitigated a very vast and gigantic grievance, and that grievance could not be inflicted by the Church on so large a portion of the country without weakening its authority and creating a great deal of hostility. He maintained that this grievance could be removed, and at the same time special and definite denominational teaching could be properly and fully safeguarded. He should find a difficulty in supporting this Amendment if that was not his belief. There were 8,000, or thereabouts, of these Church schools to which Nonconformist parents were compelled to send their children, and this was called a grievance. Of course it was a grievance—it was an outrage, it was a gross outrage.

  159
  It was nothing less than a gross outrage and humiliation, considering the present social condition of England. Dissenters felt as strongly about their form of Christianity, about their religious views, as Church people, and the outrage of the present state of things on Dissenters was to be measured by the depths of the religious conviction which was nobly shown by the Church Party. This outrage on Dissenters was an artificial outrage, created by legislation, and it was the bounden duty of the House to mitigate, and if possible entirely remove it by legislation. What were Church-people afraid of? He was a member of the Church of England. He would safeguard its form of religious teaching absolutely in the schools; and he thought the doing of that was perfectly compatible with the acceptance of the Amendment. He would also try to make that religious teaching deeper, more serious, and more full of meaning. After all, the House could only safeguard the human element in religious teaching; and that element had been safeguarded, for one had only to talk to any criminal to find that he spoke it like a parrot, and that it influenced his life as much as a parrot's. He asked was it any advantage to pass the Bill in its present form? It would give the local authorities a grievance against the Church, and if a dispute arose it was the Church that would get the worst of it.
  SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)said if the Government ever had any doubt that this matter was to be fought out to the end, the debate which had taken place should have entirely disabused their minds. The opposition to the proposals of the Government was not inspired by a desire to undenominalize the schools. It was a compromise they sought. The spirit of compromise was abroad, as was shown in the letter of the Bishop of Hereford in The Times today, and it was because that compromise was rejected by the Government that their proposals were being so strenuously fought. He quite agreed that they had to take the educational system as they found it, and it was because of the position in which they found it that they had to make some agreement with the denominational schools that in those
  160
  particular buildings the denominational teaching which this Bill was to establish should be safeguarded. But was that to carry with it also the whole management of the schools, so that the public should be in a minority for ever? The hon. Member for North Birmingham had described the system existing in the parishes with only one school as an outrage. Outrage was a, strong expression, but he had felt for years that it exactly described the present system; and the Bill was going to make matters worse, for while an increased amount of money was to be given to these denominational schools there was to be no real and effective local management. He proposed to deal with those schools which were affected by the Amendment, because they being the only schools in the parish were the schools which the children must, attend. Hon. Members opposite were being deluded by phrases in this matter. It was assumed, for instance, that, if denominational schools existed it was because parents desired them. These, schools were certainly not the choice of parents in parishes where only one school existed. The existence of such schools was due to the fact that an individual, or a group of individuals, desiring to secure a particular denominational teaching in a particular district built a school in that district; and in schools so provided a particular form of religious teaching was given, not in accordance with, but irrespective of, the wishes of the parents. It was said that as few children were withdrawn under the operation of the Conscience Clause in these schools the system could not be repugnant to the parents. But that was not by any means-a fair test, because the parents had no free choice in the matter. He believed that the vast and overwhelming body of parents desired some form of religious teaching for their children; and in these 8,000 parishes where only one school existed their choice was between denominational religious teaching and no religious teaching at all, and the fact that parents did not withdraw their children was no proof whatever that denominational religious teaching was their real selection. The original justification was that private individuals had given a considerable proportion of money to provide education, and the denominational view of the matter was that these individuals were the owners, of the school, that the building was theirs

  161
  or entrusted to them, and they considered as owners of the school building they had a right to manage the school. He knew an instance in which a parish council refused to act upon the request of the vicar to appoint a representative to join with him in the management of the parish school, because they felt that in the case of a dispute their representative would have no power, that if friction arose the vicar would have power to dismiss him, and therefore they refused to send anybody because they were afraid friction might arise. Under this Bill the minority of representative managers would find themselves placed in an inferior position.
  An hon. Member had spoken of these feelings as "stage thunder," and declared that those who refused to pay their rates ought to go to prison. This was not a matter for light talk of that description. If anybody did go to prison, it would be the Members on the other side who would be most anxious to get them out. The First Lord did not seem to realise how natural this feeling was. He had said that he did not understand why this feeling should have now boiled up—that for many years these schools had been in the main supported out of public money, and that, as so much money had already been given to these schools, he could not understand why the fact of public money being added in the form of rates should give this excessive edge to the feeling. He (the right hon. Baronet) agreed that it was not logical to have put up with the old system so quietly, and now to express such tremendous indignation at the proposals of the Government. But the secret of it was that this feeling had been cumulative. His surprise was not that so much indignation was now shown, but that so little had been exhibited in the past. Personally, he thought the best way out of the difficulty, where there was only one school in a parish, would be to give the local authority compulsory power to purchase or erect buildings That, however, was not the Amendment before the Committee. The proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo, though it fell far short of what he had suggested, was infinitely better than that contained in the Bill. They must not allow the trust deeds to stand in the way. Did anybody suppose if there had been a
  162
  case in which trust deeds of this kind applied hot to a school but to a prison, they would have been allowed to stand in the way of public control? They would have been swept away long ago. Yet when it was a question of schools, which were a far more vital part of the life of a district, they were told that these trust deeds gave a right to monopolise public rights. That could not be. The trust deeds must be modified, or disappear altogether if need be, when they were opposed to public policy. What the Government would do by their Bill if they resisted all Amendments of this kind was to set in more distinct antagonism than ever before the Church and the public. It was true the Church was not getting exceptional treatment, but in the vast majority of these one-school parishes it was the Church of England, or somebody on her behalf, who owned and managed the schools, and that was why in this case the Church and the public would be set in opposition. Everybody who had had anything to do with rural districts, knew that this feeling had been simmering for a long time, and only the fear of a rate had prevented it coming to a head. That was not a very laudable motive, and he had always regretted that there was not public spirit enough to set that somewhat mean and sordid consideration on one side. But the Government were now setting it on one side, and the feeling was bound to come to a head. In each of these villages two-thirds of the visible authority, as far as concerned the school to which every child in the parish was compelled to go, would be in the hands of non-representative men. As the school in the vast majority of cases would be a Church school, that fact was sure to bring the Church into conflict with public opinion. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that if the antagonism was allowed to exist, the result was bound to be that public rights would carry the day, and the denominational system of control ultimately disappear.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONfelt compelled to offer an uncompromising opposition to the Amendment. He had been somewhat surprised at certain statements in the course of the debate. The right hon.

  163
  Gentleman the Member for East Wolver-hampton had spoken of the novelty of the question, and the great desirability of having time to think over the matter in order that some compromise acceptable to both sides might be arrived at. Probably the right hon. Gentleman, in his exalted position on the Front Opposition Bench, was not aware that Members of the House on both sides had long been trying to come to some conclusion which should be satisfactory to all parties. His own Parliamentary life had not been a long one, but during the greater part of it communications had been passing between Members on both sides who were honestly desirous of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, but so far as his experience went it seemed that the only conclusion satisfactory to hon. Members opposite would be one practically giving them an absolute majority on the Board of Managers. ["No."] It might very well be that there was no present or conscious wish to undenominationalize the schools, but there would always be the power to do so. In the event of differences of opinion arising as to the appointment of teachers, or any other matter, the majority on the Board would be able to exercise the power conferred by Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, and the denominational character of the school would be gone. The Opposition would not be content except with public control in that full sense, by which the entire management of the school was put into their hands, and that was a concession which, in the interests of the denominational character of the school, he, for one, was not prepared to make. The hon. Member for East Mayo had put before the Committee very forcibly the great danger to the denominational schools generally if some concession were not made. But the hon. Member apparently desired to make the best of both worlds. The concessions were all to be made by a denomination to which he did not belong, Roman Catholic schools were principally in the large towns, and would therefore be unaffected by the concession. Why should concessions be made by only one denomination? The Church of England years ago made a large concession when it accepted the Cowper-Temple Clause.
  164
  That clause had one great merit; it put out of question the power of local authorities to discuss what denominational teaching, if any, should be given in the schools under their control. But when one considered the persons and the denominations subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause one would see that it imposed a kind of religious tyranny. There was no power to give any teaching satisfactory to denominations who desired something more than teaching without formularies. It was idle to say that that ought to satisfy everybody, because as a matter of fact, it did not. That being so, why should not all denominations be met on the lines suggested by the Prime Minister last week, viz, that all alike should have access to the schools? That was said to be impracticable. What then was the ultimate solution of the difficulty? For his own part, he would be very sorry to see religion divorced from education. If, however, State and public control were confined to the secular side, and all denominations had access to the schools, everybody would be able to obtain the religious teaching he desired. But that was not acceptable to hon. Members on the other side; they cared not for the religious teaching of their children. ["Oh, oh."] At any rate, they did not care for the religious teaching of the children of any denomination other than those who were satisfied with the Cowper-Temple Clause. That was where the religious tyranny came in. They said — "You shall have 'Cowper-Temple' religion and no other." The supporters of the Bill simply asked that the children of their denomination should have the religious teaching of that denomination, and that, he thought, was not an unreasonable demand.
  Then there was the demand for greater public control. For what reason was public control demanded? Was it merely to secure that the education should be worth the money expended upon it? The denomination principally affected had provided schools, and in time past had competently managed them. They were now to hand over these schools, with the entire control of secular education, to the local authority, and in return they asked that on the Board of

  165
  Managers they should have power to secure that the character of the religious education was satisfactory. Were the conditions offered by the Government not satisfactory as regarded secular instruction? When the local authority had this entire control, and had the money in its hands, and when its representatives on the Board could see that proper secular instruction was given, could there be any ground for saying that more was wanted? He could not help thinking that the demand for a larger measure of representation on the board of management was not in order to secure adequate secular instruction, but to control the appointment of teachers, and affect the denominational character of the school. That really was the sole ground upon which he desired to oppose this Amendment. If there was an honest desire not to undenomination-alise the schools, let them take every precaution they pleased for secular instruction, but at any rate, leave the management of this school in such a condition that its denominational character will not be interfered with. If this or any other Amendment on the Paper were adopted which would shift the balance of representation, no one could doubt, and few would deny, that the denominational character of the school would be in danger, and it was on that ground that on this side of the House they must hold to the terms put forward by the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)hoped the First Lord of the Treasury understood that they were not irreconcilable, nor did they despair of some arrangement being come to by which both sides of the House would be fairly satisfied before this Bill passed into law. He took it that one great desire was that educational efficiency first of all should be secured, whatever else might go to the wall. It was because he believed that greater educational efficiency would be secured by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo that he trusted it would be carried or, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession. The majority might give the tone and character to the education of the school.
  166
  No one desired that in taking over denominational schools the denominational teaching now carried on in those schools should be sacrificed, for that was the actual purpose for which they were built. They desired that denominational teaching should be maintained under conditions which would not interfere with the efficient secular training. He asked the right hon. Gentleman how it was possible to secure the most efficient secular instruction in any of those denominational schools, large or small, if they appointed a majority of the managers who, in future, would hold a far more important position than they had hitherto held in regard to both board schools and voluntary schools. [Cries of "No, no!] He would remind hon. Members that these were the trust managers who would be appointed by the body to which the denominational school belonged, and they were to form two-thirds of the managing body. They would, therefore, control both religious and secular education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The local educational authority will control.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid the right hon. Gentleman thought the local authority would control the education, but that was an absolute impossibility, because they were going to displace some 2,000 School Boards, each elected definitely for conducting education in board school areas, and these capable men were being displaced simply by instituting one great central Board, consisting probably of fifteen or twenty members. It was impossible for the influence of the Board to permeate every part of the country hitherto managed by those 2,000 School Boards. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to institute managers and no doubt he thought these powers would enable them to carry out the duties at present performed by the School Boards. With denominational schools it was impossible for the managers to exercise the same enlightened control of secular education in the same sense and degree in which the School Boards did. How would the managers be appointed? They would be appointed by the denomination, and no ratepayers would know anything

  167
  about them until they were appointed. The claim of the right hon. Gentleman was that he desired to safeguard denominational instruction in the schools taken over by the Government or by the local authority in the future. Why could the right hon. Gentleman not come to a decision upon this point which would reconcile his two contentions? The First Lord of the Treasury had contended that there must be more efficient education than they had had before, on the one hand, and on the other hand he said they were pledged to take over denominational schools in which some 3,000,000 children were being educated and for whom they could not afford the necessary capital for erecting new schools. He admitted that they had no right to debar the owners of voluntary schools from teaching their exclusive doctrines, within prescribed limits, provided secular instruction was not thereby interfered with. But secular instruction must be interfered with if the managers were to be nominated only by a denomination. What could be simpler than to adopt the plan of satisfying both sides? Secular instruction, provided for by public money, must be under the public authority. If they did not place them under public authority they violated every principle upon which the freedom of this country had been built. He thought that position was both logical and just. Only a body of managers appointed in the public interest could satisfy public justice, and they were entitled to claim that efficient education should be continued in those schools upon the same lines and of the same quality as that which had hitherto been given in the board schools. He wished the Committee to understand that the management Committee after all, under the ordinary condition of things, would exercise pretty much the same rights as School Boards. The paramount authority could not possibly know what was going on throughout the length and breadth of the connty. He believed many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would concede that while on the one hand they were bound to give popular control of the education in these schools when the public found the money for them, on the other
  168
  hand, since they did not build the denominational schools but took them over from the Church to which they belonged and paid no rent, they were bound to allow that Church to teach the dogma which was taught before. Was it not the simplest thing in the world to satisfy the reasonable aspirations of both sides and secure efficient education by adopting a compromise of the kind indicated by the Bishop of Hereford? It was not for the Committee to discuss now the form in which it should be done. Was there any difficulty in securing denominational teaching in the denominational schools which were taken over in such a manner as would not violate the principles of the parents of the children, whether Nonconformists or otherwise, provided that the secular instruction was conducted at a time when all would get the benefit? He believed a plan could be devised by which that could be done while at the same time satisfying the national claim that where public money was spent in maintaining an institution, that institution must be chiefly controlled by persons responsible to the ratepayers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Who will appoint the teachers?
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid the teachers must come under the control of the managers of the schools who would appoint or dismiss them. The suggestion of the Bishop of Hereford was, that two-thirds of the managers should represent popular control. He believed that a plan could be devised which, while doing ample justice to the owners of denominational schools with regard to-religious teaching would also preserve the constitutional principle, which they held to be sacred, that taxation and representation should go together.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the Committee had been invited from both sides to try to come to some fair compromise. No one was more anxious than himself to settle this question on fair lines, and there were hon. Members opposite who knew that he had done his best to get rid of this religious difficulty, so that the Bill might deal solely with the schools from the educational standpoint

  169
  of making them as efficient as possible. But the difficulty they were met with was this. Whenever a proposal, however just and fair, was put forward on this side of the House, it was rejected by the other side, or, if accepted, it was merely made a vantage ground to demand other things which could not possibly be granted while safeguarding the principle of the Bill. He fully admitted the undoubted grievance which existed in places where there was only one school. But he would not dwell on it too much, for two reasons. In the first place, it was originally due to the fact that the Church of England had built schools in nearly every place, while the other denominations had not done so. He was aware of their poverty and of the efforts many of them had made. The other reason why he did not dwell upon it was that this grievance, undoubted as it was in theory, did not exist in practice to half the extent that people would think judging from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. There was a great deal about it in the House, but he had been a member of a board of managers for some years and he had never come across that feeling. He had never found that the children of Nonconformists were taught things contrary to the views of their parents. He had never found the slightest difficulty in working the school which was a Church of England school, and therefore denominational. In conjunction with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich he had put an Amendment on the Paper which he thought met the grievance. It gave facilities in the school for the teaching of every kind of religion by trained teachers; and, secondly, it allowed, in cases where it might be impossible to do so in the school, that such facilities might be provided outside. In other words, the children might be withdrawn from the school during the hour set apart for religious instruction in order to obtain religious instruction, of a separate kind outside. This proposal was almost scoffed at by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. DILLON: No.
  *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: At all events, he called it no concession, and there was a meeting the other day of a body
  170
  called the Educational Union, which is composed largely of men who are opposing this Bill, and they rejected this particular proposal. He felt sure that the majority of Churchmen were anxious to meet the Nonconformists on this matter, but they did feel that every effort they made was simply thrown away, because when it came before the House it was rejected without being considered at all.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): The Educational Union is an educational and not a Nonconformist body.
  *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was judging only from the attitude of those who were present at the meeting. They were gentlemen who had figured prominently in these debates and in the country in opposing the Bill. At all events there was evidence that the proposal contained in his Amendment, which was a fair proposal, meeting the whole difficulty from the point of view of the parents, had not had a good reception so far, and they were asked by the hon. Member for East Mayo to do something totally different. He was anxious for a fair compromise, but the reason why they could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo, was that it would really give away the whole case of the-voluntary schools. It meant that only a third of the managers would consist of members of the denomination which had founded the school. Had the hon. Member considered the case of Wales? He knew a good deal about Wales, and he was sure that in most cases the one-third who represented the parents would be Nonconformists, the one-third who represented the education authority would also be Nonconformists, and only one - third would be Churchmen. What he felt was that if the Amendment were accepted, not only would the voluntary schools be undenominationalized, but that they might actually set up the teaching of a denominational religion other than that for which the school was founded to teach. Was that a position which the people who founded these schools could possibly accept? They were told that a plan might be devised to give a larger part of the control to popularly chosen

  171
  bodies, and yet reserve the control of the religious character of the religious teaching to the denomination interested. But they could only give a religious character to the teaching if they knew the religion of the teacher, and what guarantee would they have that the teacher would belong to the denomination to which the school belonged? It was perfectly clear that the only way to guarantee the religious teaching in the schools was to take steps to guarantee the religious character of the teacher. He could not accept the Amendment, which would have the result of making it possible to undenominationalize every school which came under this measure. The hon. Member opposite drew a distinction between the single schools and other schools. He should like to ask how they could have one system in regard to single schools, and another system in regard to schools which were in absolutely similar circumstances, although there happened to be other schools in the neighbourhood. If the Amendment were carried it would mean the closing of the voluntary schools. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said that the fabric of the school would remain the property of the founders. Of course, the structure of the school would not be taken away, but it could not be used for its present purposes, and the only result of the Amendment would be to destroy the denominational schools in 8,000 parishes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton once again raised the cry that public aid must involve public, control. That was an excellent sentiment, to which he entirely subscribed. But the public aid would come from the county ratepayers and the borough ratepayers, and the county and borough ratepayers would have full control, because the managers would be subordinate to the local education authority which represented them. Even in the appointment of the teachers the local authority had a veto on educational grounds. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton would only read Clause 8 he would see it laid down in black and white that the controlling authority was the local education authority and not the managers. In fact the managers were told that they must carry out the directions of the local
  172
  authority so far as secular education was concerned. This question of popular aid involving popular control was a redherring drawn across the track. He and those who agreed to him wished to settle this religious question as far as possible, but they found that a large proportion of the people of the country demanded and desired to have for their children a denominational education. Let them try to make all these schools abolutely efficient from a secular standpoint and at the same time to keep their denominational character, and they could only do so by leaving to the trust managers the controlling voice in the appointment of the teachers.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had been surprised at the opposition with which this Amendment had been met, and equally surprised at the support it had received in some quarters. He wished to put it to the Prime Minister that they were desirous of maintaining the voluntary system, and that the right hon. Gentleman was doing something to destroy it, and the right hon. Gentleman should give them credit for their intentions. He had listened with some amazement to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did not, in the least, question the absolute sincerity of the hon. Gentleman, but he was entirely unable to reconcile his intention with his argument. The hon. Gentleman began by admitting the grievance of the Nonconformists and then went on to attenuate it. There was nobody in the House who did not admit that there was a grievance which affected the religious consciences of one half of the nation, and yet the Government folded their hands and gave the bland reply that there was no remedy for it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not more for the Board schools than for the voluntary schools.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, but did anybody believe that there was any resemblance between the grievance in the case of the 8,000 parishes, in nearly every one of which there was a church school, and the places where there was a Board school? Everybody knew that in the case of the single schools the grievance could be easily remedied. Was

  173
  it fair to make a distinction between these 8,000 single-school districts and the other districts? He was surprised that so clear-minded a man as the hon. Member for Oxford University should have used the argument he did. The Irish Catholic Members were perfectly consistent in supporting the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman opposite said he was in favour of a compromise; but a compromise was something in which a surrender was made on either side. But the hon. Gentleman wanted the whole management to be placed in the hands of the Church managers; and he drew a picture of the result of the carrying of the Amendment which would, he said, threaten the existence of 8,000 voluntary schools. The proposal was that there was to be a permanent authority pledged to the schools, and in addition, six members belonging to the Church Party. If the public authority consisted of a majority of churchmen, it was quite possible that they would elect two churchmen, so that, under the Amendment, all the seats would be held by the Church Party. That ought to be a sufficient safeguard for obtaining a denominational educational character in the schools. He could not imagine anything more intolerable than that the children of Nonconformists should be compelled to attend schools, where was taught a religion in which the parents of those children did not believe. They were told that this was a system by which they were to defer to the majority. He utterly denied that. He could not think that a majority would assent to the imposition on any minority, however small, of a tax which would involve taxation essentially unjust.
  MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)said the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was presumably intended to remove a grievance, but it seemed to him that there was no connection between the grievance and the method by which the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to remove it. The grievance alleged was that the members of the denominations to which the schools were not attached, were injured in their consciences by their children having to attend the schools. The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that this grievance could be got rid
  174
  of, by allowing the managing body of the schools to be composed of persons partly elected by the parents, and partly by the local authority, but that would not remove the grievance. All that it would do would be to substitute a worse grievance than that which it was sought to remove. A great deal had been said which he had been unable to connect with the Amendment, and it was difficult to believe that the grievance had any tangible existence. In his opinion, the House should be very careful that, in attempting to remove one grievance, they did not substitute one for it.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the practical grievance which the Amendment proposed to remedy was, that in the 8,000 parishes in which there was only one school under clerical management, the children of Nonconformist parents, compelled by law to go to such school, were obliged either to sacrifice all religious instruction or to take such religious instruction as the clerical manager approved. But this was not solely a Nonconformist grievance. It was a grievance from which members of the Church of England also often suffered. That grievance was aggravated by the Bill, which proposed to place the whole expense of the school as a charge upon rates, because it would remove one of the safeguards against managerial abuse—namely, the necessity of the manager to go to the people, many of them Nonconformists, for subscriptions for the school. In future all the manager would have to do was to make his demand on the local authority for the money needed for the school. Again, in many of the rural parishes where there was only one school, the protection of the conscience clause was utterly inadequate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. BRYCE: That has never been denied.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deny it absolutely.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the denial had often been refuted. He did not say that the grievance prevailed in the bulk of the

  175
  rural parishes; but many instances had been given that it was a real practical grievance. Another grievance was that the school in those parishes, was, in ecclesiastical language, the peculiar of the clergyman. It was not, as it ought to be, the school of the people. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to meet this case? He had held out no hope for those 8,000 parishes. The only answer given to the grievance was that if the management of those schools were properly elected, the denominational instruction which those schools were founded to afford would be endangered. The question of the representation of the different interests on the managing body would arise on subsequent Amendments, and therefore he need not discuss it now.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, now before the Committee, were rejected, the consequential Amendment, dealing with the proportions of the representation on the managing body, would be cut out.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)said the words of the Amendment were "except in cases where only one school exists within the area of a minor local authority." That was an Amendment upon which they were entitled to divide, and what they desired to know was whether they would be allowed to distinguish between the schools of the areas. He submitted that having raised and established a case, it was open to any one to discuss it.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that was so. It was, of course, open to hon. Members to amend the Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsuggested that cases frequently arose where the difficulty was got rid of by inserting such words as "as hereinafter provided."
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought much trouble had arisen from the fact that the Committee were discussing the first part of an Amendment not on the Paper because it was not handed in till
  176
  after two o'clock. He was finally understood to rule that the negativing of the present Amendment would preclude the consideration of its corollary, but would not exclude amendments modifying the proposals as to management in other respects.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he gathered that it would be in order to discuss what the rights of the managers of denominational schools were, and that being so he would confine his remarks, for the present, to the question of exceptional treatment. No argument, he said, had been addressed to the Committee in support of the contention of the First Lord of the Treasury that denominational instruction in these schools would be endangered by the acceptance of popular control. There had been no comment from the Ministerial side on the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford—a proposal made in the interests of peace and opening up, as he believed, a way of peace. It provided for safeguarding denominational instruction by putting it under statutory protection. Surely those who were concerned for the maintenance of denominational instruction might have given their opinion as to how far they could accept that compromise. When he expressed the opinion in a previous debate that statutory safeguards for denominational instruction could be devised, the First Lord made no reply, but simply expressed the opinion that it was an absurd proposal. It was not right to ignore the fact that this Amendment was proposed and recommended to the Committee, by the hon. member for East Mayo, in the interests of denominational schools. It would be easy to empower or require the local authority or the Board of Education to see that nothing was done by the managers which would interfere in any way with denominational instruction. The Cowper Temple clause, vague and flexible as it was in language, worked well in practice because, based on the protection of statute and the authority of the Board of Education, questions had arisen and had been decided by the Board of Education, the decisions always being acquiesced in, and there had been no difficulty with regard to it, although it was more susceptible to different interpretations and more

  177
  likely to cause interminable trouble than the proposal now made. To direct that religious education should follow the doctrine of the Church of England as given in the Prayer Book, where desired by the people interested—which he understood to be the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford—would be far simpler than the enforcement of the Cowper-Temple Clause, and he could not understand why that proposal, which appeared to offer complete security for the denominational instruction so much valued on the other side of the House, should be dismissed so unceremoniously. The wishes and intentions of the Opposition in this matter had been greatly misunderstood. In supporting this Amendment they had no desire to interfere with the denominational teaching given in these schools. That question was not raised by this Clause, and there would be subsequent opportunities for expressing their opinion as to the value of denominational teaching. What they desired was popular control of the schools. All these difficulties would, they believed, disappear under the Cowper-Temple Clause. The Vice President had said there was no religious difficulty where things were left to themselves. That was true. There was no religious difficulty where things were placed under popular control, where things were done publicly and in such a way that any grievance could be heard and redressed. The First Lord had adverted to the case of his own country where he admitted things went well. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose the Scottish system.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: I said that very hon. Member on that side of the House would refuse to have it.
  MR. BRYCEasked the right hon. Gentleman to try them. Without pretending to speak positively, he thought that on that side they would welcome the system with universal School Boards.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid every hon. Member on the other side would refuse the Scottish system.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it had not been offered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid when he spoke of the Scottish system, he alluded
  178
  to the power every Scottish educational authority had to have denominational education. ["Every School Board."] His opinion was that that part of the Scottish system giving the educational authority that power had never received the smallest favour opposite.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that the Scottish people would have the part he asked if they did not have the part they liked.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid he referred to one part of the Scottish system. Surely he could do so. He did not understand these strange limitations in debate. He referred to one part of the system. He was not aware that the Scottish people were particularly wedded to their form of popular control over education. No doubt they would like to have more control than they had.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman believed that Scottish opinion would acquiesce in a system which permitted the giving of religious teaching everywhere at the public expense, unless under the control of a popularly elected body?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid Scottish opinion certainly would not accept that any more than they would accept the limitation imposed on English School Boards refusing to allow denominational teaching.
  MR. BRYCEsaid his opinion differed from that of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but it was not at present at issue. Would the right hon. Gentleman, if it were desired, give both parts of the Scottish system?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, the one with the other.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would leave the subject, satisfied with the result of the catechism. Why was the Scottish system successful? Why had it worked peacefully? Why were the Scottish people content with it, although it might not attain to the theoretical perfection that some desired? Because it was based on the control of the people, and all was done in the light of day. That was what the Opposition asked for in the present

  179
  case; and he believed that denominational instruction could be absolutely preserved under the scheme of the Bishop of Hereford. The Committee seemed disposed to underrate the immense preponderance of weight which, in any case, the Church of England would have in all these rural districts. In such parishes, nearly all the people of weight, importance, and influence, belonged to the Church of England. His impression was that if a majority was appointed by the County Council and the local people, nearly all of them would be members of the Church of England, because that Church had all the social forces at her command. But even with that, he was confident that, under the sense of justice of the English laity, the denominational teaching would be safe. Then, according to the First Lord, the majority of the parents were members of the Church of England, and were hungering and thirsting for dogmatic instruction. For that reason they were to have this method of management. If that was the case, why not trust the locality and the parents? But lot the Committee imagine a case in which Church of England parents were in a minority, and the bulk of the children were Dissenters who did not want Church of England instruction. Would it be said that, in such a case, the school was, nevertheless, to be controlled entirely in the interests of the Church of England by a majority of clerical managers? Surely to state the proposition in that way was to condemn it.
  All would agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his belief that the Bill would introduce a change, but whether the change would be in the direction anticipated by the First Lord was doubtful. There would certainly be a change In the direction of the creation of more irritation, strife, and conflict in every part of the country, and he believed it was because the hon. Member for East Mayo feared it might ultimately prejudice the denominational schools, that he had brought forward this Amendment. He would never speak of this as a question between members of the Church of England, and Dissenters. It was a question between the advocates of popular control
  180
  and the upholders of one-man management. If the right hon. Gentleman, wished to know the opinions of members of the Church of England, he should study the results of recent elections. It was not the Nonconformists alone who had made the difference. If he even then doubted, he might wait until he had ascertained the views of his own supporters who belonged to the Church of England. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman spoke in all sincerity when he said he was bound to carry out the wishes of those who returned him to power. But at the general election of 1900 the question of clerical control was not uppermost in the minds of the electors, If the right hon. Gentleman really believed that the great bulk of the Conservative Party—not the small group, respectable and influential, no doubt, but not representative of the Church of England, who had obtained possession of the ear of the right hon. Gentleman—were in, favour of the course he was pursuing, let him wait a couple of months and take what method he pleased to ascertain the general sentiments of the Party and of the Church of England. The County Councils of Essex and Cheshire wanted popular control; the County Councils Association wanted popular control; but in addition to these he might appeal to a large number of moderate and rational members of the Church of England—temperate men, who had been managers of schools and had never abused their position, and who declared they had no fear of popular management. The clergyman was deservedly powerful in his parish; he was frequently the only cultivated and highly educated resident; in the majority of cases he had shown zeal and interest in the cause of education; and he would always have his place on the Board of Managers, and in the conduct of education in the parish. Why could not the Government trust to these natural forces, and allow that principle, which was recognised everywhere else in our Government, to be recognised here, viz., that the people should have the control of their schools?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it was only respectful that a reply should be made to the speeches which had been

  181
  delivered since he addressed the Committee three hours ago. In the first place, as to the magnitude of the proposition. As a mere formula, there was no particular objection to the number of 8,000 schools, though it was worth while pointing out that it was absolutely inaccurate. There were 8,000 parishes, it appeared, in which there was only one public elementary school, but a great many of those parishes had schools quite within the reach of a certain number of the parishioners elsewhere. In the next place, there were not 8,000 but 7,470, or they might call it, in round numbers, 7,500. Of those about 5,600 were National schools, which, he supposed, might be taken to represent Church of England schools: -448 were voluntary schools which were not denominational; 62 were British schools, 37 Wesleyan, and 35 Roman Catholic; and there were 1,326 Board schools. He wanted to know why, if they were to have exceptional treatment for the Church of England schools, they were not going to have similar exceptional treatment of the Board schools? [Opposition cheers.] The hon. Gentleman opposite, who was a Scotchman like himself, cheered that, but he assured him that it would not be acceptable to hon. Gentlemen who sat in his part of the House. He did not believe it would be found that they wished to abolish the Cowper-Temple clause in Board schools—certainly not in the 1,300 who served single school districts; and he repeated, only with more emphasis, what he said three hours ago, that it was grossly unfair to apply any provision of this kind simply to denominational schools. It ought to be an all-round arrangement, if made at all, and it ought to be left absolutely open to the local authority, irrespective of the Cowper-Temple Clause, or anything else, to have what denominational teaching they liked in the 1,300 board schools, which were in a similar position to the 5,000 national schools of which so much had been said this afternoon.
  Let him take up the challenge thrown out with extraordinary courage, he thought, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said—
  "I have more than once, and the Bishop of Hereford in a letter to The Times, and other eminent persons have, thrown out the suggestion that it would be adequate, protection
  182
  for the denominational character of denominational schools, if, instead of giving them a majority on the Board of management, you were to say in your Act of Parliament that denominational religion was to be taught there."
  And, apparently, that question was to be settled by an appeal to the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman complained that he had called his scheme absurd. He did not know whether he had used that uncomplimentary epithet before, but, on thinking it over, he did think it extraordinarily absurd. He did not think he had ever used that epithet before when it was more extraordinarily appropriate. It seemed to be one of the most absurd schemes he had ever heard. In the first place, what would it do to deal with the grievance? The grievance was that Nonconformist children have got to go to a Church school, and they got over that grievance by making that Church school teach denominational religion by statute! A more amazing method of meeting the grievance, he could not conceive. But that did not nearly exhaust the absurdities, as be thought, of the proposition. Who was to determine whether the religion was denominational? It appeared to be the Board of Education. It was one thing to say, as the Board of Education might have to do with regard to the Gowper-Temple Clause, such and such a thing might not be taught because it was in contravention of the Cowper-Temple Clause—and even that result seemed to him to be rather open to theological criticism. He believed the Board had said that it was not a contravention of the Cowper-Temple Clause to ask "Who is your godfather and godmother?" and that it was not a contravention of the Cowper-Temple Clause, to make the teaching of the Apostle's Creed part of the religious instruction of the schools.
  MR. BRYCE: Always subject to the conscience clause. Public control is needed to secure the due application of the conscience clause.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: That was not at all what the right hon. Gentleman said, though it might be what he meant. But it was irrelevant. He was explaining to the Committee that it was all very well to give power to the Board

  183
  of Education to say that something should not be taught because it was contrary to the Cowper-Temple Clause, but even then the result seemed to be rather a theological difficulty. Just let them imagine what it would be if they were to leave the Board of Education to decide, with regard to every denominational school, what kind of religious teaching was to be given, so as to make it truly denominational. The thing was exquisitely grotesque.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented me, and also what the Bishop of Hereford suggested.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am only concerned with the right hon. Gentleman, to whose speech, to the best of my ability, I am replying. I shall be very glad to be corrected, but I understood him distinctly to lay down that the denominational character of these schools could be preserved to whatever religion the managers might belong.
  MR. BRYCE: Nothing of the kind.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is what I understood you to say.
  MR. BRYCE: I said that denominational instruction could be safeguarded by putting it under statutory protection, not the protection of managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassured the right hon. Gentleman that he was only anxious to get at his point. Let him make it clear. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that they could perfectly safely give popular control, although popular control might produce a majority of Nonconformists on the Board of management, if only they put into their Act provisions which required that in that school denominational teaching characteristic of the persons who built the school, and to whom it belonged, should be given. And the Board of Education were actually to say—
  "You are teaching the first few sentences of the Catechism; that makes denominational teaching, of which the Church of England can have nothing to complain."
  Was that to be allowed, or were they to teach the Thirty-nine Articles? How
  184
  could they ask the Board of Education to lay down what was the proper positive denominational teaching characteristic, not merely of the Church of England, but of the Wesleyans and the Roman Catholics? The scheme was so extraordinarily extravagant that he could hardly understand it to be seriously proposed. Imagine the position of a Board of Baptists, who were bound by statute to see that in a school which they managed the true orthodox doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion were taught, with an appeal to that great theological authority—the Board of Education. He did not know whether that was the plan of the Bishop of Hereford, but—perhaps he had better not go further.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, at the end of his speech, that what the House and the country wanted, what everybody but a small and obscurantist minority in this House wanted, was publicity in the first place, and popular control in the second place. As regarded popular control, the County Council Education Authority had absolute control over these schools, so far as secular education was concerned. They were masters, and they could make their mastership felt; and, therefore, it was really absurd to say that the control was given up to a small local body. Then, again, under this Bill everything would be done in public. He would not raise the question of taxation and control. He thought it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick who said that it was contrary to our constitutional principles that taxation and representation should not go together. How did the right hon. Gentleman want taxation and representation to go together? He wanted the County Council to raise the money and the parish to spend it. That was not what was meant by taxation and representation going together. It was directly contrary to that venerable maxim. What the Government had done was consistent with that venerable maxim. Those who raised the money, spent the money. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Those who raised the money directed how it should be spent, and saw that it was spent in the manner they desired. That was the proper method of associating representation and taxation, whereas this local management with the

  185
  wider area of taxation which was proposed, was really inconsistent with those principles. He knew the evils of the present system. It was said that the reason why the Scotch loved their educational system was that everything was done in public. Well, under this Bill, everything would be done in public. There might be one-man management now in an objectionable form. If that were so, and in so far as it was so, it was absolutely put an end to by this Bill. Nothing henceforth could be done in secret, nothing could be done except in the full light of day and in the blaze of publicity.
  Might he say that, as regarded this Nonconformist grievance, great injustice had been done to Clause 9 of the Bill? It would be improper for him to discuss that Clause now, or to do more than allude to what the right hon. Baronet opposite said with regard to it. The right hon. Baronet said that Clause 9 might afford a partial remedy for the Nonconformist wrongs, but it would do so at the cost of education. It would not do so in the extreme case of which they had heard so much, in the case where the Church minority formed an insignificant fraction of the population, and where the great mass was Nonconformist. It was not only a great alleviation in every case, but a complete remedy in this extreme case. He did not think that justice had been done by the right hon. Baronet, or by the House at large, to the alleviation given to the Nonconformist grievance by that Clause. He had stated his objection to the plan, which would have the effect of depriving denominationalists practically of the use of schools which they had built and endowed. He asked the Committee to consider the result of such a remedy as this on the local politics of every district in the country. Wherever there was a nearly balanced population between Church and Nonconformist, or Church and Roman Catholic, there would be a fight under the plan of the hon. Member as to who was to get a majority on the Board. The people who had the majority would capture the schools. [Opposition cries of "No."] They would appoint the teachers; they would settle the denominational religious
  186
  teaching of the schools, and would transfer the schools to the local authority; they could destroy them for all time as denominational schools. Now, this meant that it would be worth while in every parish where there was anything like a balance between parties to have an active political canvas and a keen fight in every case, in order to get this majority of the Board, which would have the effect of transferring the school from the denomination owning it to another body. He could not imagine anything more unjust to the denomination, or more unjust to local peace and harmony and the easy working of the social institutions of the country. It appeared to him that it would be an intolerable burden. It would turn every Churchman and Nonconformist minister who took a keen interest in education into perpetual canvassers and political agitators. The clergyman would be fighting to retain his school; the Nonconformist minister would be fighting to grasp it from him; and there would be a state of continual unrest. He would rather see a clean-cut plan of spoliation by which every denomination was to be deprived, by a stroke of the legislative pen, of schools which, often at so much personal sacrifice, they had built, endowed, and conducted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he would ask whether, after all had been said and done in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the Bill would produce exactly the results which he had just deprecated. Would it bring peace into the locality? If the right hon. Gentleman did not know that on Monday afternoon, he must know it now. That the Leader of the House, the author of this Bill, should get up and denounce the Opposition, and say that he preferred spoliation to the conflicts that would arise from the adoption of the Amendment, was the most astounding thing he had ever heard in this House. The right hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill which was worse than any spoliation, because the conflict that would be raised would be worse than anything which the Amendment could possibly produce. He did not wish to speak at any length, but he wanted the House to measure what was the exact

  187
  position of the Government at this moment with reference to the Bill. It was the interest of the right hon. Gentleman to deprecate the prolongation of the debate; but he said with all respect that the House did not reflect the opinion of the country on this question. There were many hon. Members opposite who knew that just as well as he did; and the time would come when the right hon. Gentleman would also learn that. A proposal had been made by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, to the effect that the Government, in the interest of peace, would do well to grant an armistice in order that they might learn the real opinion of the country on this subject. He ventured to say that whatever party discipline might effect, there was no hon. Member who would deny that if there was a dissolution tomorrow this Bill could not pass. That was not the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. His principle was unconditional surrender. Well, the right hon. Gentleman would not get unconditional surrender. Let him be assured of that. What was asked was that the Government should offer some reasonable arrangement with reference to a grievance which he did not deny existed, but the right hon. Gentleman had made no such proposal. The hon. Member for East Mayo had suggested an arrangement; and although the right hon. Gentleman was the author of the Bill, he would venture to say with great respect that the right hon. Gentleman was not the master of the measure. The masters of the Bill sat behind him. As soon as this proposal was made for time to consider this critical question, up rose the Member for Oxford University saying that he would listen to no terms; there was unconditional refusal on his part of all compromise. It was the clerical party who were the masters of this Bill and really the en mies of all settlement; but he believed that there was a majority of hon. Members opposite who would gladly see some accommodation arrived at on the subject.
  The Amendment asserted that there was a class of schools in which a special grievance existed, and that there ought to be exceptional provision made for them. This was the point upon which the Committee was going to divide, and he should like to know who the hon. Members were who
  188
  were going to vote against the proposal that there should be a provision of some kind to remove a grievance, admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even by the hon. Member for Oxford University. The Government could not disregard the opinion of an important portion of the country, such as that which declared itself at Leeds the previous day. It was perfectly obvious, that there were many hundreds of voters who, at the last election, gave their support to the Government, but who had now withdrawn that support. In his opinion, the reason was that they condemned the Bill, and, in condemning the Bill, they condemned its author, he believed that this was a more accurate representation of the opinion of the country with reference to these proposals than any which was represented on the Bench opposite. Why had there been that change in the public vote? He believed that the votes of hundreds at Leeds represented thousands and tens of thousands of people in the country who, having supported the Government hitherto, were not prepared to support them in this Bill and in the policy represented by it. They looked upon this measure of the Government, not as one for national education, but as one to strengthen the power and the authority of a dominant sect. The flimsy pretence that the almost insignificant contribution of this particular denomination to national education ought to govern the case was one which the common-sense of the country repudiated. They maintained the principle which seemed absolutely to be repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman—the principle of popular control. Popular control was expressed by a majority, and when you put private persons into a statutory majority, and the public into a statutory minority, that was not popular control. It was the negation of popular control, and therefore this Bill, quite apart from any question of religious or denominational difficulty, was a violation of every principle of sound finance, local or Imperial.
  Perhaps the Government thought that the Opposition had unreasonably opposed this Bill. He was sorry if they thought so, because the Liberal party would continue to oppose

  189
  it to the best of their ability as long as they could, and when their efforts failed, those efforts would be equally persistent in the country to destroy this Bill. It was a Bill founded on injustice; it rested on unsound principles, and, in his opinion, as it was their duty here to offer to it every resistance and as protracted a resistance as they could, so it would he their duty in the country to represent those opinions, and in doing so he fully believed they had the opinion of the country at their back. The Government had committed a fatal error. They were called upon to produce a comprehensive measure which should have included in its embrace people of all conditions and religions, and what had they done? What was this scheme which masqueraded under the name of a scheme for national education. It was a scheme which inflicted injustice— which the Government did not deny—upon certain of the most respected and powerful classes of the community. The nation did not love clericalism. It did not love clericalism of any description, but he ventured to say that ritualistic Anglicanism, as it was called, was least loved of all. The Government were doing incalculable injury to the cause of education. They were enlisting, not popular sympathy, but popular distrust and dislike. This Bill was ushered into this House, signed and scaled with the
  approval of Convocation. Those were not the parties to whom the Government ought to have given their confidence. Those were not the parties who should have been consulted in the framing of this Bill. He begged to call attention to the attitude, at this critical moment, of His Majesty's Government. They seemed to be determined upon an educational war. This was going to be—and it must be, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it as well as any one—this was going to be a civil war—["Oh, oh!" and cheers]—and of all civil wars a religious war was the worst and the bitterest. The challenge which the right hon. Gentleman had thrown down in refusing a compromise upon this vital question, he knew would be taken up. He knew that it would be fought out to the bitter end, and the result of that challenge, and the outcome of this war, would certainly be the destruction of national education, and probably, as some compensation, the destruction of denominationalism in education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  (6.53.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 180. (Division List No. 331.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Agg-Gardner. James Tynte

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Butcher, John George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

  Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW'.(Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Doughty, George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Beresford, Lord Charles William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Bigwood, James

  Colston. Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bond, Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Finch, George H.

  Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cranborne, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumtriesshire

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hamilton, Rt HnLordG(Midd'x

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stanley, Edward Jas(Somerset)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Haslem, Sir Alfred S.

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Renwick, George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Sir William Walrond and

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Delany, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dillon, John

  Bell. Richard

  Carew, James Laurence

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Black, Alexander William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duffy, William J.

  Brigg, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Edwards, Frank

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Crean, Eugene

  Elibank, Master of

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  192

  193

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Runciman, Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Hammond, John

  Norman, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tully, Jasper

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Mara, James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Joyee, Michael

  Perks, Robert William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Leamy, Edmund

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Priestley, Arthur

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  and Mr William M'Arthur.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rigg, Richard

  (7.3.) Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 189; Noes, 230. (Division List No.332.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Dillon, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloue, Stroud

  Cameron, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Asher, Alexander

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Canston. Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bell, Richard

  Claney. John Joseph

  Edwards, Frank

  Black. Alexander William

  Cogan. Denis J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Boland, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Delany, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Devlin, Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Burns, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roche, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Runciman, Walter

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Gilhooly, James

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sheehan. Daniel Daniel

  (Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murphy, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hammond, John

  Newnes, Sir George

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C R.(Northants

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Norman, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'y Mid.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David Alfr'd(Merthyr

  Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-Hastings

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin. George

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O' Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Malley, William

  Wallace, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Mara, James

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Partington, Oswald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Joyce, Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  White. Luke (York, E.R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, George (York., W.R

  Leamy, Edmund

  Perks, Robert William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halfax)

  Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, Osmono (Merioneth

  Levy. Maurice

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Fred. W. (NorfolkMid)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lloyd George, David

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  M'Kean, John

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  and Mr. William M'Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cranborne, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cripps, charles Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, John George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamlton

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r H'mlets

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'hampton

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Bahurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chapman, Edward

  Doughty, George

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beresford, Lord Charles William

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bigwood, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bond, Edward

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renwick, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Ev'sh'm

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Long, RtHon. Walter(Bristol, S

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlt's

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'ry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Maxwell, W.J. H(Dumfries-sh.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. Midd'x

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hamilton, Marq, of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stroyan, John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hatch, Ernest, Frederick Geo.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham(Bute

  Vincent. Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nolan. Col. J. P. (Galway, N.

  Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Plummer. Walter R.

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

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kimber, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Lawson, John Grant

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)was understood to say that the Amendment he proposed would give the voluntary schools an opportunity of considering among themselves whether or not they would accept the form of management finally decided upon by the House. If they decided to ask the assistance of the local education authority, and to receive help from the county rate, they would have to accept the form of management provided by the Bill. If, however, they desired to continue their present system, they would be unable to obtain the assistance of the county rate. He believed the result would be that, in a very short
  198
  time, when they realised how easily, harmoniously, and satisfactorily, the common-sense of Englishmen caused these Boards of managers to work, very few schools would remain outside. The best way out of the present difficulty was for the Committee to draw up its own scheme for the management of voluntary schools, but not to force it upon them unless they wished to have the assistance of the county rate. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, after the word 'schools,' to insert the words 'maintained but.'" — (Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the Amendment would carry out the object of the hon. Member, it was a most pernicious proposal. The object seemed to be that schools in the rural districts should be able to walk off with the Government grants, including the new grant which would make them perfectly independent, and yet keep to their old system of management, without any control whatever on the part of the County Council or local authority. Surely the House of Commons would not accept any such proposal as that. At any rate, they ought to know the intentions of the Government on the matter.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.)
  Clause 7: —
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 59, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local education authority are the Council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that Council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine.
  '(2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed (a) where the local education authority are the Council of a county, one by
  200
  that Council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.
  '(3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is, or has been during the last twelve months, a scholar in the school.
  '(4) The "minor local authority" means the Council of any borough or urban district, or the Parish Council or (where there is no Parish Council) the parish meeting of any parish which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority, the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, after the word 'schools,' to insert the words 'maintained but.' "—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, continuing his speech, said he thought the term, "school not provided by the local education authority," covered all classes of the schools that would be maintained by the old education authority. If he understood the Bill, no school would have a right to any grant. At the present moment a school earned its grant and received it from the Education Department, but the right to the grant was now to cease. The money would, instead, be paid to the local education authoritiy. He submitted that the control under the Bill was effective, and trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said that under the scheme of the Bill there was no such thing as a public elementary school which was not maintained by the local authority. Under the eighth clause, all public elementary schools were to be maintained by the education authority, but his hon. friend desired to entirely remodel that, and to say that a day school might elect to remain out, and still be a public elementary school, receiving the Government grant, and being subject

  201
  to the control of the Education Department. If that was really his idea, it was a bad policy, and entirely contrary to the scope of the Bill. He hoped that the Amendment would not be persisted in.
  MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)thought the Amendment a very proper one, inasmuch as it gave an option to voluntary schools to remain exactly as they were. It would create a third class of maintained schools, which would receive the grant through the local authority, but would not be maintained out of the rates. They would have to depend on voluntary subscriptions instead of on the rates. It would test the bond fides of the supporters of those schools, because it would enable them to have their exclusive denominational teaching by the simple method of putting their hands in their pockets. The Attorney General had not said one word on the merits of the Amendment; he had only argued that it would not carry out the mover's intentions, and declared that it was bad. What was the reason for saying it was bad? If it were accepted, it would simplify the subsequent procedure on the question of management, for they would then be able to argue with great force that where voluntary schools were unwilling to subscribe anything for themselves they ought not to be entitled to two-thirds of the control.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)could not understand anyone who valued popular control supporting such an Amendment. The effect of it would be to enable schools which were not necessitous to keep out of the county system while remaining in receipt of large sums of public money. They had already passed a clause making the education authority responsible for all secular instruction, and yet, although it would have to hand over the grant, it would have really no representative on the management of the school.
  MR. M'KENNA: Exactly as at present.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)hoped that the Amendment would either be withdrawn or rejected by the Committee. There was a vital and urgent
  202
  principle in the Bill, and this Amendment would kill it. He was tired of the way in which the majority of the school children were being put off with inferior education because of the parsimony which was created by the present voluntary system. If this Bill failed to pass, then it would be the duty of the Liberal Party to put before the country a scheme under which all schools would be maintained out of public funds and be under proper popular control. He was opposed tooth and nail to the system of the schools deriving their support from voluntary contributions. It was desirable to get rid of education by charity, as in the case of voluntary schools. To permit voluntary school managers to contract themselves out of the Bill in order to avoid interference should not be tolerated. Cardinal Vaughan had said, "Let the schools remain poor but free." There was no educational freedom in poverty. He went to a voluntary school as a boy, and remembered its transfer to the "godless" School Board. He remembered well the additions immediately made to the equipment and the apparatus of the teaching staff. Whereas there was one old Bible for every three boys under the original régime; under the new each lad had a brand-new Bible. This Amendment would enable the voluntary school managers to do exactly the thing they declined to permit the School Board to do—viz., to contract themselves out of their communal obligations. He would never agree to that, for it would mean that education would continue to starve, because Church persons wanted to avoid interference. He saw by a Return issued to the 31st August, 1899, there were 12,940 voluntary schools in country districts; of these, 709 had no voluntary contributions whatever, and existed on the meagre Government grant, compelling the teachers to submit to terms which were not at all fair; 483 schools received less than 1s. per head per child per year from voluntary sources; 1,045 between 1s. and 2s. 6d.; and 2,046 between 2s. 6d. and 5s. If the Amendment were carried, this penurious system would be continued, for the schools would be contracted out of the Bill in order to avoid the School Board rate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask whether the Amendment is in

  203
  order, stating as it does that certain public elementary schools shall be withdrawn from the control of the education authorities.
  MR. M'KENNA: It applies to the election of managers; it has nothing to do with the control of the local authority, which will remain untouched so far as secular instruction is concerned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to have the Chairman's ruling.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has been discussed on the presumption that it is going to except from the operation of the Bill certain schools. If the hon. Member intends to introduce other consequential Amendments, he should have put them on the Paper.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEdid not quite understand the objection. The scheme of the Bill was that all public elementary schools should be maintained, as well as provided, by the local education authority. The scheme of his Amendment was that when the school was in the first place not provided by the local education authority and chose not to be maintained, but was content to rely on the Government grants which it earned, the second provision of the right hon. Gentleman as to the board of management should not apply to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not consistent with the subsequent provisions of the Bill.
  MR. M'KENNA: We have not come to them yet.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there is any Amendment down dealing with those subsequent provisions.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: What does the hon. Member propose to do with a school not maintained, in view of this subsequent provision?
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I shall do nothing, nor need I.
  MR. M'KENNA: They have managers under their trust deeds, and those managers will still remain.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: But it is provided that all public schools shall be maintained, and there is no Amendment down to that.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: None is necessary. They are public elementary schools within the meaning of the Education Act, 1870, and are entitled to grants under the Code.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Have we not agreed that the local education authority shall have-all the powers and duties of the School Board, and control secular education in all public elementary schools, whether provided or not? In view of that, is the Amendment in order?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: My hon. friend says that no Amendment to Clause. 8 will be necessary. If no Amendment is put down, there will be no such thing as a public elementary school not maintained.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I should like to ask whether it is necessary to put down a whole series of consequential Amendments before they are reached—to put down the whole scheme before one can move a preliminary Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I should say certainly. I think this Amendment shows how necessary it is to do so, because it is impossible to find out what the meaning of this Amendment standing by itself is. I understand that the hon. Member wishes to make an exception in the case of schools not to be maintained. They are to be under the control of the local authority, but they are to retain their present body of managers. I do not understand how they will get any school grant unless some further Amendment is made.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: Having studied the Amendment, I am not able to suggest where an Amendment should come in, or what sort of Amendment.
  MR. ALFRED BUTTON: Is the Amendment in order?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to have the ruling of the Chairman on that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If no Amendment is in order unless the Amendments consequential to it are on the Paper, the Amendment of the Prime Minister is out of order. In the Amendment occur the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there is not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Horsham. Division is out of order, so is the Prime Minister's.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: We had better dispose of one question at a time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am only using that as an illustration. I submit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham is absolutely in order.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Further elucidation of the Amendment of the hon. Member is necessary, and I do not see how the Committee can be asked to accept it without further debate.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey): Is the Amendment ruled out of order because it is unintelligible?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled it out of order. I am waiting to see if it can be made clear to me.
  MR. M'KENNA: I think it can. Under it there will be three classes of schools. Some will be provided and some will be aided, while the third class will not be maintained, and it is proposed to leave these in the position of appointing their own managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept. The scheme of the Bill was to provide a national system of education, and as he understood the Amendment, it would except certain schools from that system. That he could not agree to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to raise a point of order upon the whole question before the House, namely, the Amendment of the Prime Minister.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: We will dispose of one Amendment at a time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if the Prime Minister's Amendment was not the main question, he should like to know what the main question was. This was an Amendment to an Amendment, and he submitted that he was entitled to raise a point of order on the main Amendment before the Committee. If he was out of order in doing that, then the whole discussion was out of order. He submitted that the discussion was out of order, and nothing was in order before the Committee, because the Government had put down an Amendment which contained words which were incomplete in themselves with reference to a consequential Amendment which was not before the Committee. It was most important for the consideration of this Amendment that they should have the consequential Amendment before them. In the Amendment occurred the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there was not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. The question as to how those managers were to be provided was the whole essence of the controversy. They might be provided in such a way as to meet all the objections of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and, on the other hand, they might be provided in such a way as would not meet those objections. He reminded the Chairman that earlier in the debate he compelled the hon. Member for East Mayo to bring the whole Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member proposed that in 8,000 parishes there should be an exception, and the Chairman ruled that that was not sufficient without taking into consideration the whole scheme. He submitted that the Government were exactly in the same position in regard to their scheme for these 20,000 parishes. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham was out of order, so was the Prime Minister's.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to say, first of all, that the hon. Member for Carnarvon ought to have taken exception to this Amendment at the beginning of the discussion. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] I think at least hon. Members ought to do me the courtesy of listening first to what I have to say when they ask my views. The second objection is that we are not

  207
  discussing the Amendment, but an Amendment to an Amendment. When we reach the words complained of, I think the hon. Member will be entitled to raise this question. I may say that even then, in my opinion, this point really is not the essence of the whole Amendment, and is really only a detail. I agree that it is necessary when an Amendment is brought before the Committee that the general principle and essence of the Amendment should be before the Committee.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONthought the Amendment would provide for the consideration of a certain class of schools which were not specially mentioned in the Bill, and which would require special treatment. He wished to know if it was really intended that charity schools should come under the general scheme, and annually receive their grant from the new authority, and he also wished to knew whether they would be subject to the same clause in regard to management as denominational schools. Some of those schools were purely charity schools while some were charity-cum-religion schools and others charity-cum-industry schools. He wished to know whether these schools would have an opportunity of escaping this kind of control, or whether the Government intended to provide for these charity schools in some special way. He wanted to know how these schools were to be treated in relation to the authority and the managers, and whether they would receive special consideration under the Amendment.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said he wished to emphasise the question which had just been put to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member opposite. This was a somewhat awkward place to introduce this question, but he saw no other opportunity of getting the difficulty cleared up. He had in his mind buildings provided by private charity with private teaching both secular and
  religious. They were not voluntary or provided schools, and they were not public elementary schools. He believed that it was held that these schools were strictly elementary schools, the only difference being one of method and not of subjects. What he wanted to know was, if these schools were taken over by the local authority and maintenance provided out of the rates, would they in every case have to accept a form of management in accordance with the scheme now before the Committee? Would they have to take their four trust managers and two managers nominated by the local authority, or had the Government in view the management of these schools under some other scheme? This was a question which was exciting much anxiety, and he should be glad to get this difficulty out of the way.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University)said the questions raised by the hon. Member for Morley and the hon. Member for North West Ham were wholly-irrelevant to the Amendment. The Amendment dealt with public elementary schools, and neither deaf and dumb schools nor charity schools were public elementary schools. Therefore, they did not come within the scope of the Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMANproceeded to put the Question, and named the tellers.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEobjected to being named as a teller, and said his name had not been handed in at the Table.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: But the hon. Member moved the Amendment.
  (9.48.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 19; Noes, 299. (Division List No. 333.)

  AYES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

  Bond. Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Moss, Samuel

  Dunn. Sir William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fuller. J. M. F.

  Sackville. Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight

  Mr. Heywood Johnstone

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants

  and Mr. M'Kenna.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Joyce, Michael

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kenyon, Hon Geo T. (Denbigh

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doogan, P.C.

  Keswick, William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Allen, Chas. P. (Gloue., Stroud

  Doughty, George

  Labouchere, Henry

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas. Charres M. (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Arnold- Forster, Hugh O.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Arrol. Sir William

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ashton. Thomas Gair

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham

  Bailey. James (Walworth)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, Sir. Joseph F (Accrington

  Bain. Colonel James Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Legge. Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balcarres. Lord

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds

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

  Levy, Maurice

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lloyd-George, David

  Beach. Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bell. Richard

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bigwood James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Black. Alexander William

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bolton. Thomas Dolling

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas.J.

  Bonsfield. William Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brigg, John

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

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

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Burns. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvam, Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Grant, Corrie

  Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)

  Buxton. Sydney Charles

  Gray. Ernest (West Ham)

  Mooney, John J.

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  More, Robert Jasper(Shr'pshire

  Cameron, Robert

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hall. Edward Marshall

  Morley. Charles (Breconshire)

  Cavendish, V.C. W(Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Rt HnLordG (Midd'x

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hamilton. Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hammond, John

  Mount, Willliam Arthur

  Chamberlain, J. Austin (Wore'r

  Hardy, Laur'nee (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Channing. Francis Allston

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murnaghan, George

  Chapman, Edward

  Harms-worth, R. Leicester

  Murray, Rt H nA. Graham (Bute

  Charrington. Spencer

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Churchill. Winston Spencer

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clave, Captain Percy A.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Coehrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Cohen. Benjamin Louis

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Collings. Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Higginbottom. S. W.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hobhouse. Henry (Somerset. E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Holland. Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hope. J. F (Shetheld, Brightside

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Craig. Robert Hunter

  Hornby. Sir William Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Crean, Eugene

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cripps. Charles Alfred

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cross. Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Davies. M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Perks, Robert William

  Delany. William

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  210

  211

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

  Warde. Colonel C. E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Price, Robert John

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Purvis, Robert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Rea, Russell

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Renwick. George

  Talbot, Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'rdUn'v.

  Wilcox, Sir John Archibald

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thomas, JA(Glam'rgan, Gower

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

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Woodhouse, Sir. JT (Huddersf'd

  Roche, John

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edward M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Toulmin. George

  Wylie. Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel. Alexander

  Tully, Jasper

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir William Walrond and

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Mr. Austruther.

  MR. ALFRED HUTTONmoved—
  "To insert in line 9, after 'schools' the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.' The clause would then read—' All public elementary schools conducted in a schoolhouse or premises not provided by the local education authority shall.…'"
  His object was to provide that only those people who had made the sacrifice of providing the buildings in which to carry on the denominational teaching should retain the supreme control of the schools. He took so e encouragement in moving the Amendment from the speech the First Lord of the Treasury made in the afternoon, in which he stated that the great claim for control and management of the denominational schools was that the denominationals had made great sacrifices in building the schools. There were several ways in which schools had been built and provided besides those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. For instance, there were schools which had been built by people who had a special interest in their neighbourhood or village. Those schools were builtand sometimes endowed, and they were put under trustees, among whom there might have been the clergyman and the churchwarden ex officio. They were not put on the trust to make the schools particularly denominational in character, but it had often happened that the schools had
  212
  become, by force of circumstances and long usage, denominational under the dictation and management of the clergyman and the churchwarden. There were many schools in that position, although there was nothing in the conditions of the trust or the endowments to justify their being made of a denominational character. Among the schools to which he referred were those which had been provided by railway companies. The railway companies had not provided the schools in a denominational interest, but for the purpose of avoiding rates. There were a great many voluntary schools provided up and down the country with the object of avoiding rates, and although, by falling into denominational hands, they had become denominational, they were built for the purposes of education of an undenominational character.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 9, after (he word 'schools,' to insert the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words lie there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could hardly conceive a case in which the words proposed by the hon. Member

  213
  would make any difference in the effect of the Clause. There were, however, cases just conceivable in which they would have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desired. For instance, a schoolhouse provided by the local authority might be burned down, and someone might lend a building for carrying on the school. The school would then be conducted in a building not provided by the local authority, and thus the Amendment would have an effect contrary to that which the hon. Gentleman desired.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that the object of his hon. friend clearly was that only bonâ fiae denominational schools should come within this provision. The right hon. Gentleman had not understood the Amendment aright.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)said the Amendment was one which deserved consideration. He understood the object of his hon. friend to be to deal with voluntary schools under undenominational management. It was quite a mistake to suppose that there were no schools of this kind in the country, or that they were a mere handful. He had an Amendment; on the Paper to provide that if there was an undenominational school under a trust deed used for the purposes of this Act it should be treated in the same way as a school provided by the public authority. It was quite clear that where there was an endowment the result of the generosity of former donors who had not attached any condition whatever to the trust deed, the school was, in effect, of the same class as schools provided by the public authority.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that the Committee was entitled to know the full effect of the Amendment. They were in the greatest difficulty, because they were told that certain words were to have no separate sense, and no effect without subsequent words.
  MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said that if the Committee was in any difficulty it arose from the pernicious practice of discussing one Amendment in its relation to some other Amendment.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)said he thought he could make the position clear to some hon. Members. There were a large number of schools in certain districts which had been founded, not for the purpose of promoting denominational education, but with the view of securing adequate instruction to the children who attended them. Many colliery owners, for instance, found it more economical to establish schools and manage them than to allow themselves to be rated for their maintenance by the public. There were thirty-seven such schools in the county of Durham alone. It often happened that in parishes the only individual who took a keen interest in education was the clergyman; and in the case of his own firm, when a certain colliery was closed, a school was handed over to the clergyman. Circumstances and situations varied, and it was absurd that advantage should be taken of them to secure denominational education when the schools were not founded for such a purpose. What was wanted was that, as these schools were not provided on denominational lines, they should be looked upon now as public schools.
  MR. BONDasked why a colliery or railway company which had provided a school should be precluded from having a voice in appointing the persons who were to manage it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to distinguish between schools founded for denominational purposes and those founded for other purposes. As the Clause stood, no distinction would be made between these two classes of schools.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, to leave out the words 'not provided by the local education authority,' and insert the words 'which are held in trust to be conducted in accordance with the doctrines and principles of any particular denomination.'"— (Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he could find no reason why schools founded on other than denominational grounds should be treated with less consideration than those in which denominational teaching was given. He should claim that, not being schools provided by the local authority, the trustees should have a voice in the appointment of managers to carry out the purposes of the trust. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of
  the Council had practically exposed the case of the Government by this objection. There must be some other reason besides denominational teaching, else why should there be managers appointed by the trustees when no denominational teaching was given? The control of the secular education was to be with the education authority, and there could be no reason for the parson, churchwarden, and other ex officio trustees being on the management of schools which had not one jot or tittle of the character of denominational schools.
  (10.38.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes, 274; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 334.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Crean, Eugene

  Gretton, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hambro, Charles Eric

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Mid'x

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Delany, William

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Devlin. Joseph

  Hammond, John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doughty, George

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Boland, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Bond, Edward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Higgin bottom, S. W.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir. William Hart

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fergus-on, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Howard Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Butcher, John George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Carew, James Laurence

  Finch, George H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Flower, Ernest

  Joyce, Michael

  Chapman, Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Keswick, William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gardner. Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gibbs, Hn A G. H. (City of Lond.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lawson, John Grant

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Seely, Maj. J.E. B (Isle of Wight

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesbam

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes).

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  O'Malley, William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sullivan, Donal

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. GEllison.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tollemache, Henry James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Penn, John

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tully, Jasper

  M'Kean, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Col. SirC. E. H. (Sheff.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-L'ne

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Mooney, John J.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Roche, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Murnaghan, George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Murphy, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm(Bute

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Sir William Walrond and

  Myers, William Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Frank

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Black, Alexander William

  Elibank, Master of

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William(Carn'rvonshire

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Labouchere, Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burns, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cameron, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Causton. Richard Knight

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Moss, Samuel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Davies, Alfred. (Carmarthen)

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, Sir George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Norman, Henry

  218

  219

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Perks, Robert William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Price, Robert John

  Taylor, Theodora Cooke

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  William, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

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

  Roberts, John Byrn (Eifion)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Toulmin, George

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ure, Alexander

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Mr. Alfred Hutton and

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mr. M'Kenna.

  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, which was to insert, after the word "authority," the words "and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined." He had placed on the Table a definition clause, which he would propose later: but before that he trusted they would have from the right hon. Gentleman a definition of the new term he had introduced into the Amendment, namely, "trust managers." He would then obtain some enlightenment which might induce him to modify his definition. The object of the Amendment was to assert the possibility and the propriety of exceptional treatment in the case of Church of England schools. When he indicated the nature of his Amendment a few nights ago, an hon. Member opposite declared that he had delivered an anti-State Church speech, and that his object was to penalise the Church of England. There could be no more ludicrous perversion of his purpose than that. He did not in any way intend to raise the question of Disestablishment by his Amendment. On the contrary, he took his stand on the fact that the Church of England was by law established, and in that respect differed from all other Churches. He recognised the State connection of the Church of England, and based on that the exceptional treatment for Church of England schools which he now asked for. So far from wishing to fetter the Church of England, the object of the Amendment was to secure greater freedom, in the shape of more control by the laity. The main ground of his proposal was that he discriminated between the Church of England schools and all other schools, because of the connection
  220
  of the Church of England with the State. The Church of England differed from all other Churches in this respect—that its doctrines, its institutions, and its practice all existed as a matter of positive law. There was no other Church of which that could be said, not even the Church of Rome. He would quote, in support of his contention, a statement issued by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, who was now Cardinal Vaughan. He said that he thought the contention just that all schools in connection with the Church of England should be considered as State schools, and that, therefore, they should be managed like other State schools under the Education Act. He did not go so far as that himself. He preferred to limit his Amendment to more modest proportions. He did not propose that Church of England schools should be placed on the same footing as ordinary State schools. He preferred a, modified proposal, under which the laity of the Church of England should have additional control. The Amendment had been suggested to him, not by Nonconformists, but by laymen of the Church of England, and he hoped, therefore, that hon. Members who represented the laity of the Church of England would support his proposal. The laity had some right to complain when they found Church schools carried on by managers whose interpretation of Church or England practice did not commend itself to them. There was no Church more free from dogmatic restrictions than the Church of England. It was the most free Church in Christendom in that respect. It was in the interests of the laity that their wishes and beliefs, and opinions of Church of England doctrine and practice should be respected more than they were

  221
  by many clerical managers. He did not think that the Church party in this Mouse could claim to speak on behalf of the Church of England as a whole. Certainly he did not regard them as entitled to speak on behalf of the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests he moved the Amendment. He did not think there was any other Church in the country in which distrust of clericalism was so deeply implanted in a large portion of the laity as in the Church of England.
  It might be asked if there was really any need for the special treatment which he proposed. He believed there was such a need. He would not discuss questions as to doctrine and practice. All parties and opinions were represented in the Mouse, and if he condemned one particular doctrine as being contrary to the spirit of the Church of England, he would probably have to say something which would offend others. Therefore, he would say nothing as to that, but he would give one instance of the sort of thing which he believed the laity disliked and distrusted. There had been placed in his hand by members of the Church of England, for the purpose of being mentioned in this debate, the story of the withdrawal of some 200 children from a Church school, on account of the character of the doctrines and practices inculcated in connection with that school by the predominant manager—the clergyman of the parish. The correspondence revealed a dispute on the question whether the managers had violated the Conscience Clause. The point was that the parents of these 200 children, being members of the Church of England, had been driven to take advantage of the Conscience Clause [An HON. MEMBER: What is the name of the school?] The school was the Michaelfield school. Michaelfield was a place in Yorkshire; it was close to Leeds, and he was sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds was not there, because he might be able to give detailed information about the case. That was not the sort of thing which would commend itself to the laity. All he proposed tonight was that there was a case for exceptional treatment of Church of England schools, because of the connection between the Church and the State. He would
  222
  propose a consequential Amendment, that every elected churchwarden of the parish should be an ex officio member of the new Board of Trust Management. The churchwarden was an ancient ecclesiastical officer of the Church of England, and his position was distinctly recognised by law. It was as clear and as undoubted, though not as important, as that of the clergyman of the parish. The rule as to the election of churchwardens was that the vicar appointed one churchwarden and that the parishioners elected the other—although sometimes the clergyman appointed the two. It was not a case in which there was uniformity of practice, as there was a great variation of local custom, which would have to be taken into account in the Amendment he would propose later. He was not sure that there were many restrictions as to the religious belief of persons who might be elected churchwardens; and he believed it was possible for a woman to be a churchwarden. He did not see why Nonconformists generally, whether they had a school of their own or not, should object to his proposal. It neither affirmed nor disaffirmed the principle of disestablishment. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members representing Nonconformist interests might see their way to consider, and, if possible, to adopt, the proposal. But his main appeal was to the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests this Amendment was brought forward. It was to them he looked for support. The Church of England was a Church as by law established, and, if there was one thing more certain than another about it, it was that it was a Protestant Episcopal Church. He believed that the laity of the Church of England were impatient of clerical control in church matters, and, still more, in the management of schools. He would appeal to hon. Members opposite to remember that their Party had been to a large extent implicated in practices which had been condemned. It had been said, and he believed it to be true, that the headquarters of ritualism were in the high places of the Tory Party. They should not allow themselves to be associated with such practices, and he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to resist the system which had arisen, so far, at least, as the schools were concerned. He begged to move,
  Amendment proposed to the proposed 'Amendment—
  "In line 9, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined.'"— (Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman began his speech by quoting a Roman Catholic bishop on the legal position of the Church of England, and he ended by an attack on ritualism. Neither of these topics had very much; to do with the Amendment. Perhaps he did not know much about the high places of the Tory Party, but as far as his knowledge went, ritualism had very little to do with them. The object of the hon. Gentleman was one for which he had constantly expressed his sympathy, and one which this Bill was largely designed to carry out, and would carry out; that was to increase the lay element in the management of voluntary schools. They were told that a great many schools were entirely managed by clergymen, owing to the fact that the clergyman was the only person in the parish who took an interest in education. In future, the whole of the secular work would be under the control of a body popularly elected, and as far as the local management of the schools was concerned, the clergyman would probably henceforth in most cases be only one-sixth of the body responsible for the management of the school; and if the body of management was increased to twelve, the clerical element would be even further diluted. The hon. Member proposed to supplement the efforts made by the Bill to bring about lay representation, and with that object he drew a distinction between the Church of England and every other denomination to the disadvantage of the Church. Whereas Roman Catholics or Wesleyans were to have four out of the six managers of their schools, the Church of England was to have only three. Why should the Roman Catholics be treated better than the Church of England? The hon. Gentleman quoted a Roman Catholic bishop, but that was not a sufficient authority for the House to draw a distinction in favour of Roman
  224
  Catholics and against the Church of England. Let the Committee consider the machinery by which the hon. Member proposed to carry his Amendment into effect. The hon. Gentleman wished to introduce an additional lay element on the governing body by making the elected churchwarden a. member. If he desired to increase the elected members of the governing body of church schools, which he thought would be grossly unfair to the Church, he might, at all events, have chosen a simple and workmanlike machinery for carrying out that object. He had, however, chosen a most clumsy and antiquated machinery. As the hon. Member said, an elected churchwarden need not be a member of the Church of England; he might be a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic; the only thing he might not be was a Jew. Why were they to make this distinction between the parishioners who might be on the governing body and those who might not? There was another objection in, the present clumsy and expensive system of electing the people's churchwarden. It was the most expensive and absurd, method of election that could be well supposed. Were they going to have a Parish Council election and also another election for a churchwarden? Who was going to pay for it? He understood that the cost would fall on the Church rate, but the Church rate could no longer be compulsorily collected, and, therefore, it might fall by legal process on the unfortunate vicar, who might be sent to prison because he could not pay the cost of the election of a man to the governing body in order to control himself. The proposal was obviously absurd. If they were to increase the elected body, let them say so plainly; let them do it in connection with Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and other voluntary; schools; but do not let them select one church, and abandon every principle of fair play regarding it. Let them not burden that Church with such a ludicrous method of adding to the elected members of the governing body of its schools by such cumbersome: and inadequate machinery. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division, and that the Committee would not waste further

  225
  time over a scheme which he was certain was impracticable, and which, he thought, he had persuaded the House was also absurd.
  *MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)said that it was a great pleasure to be in complete agreement with the Prime Minister. There was a Latin quotation which spoke of everything that was unknown being supposed to be magnificent. That was suggested to him by hearing a Scotchman speak of the method of electing churchwardens in England. He opposed the Amendment because he was thankful to say that they had reached that state when the Church of England was spoken of as a denomination, and he did not wish any Amendment on the Opposition side to move it from that place to a special one. It would be a very bad example if they suggested in any way that it should be subjected to restrictions because it was the Church by law established. Let them by treating it fairly prepare for the time when it would not be so.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he wished to support the Amendment, which he thought was worthy of more consideration than the Prime Minister had given it. He desired to recognise with satisfaction the popular control which would be given under the Bill; but he was also desirous of seeing a greater amount of popular control, and he thought the Amendment pointed out a way in which further popular control might be given, without altering the denominational character of the managing board. He failed to see how the Amendment would be a disadvantage to the Church of England. It did not propose to deprive Church of England schools of one of their denominational managers, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the churchwarden would be a member of the Church of England. There were good reasons why the Church of England schools should be treated in an exceptional way. At the present day the position of the Church of England afforded ground for very obvious criticism. They all knew that the religious difficulty was at the bottom of all the trouble in connection with the Bill.
  226
  But the religious difficulty was not entirely a Nonconformist grievance. They had a Church of England grievance, which was not identical with what was called the Nonconformist grievance, but which was quite as serious. However unworthy, he represented in this matter many hundreds of thousands of people who were sorely troubled by what was going on in their Church of England schools. He thought on that Clause, and on that Amendment especially, he would be in order in asking the Committee to consider the serious objection which many members of the Church of England had at the manner in which their schools were carried on. They felt that there should be some additional safeguard to prevent these schools from being abused for improper purposes. The parents sent their children to the schools in order that they might be brought up in accordance with the doctrines and principles of the Church of England, but in a large number of the schools the children were taught the doctrines and tenets of the Church of Rome instead. They were taught to believe that the chief service of the Church was the mass, and they were also taught the doctrine of transubstantiation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting rather away from the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he thought he would be in order in giving some of the reasons why members of the Church of England thought the protection afforded by the Conscience Clause was insufficient, and that there should be some guarantee that the Church of England schools should be conducted on Church of England lines. The great grievance of Church of England people at the present day was that children in Church of England schools were not properly instructed in the doctrines of the Church of England, but were taught the doctrines of another Church. The children were taught to worship the Virgin, and they were taken to illegal services. The Conscience Clause was not applicable to these cases.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid the Amendment proposed a large amount of popular control in connection with Church of England schools. If some butter method of securing that end had been proposed, he would have been glad. It was necessary that something should be done, and as the present proposal embodied the mildest possible form of additional protection that could be conceived, it ought to receive the careful attention of the Committee.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the Amendment was a most important one from a Churchman's point of view, and he hoped it would be pressed to a division. He failed to see how it could in any way injure the Church of England to have one of its own lay officials put into this office as a guarantee that the laity of the Church should be represented on the managing body. It had been suggested that in some cases the churchwarden would be a Nonconformist. Those were, he thought, the very cases in which a Nonconformist ought to be on the Committee, because if the Church of England was in such a minority that it could not elect one of its own members as churchwarden, surely the Nonconformists ought to have some thing to say in regard to the only school in the parish.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)asked the Vice President for a legal definition of a trust manager. In the case of schools managed under trust deeds the managers had a legal status, but there were many schools, the property of the largest landowner in the parish, which were really managed anyhow, and, though certain persons were recognised by the Board of Education as managers, they had no legal status whatever. He could find no definition of the term in the Bill, and it was difficult to vote on these questions without some explanation.
  MR. SOARESthought the Committee were entitled to some information as to the cases in which the number of managers would, be raised to twelve.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment was really a most important one, as it had revealed the fact that the Government themselves did not know exactly what they were proposing. The Prime Minister had declared that the Bill would increase the lay as against the clerical element on the managing bodies, but, as a matter of fact, it would make the clergy even more independent of the laity than they had hitherto been. By practically every trust deed, the managers were appointed by the subscribers, and if the clergyman wanted to get the control of the school into his own hands, he had only to find men who sympathised with his views, or who would be prepared to subordinate their ideas to his. He contended that under the Hill the managers would be elected in the future in the same way as in the past—a few subscribers nominated by the parson would do it.
  MR. BANBURYsaid it would depend upon the trust deed, He was a manager of a voluntary school, but he was not appointed by the subscribers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasserted that the common form of trust deeds of the National Society provided that the parson should be a manager ex officio and the rest elected by the subscribers. It could not be contended that the whole of the laity in any parish would have a voice in the appointment of managers. Until the Government chose to tell the Committee — who were at present in the dark on the matter—what was going to be done, it must be assumed that the subscribers would do it; and to contend that more representation would be given to the lay element was absurd. Did hon. Members opposite desire to trust the laity of their own Church? If so, that was the object of the Amendment. If they were to have denominational education, he would rather trust the laity of any Church than the parsons of every Church; there was more likelihood of fair play. Why was it that even in parishes where she had a minority of the population, the State Church could build and maintain a school? Because she was able to call on the Nonconformists to maintain

  229
  her ministers for her. The schools, though nominally of the Church of England, were really parochial schools. They were not built entirely out of the subscriptions of members of the Church of England, and many of them were erected under something very like false pretences. ["Divide."] It required little intelligence to cry "Divide" when unpalatable arguments were being adduced, but proposals which had never been placed before the electors were not to be carried by shouting. His second point was that they ought to have a representation of the laity. His hon. friend was not proposing to elect a churchwarden for the first time, and he thought this was a very fair Amendment. As long as the Church of England was a State Church, they were entitled to claim a representation not merely of the clergy but of the laity as well.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said that for the information of the Committee he might state that a model trust deed provided that the election, appointment, and dismissal of teachers should be in all respects under the management and control of the Committee, which consisted of the minister for the time being of the said parish, his curate or curates, if he should appoint any, the churchwardens, if members of the Established Church, and other persons and subscribers, being members of the Established Church. These conditions supported entirely the argument used upon this point by the hon. Member for Carnarvon.
  (12.3.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 335.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harwood, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloue, Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

  Beigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy Maurice

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Edwards, Frauk

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fenwick Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price, Robert John

  Grant, Corrie

  Priestley, Arthur

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Griffith. Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Warner and Sir

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rigg, Richard

  Brampton Gurdon.

  Hardie, J. Keir,(MerthyrTydvil

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir. John E.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duffy, William J.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arkwright John Stanhope

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arrol. Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Willam Hart

  Leveson Gower. Frederick N. S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Faber, George Denison. (York)

  Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bain. Colonel James Robert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona. John Cumming

  Bignold, Arthur

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Brodrick, Colonel Montagu

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfries-sh

  Bull, William James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bullard Sir Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Butcher, John George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Carew, James Laurence

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'rbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hammond, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murnaghan, George

  Clive. Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murphy, John

  Cochnane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Cogan Denis J.

  Haslett. Sir James Horner

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.)

  Cranborne, Lord

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Cripes s Charles Alfred

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Connor. James(Wicklow, W.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Malley, William

  Delany, William

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Mara, James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerH'mlets)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Keswick, William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Dillon, John

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  232

  233

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Shef'ld;

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackhey)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Roche, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edv. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Sir William Walrond and

  Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Amendment made to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 9, by inserting, after the word 'shall,' the words 'in place of the existing managers.'" —(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)moved that there should be two sets of managers, one for the religious education, the other to secure that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. He said this was another attempt at compromise on the question. One form of compromise had already been rejected by the Government this afternoon. The object of his Amendment was to make perfectly clear what the Government had expressed to the House to be their intention, namely, that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. That control which was proposed hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House considered to be in the main a sham. All that had been put forward hitherto by the supporters of the Church of England had been an offer that, whilst still keeping control of the voluntary schools in their hands, they would allow the denominations to have some access to the schools and some opportunity of teaching their children. A great many on this side of the House sincerely recognised the denominational claim, but they said that, in the first instance, it must be laid
  234
  down definitely that public control was to be granted. That was done by his. Amendment, and it went further. Having created a secular Committee in the interest of public control, it created a religious Committee, consisting exclusively of the present trust managers who wished to have an opportunity of providing denominational education for the children of parents who were dissatisfied with what they got under the system of popular control. He could not help thinking that this was a compromise which might be eventually accepted. It was a compromise based on an example to be found in some of our Colonies. There popular control was complete, but in some cases, such as Manitoba and New South Wales, there was recognition of the right of the parent to have denominational teaching, if he wanted it—the right of the denomination to come into the school and teach. This was an attempt to give that right, or at any rate, to give it in the case of existing denominational schools. The objection, which would be raised to his proposal was that the denominations, in virtue of the fact that they had built these schools, had a higher and superior claim to control them, and that they had the right to appoint the teachers. He reminded the Committee that in an enormous number of cases the denominations only did so with the knowledge and consciousness that the State was going to maintain them except in the mere matter of bricks and mortar. He would put this question to the Church people.

  235
  When would their claim terminate? How long after the State had begun to provide the whole maintenance of these schools, and five-sixths of the whole expenditure of the year, was the claim on the part of the Church to have the management in virtue of having built the schools to outweigh the fact that the State was providing the money for their maintenance? It was perfectly obvious that the time must come when the claim of the State must become predominant. It appeared to some hon. Members that that claim was already the preponderating one.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 9, to leave out all the words after the words 'a body of,' to end of sub section (2), and insert the words 'secular managers appointed in the same way as in the case of schools provided by the local education authority, and another body of religious managers appointed as at present under the trust, who shall, if dissatisfied with the religious teaching provided by the secular managers, be entitled to make arrangements for the provision of religious teaching distinctive of their denomination during a period of not less than half an hour at the commencement of every school day for the children of such parents as ask for it in writing. The local education authority shall be required to take such steps as are necessary to facilitate is such arrangements."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'managers' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Elland was a practicable one. He could not imagine that it would conduce to any educational or religious interests, or to the harmonious working of the schools. He was sure that, in whatever direction the much desired compromise between the contending parties might be found, it would not be on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid there was no doubt there were some difficulties in the way of the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. This was only one of the numerous Amendments to be moved from that side of the House which expressed their very strong feeling that the whole question of the management of the schools not provided by the
  236
  local education authority had not been adequately thought out and provided for by the Government. He had not risen so much to discuss the details of the Amendment, as to make a very strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether they had not reached a stage at which the right hon. Gentleman should make some statement showing that he would take time to consider his position, instead of embarking the Committee on long controversies, and that he would allow this matter to stand over to a later stage in the autumn session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he did not intend to ask the Committee to try and finish these controversies that night. That, he thought, would be unreasonable.
  * MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said he thought the wording of the Amendment was not as simple and clear as it might be made in order to indicate the purpose his hon. friend had in view; but he thought that it was a reasonable and fair compromise. The First Lord of the Treasury had clearly not grasped the scope of the Amendment, and he begged his attention to it. It was in substance practically the same as the suggestion repeatedly made, after the passing of the Act of 1870, by the most advanced group of educational reformers, and notably Dr. Crosskey the Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, with a view to arrive at an equitable solution of this very difficulty. What they suggested, and what this Amendment offered to secure, was that the denominational managers should retain absolute control of the building, and the right to maintain and direct in their own way their distinctive religious teaching at any time outside the time-table of the secular curriculum of the schools. The school would pass under the complete control of the elected authority for all secular teaching, exactly as by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals it would pass under the new local education authority. In this way all that was essential to the maintenance of this specific religious teaching would be secured, while there would be a real chance of welding together and bringing into a single coordinated system all the schools of a rural district. It seemed to him unsatisfactory if they did not attempt, by some uniform system of management, to bring

  237
  all the schools into line, and this could be done with security to the denominational character of the school by some such Amendment as this.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury must admit that the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was not meant, and would not have the effect of undenominationalising the voluntary schools. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in denominational schools; and they did not think that, if the teachers were under public control, denominational interests would go by the Board. What they wanted to secure was public control over all secular education. When they came to these new schools, he thought that
  was a plan which the Government might reasonably adopt, reserving the legitimate control of the people in regard to secular education. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in the denominational schools, but the public control of secular education must be secured. It was no part of their demand to say that there should not be any denominational teaching. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that, in his opinion, the Cowper-Temple Clause had preserved religious teaching in this-country so far as it was desirable.
  (12.48.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237 Noes, 86. (Division List No. 336.)

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Delany, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dillon, John

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Men on

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York.

  Keswick, William

  Boland, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Law, Hush Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bull, William James

  Finch, George H.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Carlile, William Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r

  Gilhooly, James

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lowe, Francis William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gretton, John

  Macartney, Rt Hn WG Ellison

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Guest., Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hammond, John

  M'Kean, John

  M 'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Plamer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfries-sh.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Milvain, Thomas

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tully, Jasper

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Renwick, George

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Mount, William Arthur

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roche, John

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Murphy, John

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Welby, Lt. -Col A C E (Taunton

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Seely, Maj. J.E B. (Isle of Wight

  Wylie, Alexander

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  TELLER FOR THE AYES—

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Smith, Jame Parker (Lanarks.

  Sir William Walrond and

  O'Malley, William

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

  Mr. Anstruther.

  O'Mara, James

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Helme. Norval Watson

  Runciman, Walter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Josepi

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Fitzmanrice, Lord Edmund

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gadstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Grant, Corrie

  Price, Robert John

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rea, Russell

  Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.

  Harmworth, R. Leicester

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Alfred Hutton.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they had now come to the words, "Consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act." He submitted that this was the very essence of the whole clause. Upon the way these managers
  240
  were provided would depend the whole of the controversy between the two sides of the House. If this proposal were carried, there was nothing to prevent the First Lord of the Treasury bringing forward a provision that the whole of these managers should be elected directly

  241
  by the ratepayers. Upon this question depended the attitude of both parties in the House in regard to this subject. The whole controversy turned upon the way these managers were to be provided. They were now Being asked to discuss a clause without knowing the method by which the managers were to be provided, and they were asked to discuss it in the dark. He submitted, as a point of order, that the Government were not entitled to proceed with this Amendment without first submitting their proposals with regard to the provision of managers.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: In the first place I do not think that this matter is of the essence of the clause, as I stated earlier in the debate. As a matter of fact, however, the Government have hande in their proposals. [Opposition crises of "Oh, oh!" and An HON. MEMBER: Where are they?] They are in my hand at the present time, along with some manuscript Amendments which have been handed in.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was a very remarkable proceeding. Two or three hours ago he submitted a point of order, which was ruled against him, and he accepted that decision. He was told that later on was the proper place to raise his objection when they came to deal with the composition of trust managers. He found that in the meantime the Government had tabled their proposals. He made no further comment on that, but he submitted that they could not possibly discuss the question of the composition of the trust managers without knowing what trust managers were. The very words "trust managers" were new in law. He was not aware that those words occurred in any Education Act or any other Act, and no explanation had been given as to what they meant. How could they discuss this subject without knowing what the proposals of the Government were? He thought it was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman could not ask the House to discuss words which at the present time were perfectly meaningless. The whole question depended upon what was provided. The right hon. Gentleman might provide something which met all their objections raid he might not. Was it treating the Committee fairly to ask them to discuss a proposal like this,
  242
  which was not on the Paper even in out line? Were the subscribers only to be the managers, or were the ratepayers or the laity to be included? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have thought out the proposals he had handed in during the course of the discussion. The composition of a body which was to manage 14,000 schools was not a matter which the right hon. Gentle man could think out while attending to the debate. If these new proposals had only been thought out in the course of the-last two hours, he suggested that the Government should take more time to consider a question upon which the future success of their scheme would depend. In the interests of the House of Commons and the Bill itself, and in the interests of of fair play, he did not think the Government ought to invite the House to discuss a project which was not before them, and which was to be "hereinafter provided for" This was not treating the Committee fairly, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman should now report progress in order that they might have time to consider what his proposals really were. He therefore moved to report progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that if his hon. and learned friend had convinced the right hon. Gentleman, he had no desire to go on, and he would, spare the Committee the few minutes which he should otherwise occupy in stating the reasons why the Government should agree to this Motion. They were a little surprised at the objection being ruled out of order, because when they had moved Amendments which referred to some subsequent clause they had been called upon to produce such clause in order to show what "hereinafter provided for" meant. Here they had an elaborate Amendment before them which omitted what was the most material part of the Amendment. One would have thought that this particular point was the most material thing, and that it would have been put upon the Paper earlier, so that they would have known how these managers were to he appointed. With regard to the appointment of the minority of the managers, it was specifically stated how they wore to be

  243
  appointed, but when they came to the four managers who were to constitute the statutory majority, nothing whatever was told them. The Government had evidently not made up their minds upon this point until the present moment, and now they were being asked to discuss how these four managers were to be appointed without anybody having any idea as to the way in which the Government proposed they should be appointed. Was it reasonable that they should be called upon to discuss this question without any information as to the character of the Government proposals? If the present proceeding was in order, a Motion to report progress was the proper method of dealing with it. It was unreasonable to be called upon to discuss the Amendment as to the character of the persons who were to be governors of 14,000 schools. He hoped that before next Friday the Government would let the Committee know what their scheme was.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had added anything material to what was said by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He thought the plea that progress should be reported because the Government had ill-used the House was unjust, as there had never been any concealment as to these denominational managers. They had argued throughout the whole discussion that those managers were to be nominated, and every speaker who had taken part in the debate knew that that was so. Therefore, that was the material, and the only material thing, for the present discussion. If the hon. Gentleman opposite would glance down all the alternative schemes which still remained on the Paper he would see that they all turned on the fact that hon. Members opposite desired to see the number of denominational managers diminished and the number of the elected managers increased. There had been no concealment whatever in the matter, and everybody had known exactly what they had to deal with. The only reason for the delay was the problem presented by the strange condition and variety of the trustees of the schools. He could tell the Committee now what the broad outline of the Government proposals was. He frankly admitted that the Clause
  244
  was framed with the idea of leaving trust deeds, as far as possible, alone.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What constituency will elect the managers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on the trust deeds. It would not be the same in all cases.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But if there were no trustees?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be necessary to appoint trustees, as far as possible in conformity with the traditions of the school, to fit in with this Clause.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But who appoints the trustees?
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)asked about schools owned by individuals where there were no trust deeds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if there were no trustees it would be the duty of the Board of Education to frame trusts.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: To deal with my property?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious that the owners of voluntary schools should retain their rights. He was, however, afraid that the Committee would not do much effective work in connection with this matter that night, so he should accept the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  YARDLEY CHARITY BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes after One o'clock.