Sitting of 28 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Liver-pool (East Toxteth Division.)
In the room of Augustus Frederick Warr, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATIO BILL.
  Considered: to be read the third time to-morrow.
PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Argyll, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Walsall; Bristol; Ravensthorpe; Codnor Park; Teignmouth; Coventry; Grangemouth; South Darenth; Dart-Ford; Blaydon; Pelton Fell; Chester le Street; Clydebank; Sunderland; and, Clayton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Cowlinge; Ipswich; Walsall; Woking, and Castle-morton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Bristol; Walsall; Ravensthorpe; Codnor Park; Teignmouth; Summerstown; Dartford; Coventry; Clydebank; Pelton Fell; Chester le Street; Sunderland; Liver-pool, and Clayton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Widnes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Gloucester and Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Bristol; Walsall; Ravensthorpe; Codnor; Park; Dartford; Teignmouth; Blaydon; Pelton Fell; Chester le Street; Grangemouth; Coventry; Clydebank; South Darenth; Sunderland, and Clayton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Eccles, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 4, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Mombasa-Victoria (Uganda) Railway Committee on the progress of the Works, 1901–2 (with two Maps and a Section) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Rules to be observed in planning and fitting up of public elementary schools [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Temperance Legislation for Scotland.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any temperance legislation for Scotland during the present session; and whether the Bill which the Secretary for Scotland has in preparation will be brought in this session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) As the hon. Member is aware, the state of public business makes it quite impossible to introduce any new controversial measure in the course of the autumn session.

  India—Technical and Industrial Education.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps have been taken by the Government of India within the last two years with a view to develop technical and industrial education.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question asked by him on this subject on 24th July last, and to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (N.E. Division) on 31st July last†I have not yet received from the Government of India their matured conclusions on the subject of technical and industrial education, but I am aware that the subject is being very carefully considered by Lord Curzon's Government.

  Motor Car Regulations.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the propriety of requiring that every driver of a motor car in a public thoroughfare shall be in possession of a certificate of efficiency granted by some qualified local authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As I have stated in reply to previous Questions, I am afraid there would be much difficulty in giving effect to the suggestion of my hon. friend. The whole subject, however, of amendment of the law as to motor cars is receiving my attention.

  Siege of Ladysmith—The "Terrible" Gun Mountings.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will endeavour to provide for the Ladysmith gun carriages from H.M.S. "Terrible" being placed in some public museum if they are net otherwise disposed of.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Foster The gun-mountings which were in use on
  † See (4) Debates, cxi., 1144; cxii 272.
  940
  shore in South Africa were not returned to H.M.S. "Terrible," but were appropriated for military service, and it is understood they are still in South Africa. I shall be happy, however, to make further inquiries as to their present whereabouts.

  Telegraph Service—Decrease of Candidates.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that there has been a decrease in the number of applicants for the male positions in the telegraph service, and that as a consequence the educational standard of the service has become lowered; and whether he intends to suggest any remedy with a view towards restoring the service to its efficiency previous to 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen. Chamberlain.) So far as I am aware there is no decrease in the number of successful male candidates for situations as sorting clerks and telegraphists throughout the country generally, but there is a decrease in London and at a few provincial towns in the Midland district. I do not regard this fact as more than a passing difficulty. But I am considering whether it is desirable to make any alteration in the system of recruiting the service.

  Sorters and Telegraphists—Mixed Duties.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the scheme whereby sorters and telegraphists are compelled to work in both branches of the service; and whether he can state if the chief telegraph superintendents throughout the country expressed the opinion that this scheme was the chief cause of the admitted inefficiency of the telegraph service.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The subject is still under consideration. No such opinion as is suggested in the latter part of the Question was expressed by the chief telegraph superintendents.

  Dingwall Barrack Accommodation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any probability of barracks being erected in the vicinity of Dingwall in the course of the ensuing year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick The reply is in the negative.

  Army—Defective Teeth.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received any report from the Royal Army Medical Department upon the number of men invalided in or from South Africa, upon the ground of defective teeth, and if it is in contemplation to take any steps towards improving the dental condition of the rank and file.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of men invalided home from South Africa from the beginning of the war for defective teeth is 2,451. I have no information to show how many were invalided in South Africa. The subject of improving the dental condition of the rank and file in the Army is receiving careful consideration. Appointments of dentists were made during the war, and we are at present awaiting the results of the experimental measures which have been taken to remedy the conditions complained of.

  South Africa—Army Rations Contract with M'Connachie Brothers.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state upon what date was the contract signed between the War Office and the firm of M'Connachie Brothers, Limited, for the supply of tinned rations for the troops in South Africa; whether it contained a fair wages clause; the number of tins cont acted for; and the proportion of those rejected as being unfit for use.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) During the period of the war there have been twenty-three different contracts with M'Connachie Brothers for the meat and vegetable rations, all of which contained the usual clause as to payment of current rates of wage No of these
  942
  tinned rations was condemned, but a proportion of the emergency rations was found to deteriorate after they had been a considerable time on hand, and the firm supplied further consignments.

  Lunatic Asylums Return.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to Lunatic Asylums, which appears on the Paper this day.†
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by Sir Matthew Ridley on the 1st March, 1900. As the Return is a costly one and contains little information beyond that given in annual reports, I do not see my way to alter the decision of my predecessor.

  Conviction of a Metropolitan Policeman for Perjury.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any other constable has retired or has been dismissed from the Metropolitan police force in connection with the case of the constable who was convicted and sentenced to five years penal servitude for perjury; whether he can state the cause of such retirement or dismissal; and whether any indemnity was promised to the said constable for his acts.
  (Answered by secretary Akers-Douglas.) One other constable was permitted to resign (this being equivalent to dismissal) for using unnecessary violence when assisting to convey to the police station the prosecutor in the case referred to, and for other reasons which, in the Commissioners' opinion, made him unfit to remain in the force. No indemnity was promised to him.

  Alterations in the Prayer Book.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: To ask the Secretary
  †"Address for Return of the Lunatic Asylums in the United Kingdom and Ireland (sic) on the 1st day of January 1902 (in continuation of and in the same form as Parliamentary Paper, No. 434, of Session 1895)."
  ‡ See (4)Debates lxxix., 1440.

  943
  of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in a recent edition of the Book of Common Prayer, the King's printers have made certain alterations from the authorised text, and will he state by whose authority they were made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that the points referred to in the Question of the hon. Member are the omission of the word "well," in the offertory sentence "for with such sacrifices God is well pleased," and the omission of a comma after "grace," in the sentence" outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us," in the Catechism. The following are the facts of the case. By the Act of Uniformity of 1662 it is provided that all ministers shall be bound to say and use the public and common prayer "in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book annexed and joined to the present Act." It appears that in the "annexed book," the sentence taken from the 13th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews runs "for with such sacrifices God is pleased." The "annexed book," having been carefully collated in 1894 by the King's printers, in consultation with the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the error in earlier editions of the Prayer Book was corrected. With regard to the omission of the comma after the word "grace," in the passage in the Catechism, it is to be observed that, though the comma appears in the "annexed book," the punctuation of that book is throughout of such a peculiar description that it would, if exactly reproduced in modern type, be inconvenient and confusing. As a matter of fact, the punctuation of different editions of printed Prayer Books has varied considerably, and in this particular case the printers at their consultation found that the practice was by no means uniform. In many editions, going back to early dates, the comma was omitted, in others it was printed. Having in view the great importance of uniformity in such a matter, the printers agreed that the comma should be omitted, so that the interpretation of the sentence should not be prejudiced in any direction, it being clear that the
  944
  system of punctuation in the "annexed book" is not such as to justify the basing of an argument on the presence or absence of this comma.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Concentration Camps— Cost of Maintenance since the War.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state out of what fund the concentration camps have been maintained since the termination of the war.
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The cost of the concentration camps has been met out of Army funds since the 31st of May, as before; a sum of £1,200,000 was provided for the maintenance of the camps in Army Votes 1902–3.

  South African Settlement—Taxation of the New Colonies.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether ho will afford an opportunity for the discussion of the general settlement in South Africa, and of the proposals of His Majesty's Government as regards the future financial arrangements and scheme of taxation of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; and whether he will shortly be prepared to make a general statement on this subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that I do not think the question is at present ripe for such a general discussion as he desires, nor do I think it possible that it will be ripe for some time to come.

  Boer Generals at Cambridge.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which I have sent him private notice, viz., whether his attention has been called to a report in today's newspapers relative to the attitude taken by the mob at the meeting addressed by the three Boer commanders at Cambridge last evening, and what

  945
  steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such riotous and disorderly scenes at any future meeting of a similar character.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I only received notice of the hon. Member's Question a few minutes ago, and I have not had time to make any inquiries. I will do so.

  Military Offenders in Civil Prisons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of soldiers sentenced to punishment for military offences, now in local or convict prison, and the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in local or convict prisons, sentenced by the civil courts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): The numbers of soldiers in local and convict prisons are as follow:—Sentenced by courts-martial for military offences 235; sentenced by civil courts for criminal offences 192; sentenced by courts- martial for criminal offences 211.

  Woolwich Arsenal Foremen's Pensions.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now see his way to state what arrangements have been made to safeguard the interests of the foremen in Woolwich Arsenal who at present belong to trade societies, and who will come under the new pension scheme, seeing that these foremen have in some instances accumulated as much as £benefit during a membership of forty years.
  MR. BRODRICK: The scale of pension offered is far more liberal than that given by the trade society to which the great majority of those concerned belong; the minimum which can be awarded under the scheme being equal to the superannuation benefit given by the society after forty year's membership. No foreman has been asked to accept the scheme if he did not find it to his own interest to do so. I must not be understood to confirm my hon. Friend's figures.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Was not the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich informed, informed, reply to a Question—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! It is irregular to thus refer to the answer to a previous Question.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I will endeavour to put the Question in another way. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider on behalf of his Department whether it is not possible to avoid compelling these men to lose the benefits which they have accumulated for forty years?
  MR. BRODRICK: My hon. friend proposes that they shall have both pensions?
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Yes, they have paid for them both.
  MR. BRODRICK: Parliament would hardly be prepared to give benefits for which no sort of arrangement was made when they came in, if the men are at the same time to claim it from another quarter.

  Somaliland Operations.
  MR. HERBERT BOBERTS: 1 beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what was the composition and numbers of the several corps under the command of Colonel Swayne in Somaliland and in other parts of East Africa, including transport and commissariat followers; whether any of the troops of the Indian Government were included in these forces; whether he will say what is the composition and armament of the troops ordered from India to reinforce Colonel Swayne; and whether an assurance will be given that all the charges incurred in the transport of these forces, together with current rates of pay, allowances for foreign service, and debits due to pension accounts arising from this expedition, will be borne by the British Treasury.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): On October 6th there were in Somaliland under the

  947
  command of Colonel Swayne 300 men 2nd Battalion King's African Rifles, 500 men 6th Battalion King's African Rifles, sixty Sikhs from the Sikh contingent in British Central Africa, and also local levies 1,500 strong. Besides these troops there were two 7-pounders and six 9-pounder R.M.L. No troops of the Government of India were then in Somaliland. Since that date 270 men and four officers of the 1st Bombay Grenadiers, forming part of the Aden garrison, have already landed in Somaliland. The 2nd Bombay Grenadiers and 400 men of the 23rd Bombay Rifles, with six additional officers and two maxims and one half of a field hospital, left Bombay on the 23rd, and no doubt arrived at Aden this morning. The second half of the field hospital is under orders, and is due at Aden on the 30th instant. Besides these a further reinforcement is under orders consisting of 100 Soudanese of the 3rd Battalion King's African Rides with two maxims, 100 men of the 5th Battaion, with one maxim, due at Berbera November 11th, and 300 men of the 2nd Battalion, and 390 men of the 1st Battalion, King's African Rifles with one maxim—due between the end of November and middle of December. The total force at our disposal will be 4,920 men. The transport and commissariat are arranged locally. The Indian troops are armed with the Lee-Metford rifle, the 1st, 2nd, and 6th Battalions of the King's African Rifles with the Martini-Enfield rifle, and the 3rd Battalion with the Martini-Henry. The expenses connected with these troops will be borne by the British Treasury.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With reference to the orders to which the noble Lord has alluded, may I ask whether they are issued directly through the Foreign Office or through the intermediary of the Commander-in-Chief, and also whether, in the conduct of these operations, the Foreign Office proposes to or does consult the War Office.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, we do consult the War Office. All orders for troops under the Foreign Office, such as the King's African Rifles, are issued by
  948
  the Foreign Office, and orders for the Indian troops are issued by the India Office.

  Canadian Postage Rates.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether letters and newspapers can be posted from Quebec and Montreal to New Orleans and San Francisco at considerably lower rates than to Liverpool and London; and whether he will arrange that the postage between Canada and the United Kingdom shall not be higher than between Canada and the United States.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The facts are as stated in the first portion of the hon. Member's Question. This is owing to a special arrangement made between the Canadian and United States Administrations, over which I have no control, though its effects upon British interests are receiving my attention. The rates between this country and Canada are the lowest which prevail between the United Kingdom and any other portion of His Majesty's dominions.

  Hong Kong Cable Rates
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that cable rates from Hong Kong to England via the Great Northern line are practically double those charged from Hong Kong to Russia; and whether he will remonstrate with the company, which enjoys a monopoly of landing rights on British territory, with the view of bringing about an abrogation of this discrimination between British and Russian merchants and bankers.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the difference in charge to which my hon. friend calls attention. It is in accordance with a well-established principle of the Telegraph Convention that adjoining counties like Russia and China or China and British India may make arrangements between themselves for lower rates than those which are generally applicable; and Hong Kong, as forming geographically part of China, has been brought within the terms of

  949
  the special agreements regulating telegraphic rates between China and Russia on the one hand, and China and British India on the other. These and other charges have been under the consideration of the Colonial Office and Post Office, and I hope that it may be possible to reduce the rate between this country and Hong Kong. I ought to add that the Great Northern Company does not possess a monopoly of landing rights in any British territory.

  Edward the Confessor's Chapel in Westminster Abbey,
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the crucifix placed over the altar in Edward the Confessor's Chapel in Westminster Abbey during the preparations for the recent Coronation was put up with the knowledge and under the directions of the Office of Works, and, if so, from whom was it received; was it afterwards taken down by the Department and left at the disposal of the Dean and Chapter; if not, what was done with the crucifix, and by whose authority was it again erected in the Chapel, together with figures of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, for a festival on the 13th instant.
  MR AILWYN FELLOWES (Hunts, Ramsey): The sculptured group representing the Crucifixion with St. Alary and St. John was neither put up by nor under the directions of the Office of Works. It was not taken down nor re-erected in its present position by the Department. Presumably this was done under the directions of the Dean and Chapter.

  Continuation Classes in Scotland.
  MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is yet in a position to say how much of the £9,000 which has been granted by Parliament this year for continuation classes in Scotland will be expended in the Highland crofting counties; and will he state the number of continuation classes in each of the six crofting counties.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): All the claims in respect of continuation classes in the counties referred to have not yet been received, and corrections may be
  950
  necessary in the case of those now being dealt with. It is not therefore possible to give the exact amount of grant payable. Detailed information as to the number of continuation classes in each county will be found in Form A 48, which can be procured at the King's printers.

  Steamship Subsidies for the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that a subsidy of £500 has again been granted by the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) to the Clyde Shipping Company for running a steamer from Cork to the south-western seaboard of Ireland, will the Congested Districts Board for Scotland consider the expediency of granting a similar subsidy with a view to facilitate the transit of fish from the Island of Lewis and the fishery districts on the western mainland north of Kyle of Lochalsh.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Board are not prepared to grant a subsidy for the purpose suggested; they do not consider that any information now in their possession would warrant such an outlay on their part.

  Convict Muldowney.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from Mr. John M'Donald, of Dromod, and Mr. Michael Mahon, Dromod, praying for the release of Michael Muldowney, who was convicted for complicity in the Craughwell case with Patrick Finncgan (since released) at Sligo eighteen years ago; and will he state when he will be prepared to release this man.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The memorial has been received. The prerogative of mercy is vested in the Lord Lieutenant. I took occasion to bring this case under his notice, and have no reason to believe that there will be any considerable difference in the total period of imprisonment undergone by the two men referred to.

  Extra Police at Boyle and Castlerea.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  951
  Ireland whether he can state the number of extra police employed during the last twelve months in the unions of Boyle and Castlerea respectively, and the cost of these extra policemen; where it is proposed to be charged; and when will the service of this extra force be dispensed with in these unions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No extra force has been stationed in the Boyle Union during the period mentioned. Eighteen men of the extra force are chargeable to the district in the neighbourhood of Frenchpark, in the Castlerea Unions in respect of the period to September last. This extra force has since been augmented by nineteen men. The charge for the eighteen men will be at the rate of £620 per annum. The nineteen additional men will entail a further cost at the rate of £654 per annum. The extra forces will be dispensed with when the services of the men are no longer required.
  MR. TULLY: Has that period not now arisen?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to say that their services can be dispensed with as yet.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in the Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 8:—
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid there was nothing in the Bill which transferred the right (enjoyed under trust deeds in some cases by the incumbent) to appoint the teacher to the managers. Ought not some such provision to be included in the Bill?
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Amendment on the Paper of that character.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he would move to insert the words "by the managers" after "teachers." It was assumed by the Bill that the appointment was to be in the hands of the managers,
952
but, as he had pointed out, there were cases in which the trust deeds gave the clergymen the power of appointment, and there was nothing in the Bill which would deprive him of it. The object of the Amendment was to make absolutely clear that the appointment of the teacher was in the hands of the managers.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 15, after the word 'teachers' insert the words 'by the managers.' "
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the First Lord would see the necessity for this Amendment. At present the appointment of the teachers was given inferentially and not definitely to the managers set up by the Bill. The First Lord had said that the managers created by the Bill would have all the powers that belonged to existing managers, but under some existing trust deeds the parson alone might have the appointment of the teachers. This was the most material point in the whole Bill; they ought to have some explanation from the Government as to how the appointment of the teacher was to be made, and what bodies were to be consulted in regard to it. Was the education authority, in point of fact, to have any real voice in the appointment of teachers?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said the right hon. Gentleman had asked several questions of which he was perfectly convinced he knew the answers. There had never been any doubt or secrecy on the part of the Government, as to what their policy was on this matter. The appointment of the teachers would lie with the managers, and with the managers as a whole, acting in their corporate capacity, and, therefore, there could be no difference of opinion between the Government and the mover of the Amendment on that point. But whether it was necessary to make the Clause clearer he was extremely doubtful, and he was of opinion that it would not be improved if the Government accepted the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied that general declarations of policy were

953
not set out in the Bill. Where were the words in the Bill which declared that the appointment would lie with the managers? He ventured to assert that too much was left to assumption.
MR. BRYCEsaid that personally he did not much care whether the words of the Amendment were put in or not, but the matter was dark, and all the darker because there were now two sets of existing managers—managers under the School Boards, who had no right of appointment, and managers of denominational schools, who had that right. He would have thought that if ever there was a point on which a Bill should be explicit it was this.
MR. YOXALLsaid the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely fatal in a large number of cases to the object which his hon. friend had in view. There were many parishes in which the sole manager of the school was the incumbent of the parish, and the addition of the words proposed would involve a serious limitation. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not clear that the words carried out the intentions of his hon. friend, but at the same time it was very desirable that it should be made clear that the appointment was made by the whole body of managers and not by one man alone. There were certain trust deeds where the incumbent or the proprietor of the school had the sole power of appointing the teachers.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there are trust deeds such as the hon. Member speaks of—and it is possible that there may be—then I think there is a case for inserting words to make the point clear.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was evidently the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the whole body of managers should have a voice in all cases. As he was willing to introduce words to make it perfectly clear, he would suggest to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENSthought it would be well to
954
lay down the principle that powers which were not to be exercised by the managers should be exercised by the local education authority. Would it not be better to say that the authority should have whole control of the school except so far as concerned certain definite matters which were reserved to the managers?
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that after the assurance of the Leader of the House that this point would be made perfectly clear ho would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LEVY MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved an Amendment cancelling that part of the sub-Section which provides that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds. His object, he said, was to remove what he regarded as an undue limitation of the power of the education authority.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 15, to leave out from the word 'teachers,' to the end of line 16."—(Mr Levy.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'but that consent shall not be' stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURopposed the Amendment. The Committee had, by implication, if not directly, decided that the education authority should neither have the duty nor the right to mix itself up in denominational matters. He thought the sub-Section as it stood accurately expressed the intention of the Government.
MR. LEVYsaid it was possible to conceive grounds other than denominational grounds on which it might be desirable to withhold consent to an appointment. A teacher might go to school intoxicated. In so flagrant a case he did not suppose any difficulty would arise; but there might be other features of a man s conduct which made his appointment undesirable.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was of opinion that a case such as the hon. Member had referred to would come within the phrase "educational grounds." He

955
could not conceive anything more detrimental to education than that a teacher should go to school intoxicated.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid this point raised the question as to whether secular instruction included everything which was not religion. Ho suggested that the authority should he empowered to object to an appointment on all grounds which were not of a religious character. It would be much better to put it in that form.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEinquired if the term "educational grounds" was not interpreted by sub-Section 2 of Clause 8, which gave power to the Board of Education to decide on disputes arising between the local education authority and the managers as to what was secular and what religious education. Would not "education grounds" mean secular instruction?
MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the division between religious and educational grounds was clear and exhausted. They could not agree with him, as there were many matters which might lie between. It would be a simple and logical proceeding to make one definite and make the other cover everything else. The adoption of words providing that everything which was not religious was a matter for the consent of the local authority would put an end to all doubt.
SIR HENRY FOWLERasked why the Committee should not exclude from the consideration of the local education authority all grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said the words "educational grounds" had already been introduced into Clause (a), and contended that it would be inconvenient to vary them in the present place. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that they should map cut the whole field of what was religious
956
and what was not, there might be questions which affected both the religious and the secular side. He took it that habitual drunkenness would affect a man's qualification to impart either secular or religious knowledge. The same might be said with regard to the case of a violent-tempered man.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Are the Government satisfied that the words carry out their intention? Would "educational grounds" cover moral instruction?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the context clearly showed what the term meant.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it seemed to him it would be necessary by-and-bye to have a very considerable extension of the definition Clause in order to provide the definitions of the many phrases which were used in the Bill as if they were precise technical terms, whereas they had no technical meaning at all.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid there was a good deal in the argument of the Attorney General, but still he considered the phrase "educational grounds" a very bad one indeed, and ho feared it would land them into all kinds of difficulties. Suppose a master was appointed by the managers, and the education authority were asked for their consent. Would the latter body be able to do anything more than ask the man for his qualifications? He might have a first-class certificate, but on many other grounds be entirely unfitted, for that special locality, to be entrusted with the educational instruction. But if these words were put in he was not at all sure that the education authority would be able to go outside the teacher's efficiency, from the point of view of scholarship alone. He very much doubted whether, for example, in the words "educational grounds" they could put any meaning relating to moral grounds. He did not think they should adhere to this form of words, and in the case in which they were already appointed in the Bill they could be changed on the Report stage. They provided here that the authority was not to interfere if the grounds were connected with religious instruction in the school. Those were the words of the Government themselves, and he

957
thought the proper course would be to put in the same sort of qualification with reference to the dismissal of teachers, and confine the rights and jurisdiction of the managers to matters pertaining directly to the religious instruction of the school. He thought the Committee would do well to apply these words to this part of the Bill as well.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the suggestion of his hon. friend would have careful consideration when another stage of the Bill was reached. He suggested that doubts should not now be raised as to sub-Section (a.) He agreed that the points which had been raised deserved careful consideration.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that sub-Section (a) applied to a totally different state of affairs. It seemed to him to be important that they should have the same words in regard to the appointment as they had with reference to the dismissal of the teachers.
MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were present upstairs when the Clergy Discipline Bill was considered, but in that ease they found it difficult to apply the same words to morals and misconduct. In the light of that Bill it would require the utmost care under this Bill, to bring within the purview of the local authority persons whose morals might not be all that could be desired. He hoped they would have some words introduced specifically pointing out what the grounds were upon which the local authority might withhold their consent.
MR. BRYCEsaid that he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend, on the ground that there ought to be an absolute right of appeal to the local authority. He did not think that that interfered with the power of the managers to deal with the religious instruction. The managers might make that a pretext for dismissal, but it would give security to a teacher to know that he had got a right of appeal, and that any action on the part of the local managers would have to go before another tribunal. It was right
958
that such an appeal should exist. They must take it that the managers would be the judges of what was religious instruction, but even in those cases there ought to be an appeal to the local education authority, who ought to decide whether the teacher should to be dismissed. If his hon. friend divided the Committee he should support him.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood the Committee were quite content with the assurance the Government had given. They agreed that this paragraph should be brought into harmony with the earlier paragraph, and the Government were ready to consider whether the earlier words ought not to be amended somewhat in the direction suggested, though perhaps not exactly in that direction. This was, after all, a question of drafting. After the long discussions which had taken place previously upon this point, the right hon. Gentleman opposite now suggested that this question should be dragged in again. Suppose a teacher were dismissed from a Roman Catholic school?
MR. BRYCEsaid he was really arguing from the analogy of dismissal. They were rather dealing with the question of consent to an appointment. In all cases the managers ought to lay before the local education authority the grounds upon which they proposed to appoint the teachers. Although the teacher's fitness to give religious instruction was within their cognisance, never theless the whole matter ought to be submitted to the local education authority.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that object was not carried out by the words of the Amendment. The suggestion was that these words should be omitted. He thought the Committee understood that the local education authority was not to be mixed up with a question of this kind. How could they ask a Protestant authority to decide whether a person was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine? The thing was preposterous. He could not think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman meant.
MR. BRYCEsaid they must assume that the education authority would have

959
the common sense to see that, if the managers thought he was the best person to teach, they, the local authority, ought to recognise that fact.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that a local authority of common sense would accept the opinion of the denominational managers, and in that case this Amendment was unnecessary. There might be one authority that had not got common-sense, and in that case there might be a Protestant authority discussing whether a Roman Catholic teacher was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. Surely they would be stultifying themselves by such a proposal.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Prime Minister very astutely fastened his examples on to the Roman Catholics, but this Bill was more for schools nominally Anglican, but really Nonconformist as far as the children were concerned. Supposing there were three candidates, each of them communicants in the Anglican Church, and suppose one was better than the others as a lay reader, choirmaster, or organist. Suppose the man best qualified for secular instruction had neither of these extraneous qualifications, he would be put on one side and the other candidate would be selected because he was a better organist. Would the county authority be entitled to say the managers had not selected the best man, and could they withhold their consent to such an appointment on that account? If not, he did not see where "educational grounds" came in. The managers would say that those were religious grounds, but they were not if they were purely educational grounds. Would the case he had mentioned be regarded as religious or upon educational grounds?
MR. HERBERT LEWISasked would the educational authority be entitled to call for the testimonials showing fitness of applicants upon educational grounds.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it seemed to him that there were two authorities, one to look after nothing but religion and the other after nothing but secular instruction. The Committee
960
must see that in the definition inserted there must be something that would make the proposal work. The proposal was to have two parties to the carrying out of the appointment of a teacher. One was the appointing body and the other the consenting body. Would one consenting manager representing the local authority have the right to propose the appointment of a teacher, or would the Government confine the proposal to the appointment solely to those dogmatic four who were the guardians of the dogmatic teaching?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they would all act together.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he knew they were all sitting together, but they were people with totally different functions. He wanted to know what part the body whose consent was to be necessary were to take in the matter. Were they to have the right of proposing candidates before the appointment was made or not?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was capable of understanding the point if he gave his mind to it. The thing appeared to be perfectly workable. The six managers would meet and appoint the teacher. Any one of their number could make a suggestion to his colleagues. When they came to the conclusion to appoint Mr. A, that name would be sent to the clerk of the County Council on approbation, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the County Council would probably confirm the appointment of Mr. A, and there would be no further trouble. When Mr. A's name was submitted to the County Council as the local education authority by the managers in their corporate capacity, the County Council would take such steps as they thought proper to satisfy themselves as to his fitness for appointment as teacher. They could send for the testimonials if they liked before giving their consent, but they would probably only do so if they thought there was ground for supposing that there was some unfair conduct on the part of the managers. If they thought proper they could even see Mr. A before confirming the appointment. An hon. Gentleman had asked whether they

961
would see the other candidates. No, that was not their business. [OPPOSITION cheers.] That cheer was really a very foolish one. They would not see the candidates, because the Committee decided yesterday, that the managers were to be the appointing body. Therefore, there was no use cheering. The local education authority was not to make the appointment, but to confirm it. The County Council being business men, and not anxious to misunderstand the Act, would take businesslike and sensible steps to ensure that the person appointed was a proper person to execute the function thrown upon him by the Bill. The whole proceeding was as simple, businesslike, and straightforward as it was possible to make it.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a perfectly conclusive speech. The state of things which he had indicated was precisely that which his hon. friend sought to bring about by the Amendment, namely, that the local authority should have the power of absolute veto of the appointment. It was said that the local authority was not to be hampered in any way whatever, but it was hampered by the words of the Bill as it now stood. What they had to do was to consent; consent implied choice; and choice ought to be accompanied by the means of judging of the candidates
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they would not divide until they got this thing cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman called this a businesslike arrangement. It was a businesslike arrangement in which the one body paid and had all the responsibility of the business, and another body selected the staff. He would hardly call that a business-like arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman, with great ingenuity, had evaded the whole point. It was not a question j of candidate A. Supposing that A, B, and C were candidates, that A was suitable, that B was better than A, and that C was better than either, and that the managers, for reasons connected with the Church, selected candidate A, had the County Council the right to go behind that and say "You have not
962
selected the best man and therefore we withhold our consent to the appointment of A"?
MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether the local education authority was to have the power of testing the educational merits of more than one candidate in order that the best man belonging to the denomination should be headmaster of the school, from the educational point of view.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he should have thought this question an extremely simple one. The local education authority would deal with this state of facts. There were two candidates, one of whom was distinctly superior in regard to secular education, and the inferior one was selected for some extraneous reason—because he could play the organ, or for some of the other reasons referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. He did not, of course, for a moment mean to say that the man who was best merely as a secular teacher was always to be selected, because in choosing a man they must have some regard to his qualification to teach in a denominational school. They must have regard to the two elements. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He really did not know what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen meant. What the Government proposed was this. Suppose there were two candidates for a Roman Catholic school. [An Hon. MEMBER: Why a Roman Catholic school? They should endeavour to realise the fact that there were Roman Catholics. Suppose they were dealing with a Roman Catholic school, and that there were two candidates for a teachership, one a Roman Catholic and a fairly good teacher, and the other a pronounced Agnostic.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not the point I put.
SIR. ROBERT FINLAY: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is the point.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I say it is not the point.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is the point.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated the point he put. If one of the candidates was an Agnostic that, of course, was a religious ground, and ho took it that the local authority would have no right to deal with the matter. Suppose that in the case of a Roman Catholic school there were two candidates—both Catholics—and one was more helpful for the Sunday school or the organ than the other, who was the better man from the secular instruction point of view, and the man who was suitable for the organ was selected, would the county authority have power to refuse consent to the appointment of that man?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he should say that it was on educational grounds, the denominational qualifications being equal, if they selected the inferior man for some extraneous reason.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Attorney-General had not yet answered the question put to him. They wanted to know what power the local education authority would have in the way of withholding consent to an appointment made by the managers.
MR. M'KENNAsaid that the Attorney General was entirely mistaken. He gladly admitted
that if the Bill meant what the right hon and learned Gentleman said it meant, the Committee had obtained a most valuable improvement But the Bill did not contain what the Attorney-General said it meant. He put it to the Attorney-General whether the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the Bill a specific Clause which would give the local authority power to send for the names of the other candidates than that selected by the managers? Unless the right hon. Gentleman did that, the local authority would not be able to judge as to which was the best candidate. The Attorney-General said that if the candidate selected was "distinctly better" the election would fall on educational grounds, but if the selection was only "better" (not "distinctly better") the selection would not fall on educational grounds. He, and those on that side of the Committee, insisted on a clearer explanation. [Cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial Benches.] This was a Committee of the House of Commons in which they were discussing a Bill which not only affected hon. Members opposite, but the whole people of the country.
(3.33) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193;Noes, 102. (Division List No. 427.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Aird, Sir John

Carew, James Laurence

Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carlile, William Walter

Faber, George Denison (York)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Finch, George H.

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Baldwin, Alfred

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Chapman, Edward

Fison, Frederick William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Clive, Capt Percy A.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flower, Ernest

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Forster, Henry William

Bignold, Arthur

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Foster. Philip S (Warwiek, S. W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Galloway, William Johnson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gardner, Ernest

Boulnois, Edmund

Denny, Colonel

Garfit, William

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Godson, Sir August Frederick

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Brymer, William Ernest

During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Graham, Henry Robert

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Lockie, John

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Gretton, John

Lone, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

Rothschild Hon Lionel Walter

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Gunter, Sir Robert

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Hain, Edward

Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

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

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Heaton, John Henniker

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Helder, Augustus

Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Higginbottom, S. W

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Morrell, George Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hogg, Lindsay

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Thomson, Dr. E, C (Monagh'n, N

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Horner, Frederick William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Thornton, Percy M.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Tollemache, Henry James

Howard, John (Kent. Fav'rsh'm

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Valentia, Viscount

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Myers, William Henry

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Nicholson, William Graham

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

Johnstone, Heywood

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kemp, George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.

Pemberton, John S.G.

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

Kennedy, Patrick James

Platt-Higgins. Frederick

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Plummer, Walter R.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wylie, Alexander

Kimber, Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pym, C. Guy

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Rankin, Sir James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Lawson, John Grant

Richards, Henry Charles

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

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

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Newfnes, Sir George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Barlow, John Emmott

Harwood, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer Sir Charles M. (Durham

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Bell, Richard

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Paulton, James Mellor

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hobhouse, C.E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Philipps, John Wynford

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rigg, Richard

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William Carnarv'nshire

Roe, Sir Thomas

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Cameron, Robert

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Runciman, Walter

Causton, Richard Knight

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cawley, Frederick

Labouchere, Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crombie, John William

Langley, Batty

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leng, Sir John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Frank

Lloyd-George, David

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Ellis, John Edward

Logan, John William

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Tomkinson, James

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Willam

Toulmin, George

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Trevelyan, Charles Philip

966

967

Wallace, Robert

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Levy and Mr. Alfred Hutton

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid

Weir, James Galloway

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. A. J. Balfour to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.
MR M'KENNAasked whether the Amendment which he had handed in at the Table should not come first.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Member in charge of the Bill always takes precedence.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that in moving his Amendment it would be quite unnecessary for him to add anything to what he had said yesterday. He had explained to the Committee the proposal of the Government, which he had every reason to hope was approved on both sides of the House; and he almost ventured to indulge in the expectation that without very lengthened debate it might be added to the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert the words 'and the consent of the authority shall also be required to the dismissal of a teacher unless the dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, the effect of which would be readily understood. He gathered from the Attorney-General that the words of his Amendment expressed the idea of the Government; and he ventured to think that they were much better than the words proposed by the Prime Minister. He made bold to say that because they were the right hon. Gentleman's own words. They had discussed the question of the appointment of teachers; and now they were considering the question of dismissal. They had provided that the appointment would not be complete until the consent of the local authority was given: and he maintained that the dismissal should not be complete until
968
the consent of the local authority was also obtained. The Amendment of the Prime Minister would not make that consent necessary in every case, as it proposed that consent should not be withheld if the dismissal were on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school. In practice the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would work as follows. For some reason or other a teacher incurred the disapproval of the managers, and was dismissed by them. No other condition was necessary up to that point. Then the teacher might go to the education authority and say he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school, and ask that he should be reinstated. He thought that the Committee would agree that the right way to proceed was to require the consent of the local authority before the act of dismissal became a complete act. That was done with reference to the question of appointment, and it ought to be done also with regard to dismissal.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'teacher,' and insert the words 'but such consent shall not be withheld if the dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,)
Question proposed, "That the words 'unless the dismissal be on grounds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that, to a certain extent, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he preferred the Amendment of his right hon. friend. According to the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if the managers proposed to dismiss a teacher on grounds connected with religious teaching they would have to lay the matter before the local education authority and say, "You are bound to give your consent because the dismissal

969
is based on grounds relating to religious teaching." That would involve considerable delay, and he thought it was a very reasonable proposal that if the managers believed that the retention of a particular teacher was incompatible with the religious character of the school, they should be at liberty to dismiss him. Of course, if the teacher showed that he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with religious teaching, then the dismissal would be invalid without the consent of the local authority, and the post could not be filled up in the meantime, as the consent of the local authority would be required to the new appointment. The form of words proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury was convenient in itself and just to the interests of all concerned.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was very much surprised at the remarks which had just fallen from the Attorney-General, because they were absolutely inconsistent with the argument he addressed to the Committee on the last Amendment. Then he resisted a proposal to substitute words because he said that they would not be quite consistent with words in sub-Section (a) Now his hon, and learned friend proposed words which exactly followed words in the earlier part of the Clause and were parallel to them, and yet the Attorney-General refused to accept them.
SIR ROBERT FIXLAYsaid that the two cases were different. One dealt with the appointment where the consent of the local authority was necessary, the other with the dismissal where that consent was not necessary.
MR. BRYCEsaid that in both cases the words proposed by his hon. and learned friend would avoid a great deal of trouble and reference to the Education Department. Surely, it would work a great deal better in practice if the dismissal were not to take effect until the consent of the local authority had been obtained, rather than that it should take effect and be liable to be over-ruled afterwards by the local authority. In the latter case the teacher would be for a certain period under
970
sentence of dismissal, although not actually dismissed. Surely, it would be more businesslike and more compatible with similar cases that the managers should send their statement at once to the local education authority, and have the matter decided once and for all. He greatly preferred the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, and was very much surprised that the Government had not accepted it.
MR. YOXALLsaid that no doubt many hon. Members were in favour of some form of appeal by teachers against capricious or unjustifiable dismissal, but he supposed that in the last resort they felt that an appeal to the Board of Education did exist under sub-Section 2. As to the particular question before the Committee, he would point out that the local authority would be a court of appeal in every case of dismissal, except cases where the dismissal was on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools. These cases would be of three kinds, and three kinds only—firstly, a change of faith on the part of the teacher, making it impossible for him to continue to give the denominational instruction required in a particular school; secondly, a failure, not by reason of a change of faith, to give in the school religious instruction in a proper way; and, thirdly, a course of life inconsistent with the giving of denominational instruction or any other form of instruction. In each of these cases he did not think that the teacher would wish to appear before the local education authority, as each would constitute an obvious justification for his leaving the school. He should regard with some apprehension, therefore, the reporting of every case beforehand to the local authority, which his hon. And learned friend's Amendment would require. He would much rather leave it to the local authority to decide any case where an appeal was lodged by the teacher or by a minority of the managers. He submitted that every practical purpose would be served by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because it had been held that the legal notice to which a head teacher was entitled was three months, unless he had contracted himself out of that right by a

971
special agreement. That would give a full opportunity for appealing before the dismissal was finally given effect to. For that and other reasons, or the full knowledge of the details of that special question, he trusted the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury would be accepted.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was very sorry to hear the statement of his hon. friend who had just spoken. Only that morning he had received letters from teachers complaining of the insecurity of the tenure of their office. The point under discussion was that the matter should be decided before the teacher was dismissed. It was true that notice would have to be given, but he was not quite sure that it would be long enough to cover the period that might elapse before the meeting of the local authority. It would be better if the case of dismissal were decided by the local authority without putting the teacher or anyone else to the trouble and inconvenience of making a formal appeal. He did not see why the teacher should be dismissed before the matter was finally decided.
MR. FREDERICK WILSONasked if the Amendment would include Sunday school work.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think that that would be included.
MR. SOARESsaid he had put a question to the Prime
Minister as to certain denominational schools which had been leased to a School Board at a nominal rate, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that those leases under Clauses 9 and 10 could be determined, and the schools turned hack again into denominational schools. He wanted to know whether, if the leases were determined, the benefits of this Clause would apply to the teachers now employed in those schools, and whether, when the schools were turned into voluntary schools, the teachers would remain on, and only be dismissed on educational grounds.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid a voluntary school under this Bill would be the same as a voluntary school under the present Act, and the teachers in the voluntary schools would be in the same position when this Bill passed as they were under the present Act.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSagreed with his hon. friend near him that the teachers throughout the country would be generally in favour of this Amendment. He, however, desired to extend to the widest the powers of the local authority, and to limit, as far as possible, the exclusive functions of the managers. He still hold the opinion that the dismissal ought to be subject to the consent of the local authority, limited as it was by the words of the Prime Minister, and, holding that opinion, he would be forced to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
(4.3.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200: Noes, 102. (Division List, No. 428.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chaniberlain, Rt Hn JA (Worc'r

Aird, Sir John

Bignold, Arthur

Chapman, Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boulnois, Edmund

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Coddington, Sir William

Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bain Colonel James Robert

Brymer, William Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Balcarres, Lord

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Baldwin, Alfred

Butcher, John George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolten)

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

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornseys

Carew, James Laurence

Denny, Colonel

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leed.

Carlile, William Walter

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bartley, George C. T.

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cavendish V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Beekett Ernest William

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Ellior, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Johnstone, Heywood

Purvis, Robert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kemp, George

Pym, C. Guy

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rankin, Sir James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Richards, Henry Charles

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Finch, George H.

Kimber, Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Knowles, Lees

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Fisher, William Hayes

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lawson, John Grant

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Flower, Ernest

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Forster, Henry William

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Galloway, William Johnson

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

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Garfit, William

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M. 'Taggart

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Stroyan, John

Graham, Henry Robert

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gretton, John

M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Malcolm, Ian

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Manners, Lord Cecil

Thornton, Percy M.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.E (Wigt'n

Tollemache, Henry James

Hain, Edward

Middlemore John Throgmorton

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Milvain, Thomas

Valentia, Viscount

Hamilton Rt. Hn. Lord G(Midd'x

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morrell, George Herbert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mount, William Arthur

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm

Higginbottom, S, W.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Myers, William Henry

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

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Hogg, Lindsay

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Horner, Frederick William

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

Wylie, Alexander

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Howard, John (Kent Faversh'm

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Yoxall, James Henry

Howard J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Plummer, Walter R.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Edwards, Frank

Kearley, Hudson E.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Ellis, John Edward

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kitson, Sir James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Labouchere, Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Fuller, J. M. F.

Langley, Batty

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bell, Richard

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Brigg, John

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

Leng, Sir John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Levy, Maurice

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Lewis, John Herbert

Burt, Thomas

Harwood, George

Logan, John William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Lough, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cawley, Frederick

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jones William (Carnarvonshire

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

974

975

Newnes, Sir George

Schwann, Charles E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wallace, Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Soares, Ernest J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Philipps, Joha Wynford

Stevenson, Francis S.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pickard, Benjamin

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, Fred, W (Norfolk, Mid.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Rea, Russell

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan Grower

Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Warner.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Toulmin, George

Question put and agreed to.

MR. HERBERT LEWISthought the Amendment as it stood was extremely vague, and moved to substitute the words "directly related to" for the words "connected with." He desired to protect teachers from all kinds of pressure to perform extraneous duties for which, they were not paid by the ratepayers. The words, "connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school," were capable of very elastic interpretation. In moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, he would ask the Attorney General whether the grounds of dismissal would have to be specified in writing. If that were done, the local authority would have an opportunity of inquiring into those grounds, and of ascertaining whether or not they were sufficient. He thought the Committee would agree that the words he proposed were fairer to the teacher and more conducive to the interests of education than those proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out 'connected with,' in order to insert directly elated to."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'connected with' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he could really see very little difference between the two forms of words. That proposed by the Government had given general satisfaction to the people most interested, and therefore it would be well to adhere to it. As to the Question put by the hon. Member, he took it that if any dispute arose the managers would in some form state what their grounds were.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether, in the event of this Amendment being debated, the Committee would be able to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell with regard to extraneous duties?
MR. BRYCEagreed that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were extremely vague. Would they include, for instance, attendance at early celebrations, or anything of that kind? The point, however, was not of first-rate importance, and he would not advise his hon. friend to press his Amendment to a division.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS, in view of the fact that the consideration of the larger question afterwards might be prejudiced by his proposal being now discussed, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the words "connected with religious instruction in the school" were meant to apply to the school only while it was an elementary school under the local education authority.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the new Clause promised by the Government would extend to vesting in the managers, subject to the veto of the educational authority, the power of dismissal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he had nothing to add to the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury. As to the

977
other point, the words applied to the giving of religious instruction in the school during school hours, including the hour of religious instruction.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, in view of the reply of the hon. and learned Member, said he would address his question directly to the First Lord of the Treasury.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My view, which I have over and over again stated, is that, in so far as functions are left to the managers of a school, they are left to be exercised by the managers as a body.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONpointed out that in some cases the trust deeds were to be departed from.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In that case the trust deeds would have to be modified.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it had not yet been stated how far the trust deeds were to be modified. This particular matter was part of a larger question which, sooner or later, would have to be dealt with in a definite manner, so that the Committee might know what the position of the new managers was to be.
MR. ALFRED DAVIESasked how the matter would stand if three of the managers desired the dismissal of a teacher and three did not.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It all depends on whether the Chairman has a casting vote.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Who is to be the Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Amendment.
Words inserted.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the Amendment he now desired to move touched the important question of Nonconformist
978
teachers in schools. He fully recognised that there was some substantial basis for the complaint made by Nonconformists that they had not sufficient openings for their young teachers. The question arose as to how far, consistently with the principle of the Bill, that grievance could be removed. He was anxious to go as far as possible with justice to the denominational schools, and subject to preserving the principle of the Bill—the maintenance of the existence of denominational schools. His researches had led him to believe that the grievance arose in most cases from the fact, not that the schools were Church or denominational, but that they were under certain provisions of trust deeds which tied the hands of the managers, and compelled them, whether they liked it or not, to require all the teachers to be of one denomination. He knew of one or two cases in which teachers who had actually been appointed had had to be dismissed by the managers, to the great annoyance and, to some extent, the scandal of the neighbourhood, because they turned out to be Nonconformists. He had done his best to get the grievance redressed, but had been met by the fact—which there was no gainsaying—that the action was taken in obedience to the provisions of the trust deeds under which the managers were working, although the managers personally would have been glad to retain the teacher. It was upon the head teacher that the denominational character of the schools must depend. He did not think that they could put anything into the Bill that would force managers to appoint teachers of any particular denomination, but he thought they ought to free the hands of the managers as regarded those teachers who were not likely to give satisfactory religious instruction. On the whole, he thought his Amendment drew the best line that could be drawn. If it were adopted the managers of all denominational schools would be perfectly free to admit teachers of any denomination, and he had no doubt that, under the new system, if this freedom were given it would be freely exercised, and largely taken advantage of. He was well aware that his Amendment would not go the length which many hon. Members opposite desired. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear."] Unlike hon. Members on

979
this side, hon. Members opposite were anxious to destroy the denominational character of the schools, but that principle in the Bill must be protected, and his Amendment did this while, at the same time, it gave the greatest freedom in the appointment of teachers.
Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
"To insert the words, 'provided that, notwithstanding anything in the trust deed of a school not provided by the local education authority, assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed, if it is thought fit, without reference to religious creed or denomination.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,said that after long discussion on small matters he was glad that they had now come to an Amendment which would have a great effect upon the religious beliefs of teachers and upon the admitted grievance of Nonconformists as regarded their admission to the teaching staffs of denominational schools. They desired on this particular matter to secure that religious and secular teaching should not be divorced, that time and money should be given to maintain the denominational character of the school, and at the same time throw the teachers' appointments open as widely as possible. This Amendment would go a long way to satisfy those requirements. It was an enabling Amendment, and put no compulsion upon the managers of the schools to choose from one or any denomination or from no denomination at all, but it did untie their hands where the trustees had tied them hitherto except in respect of the appointment of the head teacher. He wished to ask had any denomination any cause for anxiety in the admission of assistant teachers and pupil teachers of other denominations? He could not think there was any such cause of anxiety. It ought to lie near the conscience of every teacher that, as a matter of honour they should impress or impart no religious or political propositions, and take no advantage in influencing the religious or political beliefs of the children. He had not much, fear of any
980
proselytising tendency in any part of our system of elementary education. Then there was the power of dismissal on grounds connected with religious instruction. If a Nonconformist teacher was imported into a denominational school, and taught religious subjects with levity, or showed any desire to affect the religious beliefs of the children, the managers would have the power of dismissal, against which decision the local authority would have nothing to say. That being so, they could not help feeling that in the interests of the denominational schools it was important that the head teacher, who gave the character to the teaching of the school, should be a member of the denomination of which the school belonged, if the trust deed required it. If the trust deed required that the teachers should be members of any particular denomination, then the managers could appoint, under this Amendment, teachers from any denomination they liked. The Government did not think that any harm would come from such a relaxation as his hon. friend proposed by his Amendment, and therefore, on behalf of the Government, he was prepared to accept, it.
Amendment amended—
"By leaving out the words 'notwithstanding anything in the trust deed of a school not provided by the local education authority.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not think the Government would expect the Members of the Opposition to fall upon their knees for such a concession as this. Anything more faint than the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment he had never heard. They had now secured the headmaster, and that was all they ought to expect. They had a right to demand that all teachers should be under no disability at all. By this Amendment they simply enabled the managers to appoint assistant teachers and pupil teachers if they thought fit, without reference to religious creed or denomination. They were still perpetuating that disability in regard to Nonconformist teachers.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: Why?
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Because they knew that these managers would still restrict the appointments to their own denomination. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No!"] In the past these denominational schools had exhibited no desire when not fettered by trust deeds at all to extend the benefits of entering the teaching profession to any teachers unless they belonged to the particular denomination to which the school belonged. If his hon. friend went to a division he should support his Amendment, but so strongly did he feel that they were setting about this question in the wrong way, and only asking for an infinitesimal portion of what they had a right to claim, that he insisted upon moving an Amendment to the Amendment which would make it a perfectly sensible one.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"To leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. A J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that if his Amendment were carried it would be absolutely destructive of the denominational character of the schools. To appoint a Roman Catholic teacher in an Anglican school, or an Anglican teacher in a Roman Catholic school, or a teacher of no religion in a Jewish school, would be to destroy the denominational character of such schools. The contention of the hon. Gentleman was that the managers of a voluntary foundation school should take no account of the religion of the teacher they appointed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: "Religious creed or denomination" are the words of the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment appeared to be absolutely inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill, and he was surprised that it should have been proposed. He hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. It did not refer to the head teacher. It applied only to assistants. The First Lord had said that it would destroy the denominational character of the schools, but the author of the Amendment to the Amendment said he was not going to destroy their denominational character. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment expressed the pious opinion that the managers would frequently appoint pupil teachers without a religious test. He did not know that the managers to be constituted by the Bill would allow Nonconformist gentlemen to be nominated to their schools, but even if they did, he did not think this would afford any satisfaction to Nonconformists when they knew that tests were to be applied to teachers and assistant teachers.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was not the question now before the Committee. The pupil teacher question would come up later, under an Amendment down in the name of the Government, which excluded all religious tests in the case of pupil teachers. The proposal of his hon. friend the Member for East Somerset, which was accepted by the Government, was that there should be liberty of action given to the managers of the school to select all the teachers except the head teacher, irrespective of creed. Therefore let the Committee concentrate their attention upon that proposal. There were cases, he did not know how many, in which it would be perfectly easy for the managers of denominational schools to, have among the subordinate teachers members of some other denomination who could carry on the general secular teaching of the school or take part in some of the undenominational teaching. But they could not lay it down that that was to be an invariable fact. They could not require of the managers, whatever the condition of the schools, that they should ignore the religious beliefs of the teachers. The whole of the religious teaching did not fall on the head teacher. It would be preposterous to require the managers of a Roman Catholic school—he mentioned

983
them as representing the extreme and most easily understood case—to be indifferent to the religious beliefs of the teachers in the school. As his right hon, friend very truly affirmed yesterday, pupil teachers were learners, but with regard to teachers it was obviously vital that, Parliament should not require managers to do anything so suicidal as to absolutely ignore the religious opinions, not of one or two, but of all the teachers in that school except the head teacher. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
MR. TREVELYANsaid the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did it on the ground that in a large number of these schools managers would of their own motion choose Nonconformists. He said that the Church people were so broad-minded that if they got this opportunity they would in a large number of cases appoint assistant teachers who were Nonconformists. Hon. Members on this side of the House did not think they would, nor did the right hon. Gentleman. They thought it would be regarded by the majority of Church managers, who would have the whole thing in their hands, as destructive of the denominational character of the school. They did not think that Churchmen were not broad-minded because they were going to insist on their privileges. They had got those privileges, and they were going to keep them. That was the point of those who supported the Amendment to the Amendment. As long as the majority accorded to them in the management was maintained he believed, looking to the experience in nine out of ten of the voluntary schools in the past, that in the majority of the schools, whatever permission was given to choose from other creeds, the managers would insist on selecting Churchmen. But even supposing they were broad-minded enough to say, "We will not insist on any test at all," were they to be so grateful for this concession? Would men go into a profession in which the higher branches were restricted? They were going to tempt Nonconformists into these schools as assistant teachers, said the Member for East Somerset. How many Nonconformists were going in as pupil teachers when they knew that they were excluded from all the highest places in these schools? It
984
was perfectly obvious that so far as Nonconformists were concerned they would still be practically excluded from the teaching profession. Therefore it was absurd to say that this was a considerable concession to the Nonconformists. It could not be anything of the kind so long as they closed all the higher branches of the profession to those who did not belong to the Church of England.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he for one did not expect gratitude for any concession made to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed specially to represent the grievances of Nonconformists. He said perfectly clearly that his Amendment only went a certain length. He believed there were many Nonconformists who would be very glad to enter the teaching profession, as assistants in the denominational schools, with the confidence of obtaining head teacherships in the undenominational schools, which would be open, to them in the future quite as much as in the past, and which were by no means an insignificant number. He could not help believing that, after the sweeping changes which this Bill would make in the conditions under which the schools were administered, there would be a very large number of Nonconformists engaged as teachers. It was one of the first principles of the Bill to preserve the denominational character of the schools consistently with fairness and justice to the Nonconformists and all other classes of the community.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he intended to support his hon. friends on the other side of the House. He was himself a Nonconformist, and he regarded it as an insult that the profession should be open in its lower ranks to Nonconformists who were to be branded as persons who could rise "thus far and no farther." He was delighted that the Government had. accepted the Amendment, and that they were going to put in the Bill in black and white a definite disability of Nonconformists. It was a step in the direction of freeing the Church from some of its bonds. They had reason to be grateful for the Amendment, for it absolutely proved the point for which they had been contending on this side of the House that there was no halting-place between the entire exclusion of Nonconformist teachers from voluntary schools and the freeing of the teaching

985
profession altogether. If a Nonconformist suited their convenience they might appoint the candidate, but if he did not he was excluded. This Clause had all the intolerance of the rest of the Bill. He would vote for the Amendment to show the real meaning of the Bill.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that if the Amendment were carried it would make it impossible to carry out an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which was to be proposed from the Ministerial side, the idea of which was that the assistant teacher should be a Nonconformist and the head teacher a Churchman. That idea was what they conceived to be the best solution of the religious difficulty, as all the pupils would be taught in the religious beliefs of their parents. He really thought that the hon. Member opposite and his friends had been very ungracious in the manner in which they had received the concessions which had been made from the Government side of the House. Since the House resumed the Bill had been very sensibly modified. The Government had pursued with relentless logic the course of handing over secular instruction to the education authority, and the Amendment completed their scheme, because it provided that, wherever possible, the assistant teacher was to be appointed without regard to religious belief.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid he thought the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord was directed more against the Government than the Amendment. His idea was that the head teacher should teach the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church, and that the other teachers should teach the opposite doctrines. That was, that the local authority should run two rival theological shows under the same roof. If that were so, he did not think that it would be conducive to the efficiency of either the secular or religious instruction in the schools. The answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the contention of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was that it would preclude the managers from appointing a Nonconformist teacher: but if his hon. friend's Amendment were accepted, the managers would be bound
986
to take into account the secular and not the religious qualifications of the teacher. That was what they wanted. If out of half a dozen candidates there were two or three Nonconformists and two or three Churchmen, why should the Nonconformist be appointed if he was inferior? His position, and that of those who agreed with him, was that when they appointed teachers for the purpose of teaching children in State schools, in principle they ought to take into account the qualification of the teacher for imparting secular instruction, and no other. They were quite prepared to take a good Churchman rather than an inferior Nonconformist. Two-thirds of the schools in this country were denominational, and under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment men were to be encouraged to go into a profession in which two-thirds of the prizes were to be closed to them He thought that, on the whole, every concession made by the Government had been treated fairly by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the position of the Opposition was different in regard to this Bill from his own or that of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. The serious contention was in regard to the appointment of the managers and of the teachers. Everything else was minor. Whenever a concession was made by the Government the Opposition was bound to take it at its own value. They could not accept with gratitude a concession which did not alter the character of the Bill. Apart from the Roman Catholic denominational schools, and taking the Anglican schools, four-fifths of the teaching was undenominational in its character. All that was wanted was that there should be one man to give the remaining fifth denominationally, which the other teachers would not be able to give. Was not that a perfectly fair proposition? The head teacher would be perfectly able to give that instruction or to call in a clergyman or his curates to give it. All that the Opposition insisted upon was that in the selection of the teachers account should be taken of one thing only—his qualifications in regard to imparting secular instruction. He did not think the Government should demand more

987
than that. The bulk of the money for the payment of the teachers came from public funds, and so far as the assistant teachers were concerned the Government should make this concession. The Prime Minister seemed to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the managers would be denominational, and practically selected because they were denominational. The whole scheme was drafted to secure a majority of denominational managers. What more did the Government desire? When they came to test this Bill as a real education measure it broke down.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Amendment would absolutely exclude from the consideration of the managers, in selecting teachers, any regard to their religious or irreligious belief.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the Amendment was perfectly clear that it would be open to the managers to appoint teachers of all religions or denominations, precisely in the same way as all civil servants were appointed.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that suppose in the case of a Church, a Roman Catholic, or a Wesleyan school, there was a candidate for the post of assistant teacher, and that that candidate was an avowed atheist. According to the Amendment the managers would not be able to take that into consideration. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that?
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that certainly they could take it into consideration if they wanted to.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that then the hon. Gentleman had not considered the effect of his own Amendment. His right hon. friend had suggested that in proposing his Amendment he did not expect any gratitude from the other side; but certainly they did not expect that they should be exposed to such elaborate and studied misapprehension as had been exercised on the present occasion. They had been actually told that the managers in appointing some man in whose general religious principles they had confidence would be putting a stigma on Nonconformists. All he could say was that hon. Gentlemen opposite had exceeded themselves in misapprehension.
SIR EDWARD GREYdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman, or anybody coming from the country he did, really understood what the English system of education was. If he did he would realise what a small thing this present Amendment was. Because so long as the system in this country was what it was, the fact could not be got rid of by any words whatever. The system in England at the present time was that there were buildings under trustees, and the first object was to secure the religious teaching of a particular denomination. But with the ownership of buildings the managers or trustees had the duty and privilege not merely of seeing that the religious instruction was given to the people belonging to a particular denomination; they were responsible for the whole of the education of the people in the district. That was a great public service because, and especially in the rural districts, there was not always a choice of schools for the parents, but in this great public service it was found that the teaching profession in more than half of the schools was to be closed to members of other denominations. The Amendment of his hon. friend said that the teaching profession need not necessarily be closed as far as the assistant teachers were concerned. On whom did the decision depend? It depended on the will of the body of managers, four of whom were appointed to see that the religious instruction of a particular denomination was given. That was their duty. They had no escape from that decision under the terms of their appointment, and what the Committee had to remember was that it was not every body of managers that was likely to be tolerant, and that they might have to deal with an intolerant body of managers. The best way to get over the objections of the Prime Minister would be for the Government to say that they would leave this appointment permissive, making a dispensary power of over-riding the trustees to rest, not with the managers, but with the local education authority. As the Amendment stood he had no hesitation in voting for it,
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he desired in the first place to thank the Government for accepting

989
the Amendment of his hon. friend, which, there could be no doubt, would bring about a great change in the staff of the voluntary schools, in most cases under the trust the teachers were not only obliged to be members of the Church, but communicant members. He felt himself that the time had come in the history of education when the teaching profession, excepting the place of head teachers, with whose case the House was not at present concerned, should be thrown more widely open. How far did hon. Members opposite desire to go into this investigation into religious creeds or denomination? Did they contemplate opening the door of the voluntary schools to those who had entirely cast away all belief in the Christian religion, and had not only done so in their actions, but had made a public profession of having done so. Reference had been made to the fact that it was exceedingly important that the person elected should belong to the denomination of that particular school, because ho would have had instruction in religious subjects. He was acquainted with a case which he thought might be of some interest to the House, where there were teachers belonging to different denominations, where a vacancy had occurred, and it became necessary to select a person to fill it. One of the masters who was engaged in teaching secular subjects was selected, and to his honour be it said, he refused the position and said that though he had taught in the school for many years, as the new duties involved the teaching of religious belief, he felt himself bound to state that he had years before given up all belief in Christianity. He appealed to the Committee not to impose upon the managers or trustees of the voluntary schools the duty of appointing to the post a teacher who was not only an infidel, but a man who boasted of his infidelity.
MR. BRYCEsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed in their arguments to ignore two large classes of schools. One class was the School Board schools which gave religious instruction. Why was it that they found no difficulty in getting competent men to give religious instruction? They were free to choose any one they liked, and the difficulties conjured up by the Attorney General were unreal.
990
Education ought not to be hampered by all these regulations. The same thing happened in Scotland. There was no general exclusion of any person on the ground of denomination or creed there, yet they did not find atheists coming forward and securing the best appointments. He believed that there were not a few cases in which managers would be glad of the privilege to appoint some person who did not belong to the denomination. He congratulated the Government on at last seeing how illogical their position was. They were now standing on an inclined plane, and it would be impossible to stop in the present position of religious exclusion. They would have to go further. There was no question of gratitude one way or the other. That word ought not to be used in these discussions. The Opposition did not ask for any concession, because they stood on the ground of civic rights. Their view was that if the State paid for schools those schools ought to be open in every place, from the top to the bottom, to every member of the State. The Opposition asked for nothing less than their civic rights, and until they received them they would continue to press for the abolition of the restrictions that were perpetuated by this Bill.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that he had often told the House that the religious difficulty existed only in the House of Commons and not in the schools. He reiterated that opinion now when he was in the position of an independent member, because he did not think that hon. Gentlemen believed him when he gave expression to the belief as an official of the Government. His notion of civic right was rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Scotchman, whereas he was an Englishman. But, rightly or wrongly, stupidly or wisely, the English people, as a people, had got a prejudice in favour of having religious instruction given to their children, and they did not consider their civic rights in education were adequately acknowledged by the State, unless the public instruction which the State provided was an instruction based upon religion. What was done in nearly all the schools under the present system was that the managers or teachers who

991
ran the school contrived to give such religious instruction as was generally acceptable to the parents of the children in the school. For instance, in a Roman Catholic school there was little but Roman Catholic teaching. In most of these schools that they heard so much about, even the bigoted clergyman, who was continually denounced in that House endeavoured to give instruction which was neither unacceptable to the parents of the children—the parents generally cared very little about it—nor to the members of the religious body to which the parents were supposed to belong. He supposed that if they went into an ordinary school in a country district they would not hear a single word said which would offend the conscience or susceptibilities of Churchmen or Dissenters, and if the Government could prevail on the managers under this Bill to do that which the managers under the present system did of their own accord the religious difficulty would disappear. Where the civic authority came in was in the secondary schools where this was done. There the religious teaching was such as was acceptable to the parents, and there were many cases in which the boys of Nonconformist parents had gone to Church schools, with the express understanding that on Sunday they were at liberty to attend the chapel of their persuasion, and that they were not to receive any instruction that was not in accordance with the doctrines which their parents held. The Amendment before the Committee was a move in that direction, and, therefore, ought not only to be accepted, but heartily supported, by the Committee. It gave the managers powers which they did not now possess. Notwithstanding what had been said earlier in the debate, the clergy of the Church of England did admit Nonconformists constantly to their schools, and there were hundreds of schools in which there were Nonconformist teachers, even head teachers, he believed, but certainly Nonconformist assistant teachers. In such schools, what was more reasonable than that they should appoint a Nonconformist assistant teacher, and have such teaching as was acceptable to the parents of Nonconformist children, along with the Church of England teaching to the other children? As long ago as 1896 he remembered having a letter from a gentleman who was
992
actually a Bishop, who said that he had been a vicar in Wiltshire, where he found that the greater part of the children in his Church school were Baptists, and that he found that the proper solution of the religious difficulty was to have ordinary Scripture teaching on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and on Fridays to draft the children into two classrooms, in one of which the Catechism was taught, and in the other the ordinary Scripture teaching. He was told that precisely the same thing held in Scotland. In the Island of Barra, where the population was half Roman Catholic and half Protestant the same thing was done, and no difficulty was experienced in giving both kinds of religious instruction in the same school. Catholic teaching was given to the Roman Catholics at one end of the room, and Protestant teaching to the Protestants at the other. It did not give rise to all these dreadful consequences. If the House of Commons would lay down the broad principle that the new education authority should make provision by which every child should receive such religious instruction as was acceptable to its parents, he believed the whole religious difficulty would be solved. Hon. Members opposite would, perhaps, lose their vocation, but in such a cause they would, no doubt, be willing to surrender it.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a most admirable speech in defence of a system of education which was not the system of this Bill. During July and August they had fought over and over again for the popular control of these schools and the government of the schools by the parents. That was voted against by the right hon. Gentleman among others, and now the right hon. Gentleman discovered that it was the real system. It was with some suspicion that he looked upon the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. Not long ago the First Lord of the Treasury gave a pledge that the denominational control of the schools should not be left under the terms of the trust deed, but should be handed over to the whole of the managers. Did the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that pledge? If so, the Amendment was mere flummery.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he should vote in favour of the Amendment because, as far as it went, it improved what was a very bad Bill, but he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite expected the Committee to be grateful for the concessions made. After what had been taken away, these miserable little concessions were not worthy of consideration. He was also prepared to vote for the Amendment to the Amendment. Ho would like to know whether the assistant teacher was supposed to teach religion. If so, the four Church managers would not appoint a Nonconformist, they would not "see fit" to do so. But if the assistant teacher was not to teach religion, what difference could his religion, or want of religion, possibly make? An atheist could teach mathematics quite as well as the most religious Churchman in the world. He should support not only the Amendment, but the Amendment to the Amendment.
MR.A. J. BALFOURappealed to the Committee to come to a decision on the Amendment.
MR. BRIGGsaid a very important consideration was involved in the Amendment. There would be appointed a large number of teachers whose whole time would not be occupied by one particular school, but who would be teaching in different schools on different days of the week. There were several kinds of teaching, such as that of drawing or wood-carving, which would have to be supplied by the educational authority by means of these itinerant teachers. Surely in such cases it was not necessary to know the religious belief of the teachers. The educational authority ought not to be so handicapped. The Amendment as amended in the manner proposed would constitute a valuable addition to the Bill.
(5.51.) Question proposed.
The Committee divided:—Ayes. 246 Noes, 125. (Division List, No. 429.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Butcher, John George

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Aird, Sir John

Carew, James Laurence

Faber, George Denison (York)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carlile, William Walter

Fardell, Sir T. George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

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

Arrol, Sir William

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finch, George H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.

Fisher, William Hayes

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Balcarres, Lord

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Flower, Ernest

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Forster, Henry William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

Forster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Coddington, Sir William

Galloway, William Johnson

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gardner, Ernest

Banbury, Frederick George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Garfit, William

Bartley, George C. T.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cranborne, Viscount

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Beckett, Ernest William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsy-(Linc.)

Bignold, Arthur

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry John C.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bond, Edward

Davenport, William Bromley-

Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Denny, Colonel

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Boulnois, Edmund

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Grenfell, William Henry

Bousfield, William Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Gretton, John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Groves, James Grimble

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brymer, William Ernest

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Gunter, Sir Robert,

Bull, William James

Duke, Henry Edward

Hain, Edward

Bullard, Sir Harry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Macartney, Rt. Hn W G. Ellison

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Macdona, John Cumming

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Heaton, John Henniker

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Helder, Augustus

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Higginbottom, S. W.

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Morrell, George Herbert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thornton, Percy M.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Johnstone, Heywood

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kemp, George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Valentia, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffi'ld

Kennedy, Patrick James

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Walker, Col. William Hall

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Keswick, William

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Knowles, Lees

Pierpoint, Robert

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Platt-Higgns, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Plummer, Walter R.

Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lieut-Col Edward

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawson, John Grant

Purvis, Robert

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.

Pym, C. Guy

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Rankin, Sir James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Younger, William

Lockie, John

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lowe, Francis William

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jacoby, James Alfred

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunn, Sir William

Joicey, Sir James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Frank

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Atherley-Jones L.

Ellis, John Edward

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barlow, John Emmott

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Kitson, Sir James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Bell, Richard

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lambert, George

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Langley, Batty

Brigg, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Leng, Sir John

Burt, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Levy, Maurice

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Lewis, John Herbert

Caine, William Sproston

Harwood, George

Lloyd-George, David

Caldwell James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Logan, John William

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Lough, Thomas

Cawley, Frederick

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Crombie, John William

Hobhonse, C. E. H (Bristol, E.)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horniman, Frederick John

M'Kenna, Reginald

996

997

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Reckitt, Harold James

Thomas, J A(Glamorgan Gower

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Reid Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

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

Markham, Anthur Basil

Rigg, Richard

Tomkinson, James

Mather, Sir William

Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.)

Toulmin, George

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wallace, Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Runciman, Walter

Weir, James Galloway

Moulton, John Fletcher

Schwann, Charles E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Newnes, Sir George

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, George (York, W.R.)

Norman, Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Norton, Capt. Ceil William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Partington, Oswald

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

Perks, Robert William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Woodhonse, Sir.J T. (Huddersf'd

Philipps, John Wynford

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Yoxall, James Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Trevelyan.

Price, Robert John

Thomas, David, Alfred (Merthyr

Rea, Russell

Thomas, Freeman-(Hastings

Words, as amended, inserted.
DR. MACNAMARA(6.5.) DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.) moved an Amendment adding words which would also provide that it should not be lawful for any body of managers to make it a condition of appointment that a teacher should undertake to perform or abstain from performing any duties outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school. He at once admitted that the purpose he had in view had been sensibly modified by the Amendment, which the Government had accepted, giving a veto to the local authority on the dismissal of a teacher under certain circumstances, but to what extent ho could not yet say. What he was trying to deal with was the case in which it was made a condition precedent to the appointment of a teacher, that in order to obtain the appointment he should undertake to perform certain extraneous duties. He agreed at once that the school teacher should be always ready to co-operate generously with the managers out of school in anything which affected the well-being of the children and the community in which they lived, and he thought teachers were prepared to co-operate in all these things, and they did undertake considerable duties outside their ordinary work. What he said was, that when the teachers had done good service to the State in the school they should be permitted to do exactly what they pleased in their own private leisure, which was not outside the limits of the propriety demanded from a school teacher. Under this new era what he insisted
998
upon was, that when the managers appointed a teacher they should appoint a teacher and not a parochial factotum. When appointments of this kind had boon made in the past other matters had been brought into consideration, and it very often happened that the best man had not been appointed, and the man appointed was generally a person who had undertaken to perform all sorts of extraneous duties. He did not blame the Church parsons in this matter. He had in his hand a brief extract from the first circular which was sent down to the principal training colleges signed by "J. Kay-Shuttle worth & E. G. Tuffnall" They sent a memorandum to the training college principals advising them as to the lines along which the training of the teachers should go. It was advice to the principals of the training colleges of an official character as to what the State's ideal was in the matter of training teachers. This memorandum says:—
"In the formation of the character of the schoolmaster, the discipline of the training college should be so devised as to prepare him for the modest respectability of his lot, Without the spirit of self-denial, he is nothing. His reward must be in his work. There should be great simplicity in the life of such a man. Obscure and secluded schools need masters of a contented spirit, to whom training of the children committed to their charge has charms sufficient to concentrate their thoughts and exertions on the humble sphere in which they live, notwithstanding the privations of a life but little superior to the level of the surrounding peasantry. When the scene of the teacher's exertions is in the neighbourhood which brings him into association with the middle and upper classes of society, his emoluments will be greater, and he will lie surrounded by temptations which, in the absence of a suitable preparation of mind, might rob him of that

999
humility and gentleness which are among the most necessary qualifications of the teacher of a common school."
Now came the point to which he desired to call special attention. The statement went on—
"He should he accustomed to the performance of those parochial duties in which the schoolmaster may lighten the burden of the clergyman. For this purpose he should. learn to keep the accounts of the benefit club. He should instruct and manage the village choir, and should learn to play the organ."
That being the State's ideal 60 years ago, he did not complain that the village parson felt justified in calling into requisition these teachers. But a great deal of water had gone under London Bridge since that time, and whilst he thought the teacher should assist in every way yet he should be permitted in his leisure time to do what he pleased, always provided that he did nothing outside the limits which propriety expected of him, and provided that he did nothing which would exhaust the energies required for the performance of his ordinary duties he had no objection to the teacher playing the village organ. If he were a village teacher he thought that he should apply for the post because it would be a very agreeable change. He should, however, have to learn to play the instrument first. He had no objection to the teacher using his services in any way he pleased providing he did not exhaust himself, and providing it did not militate against the teacher performing his proper work. Cases had come under his notice where a small School Board had said to a teacher seeking an appointment: "The last teacher played the church organ, and if you are going to get this appointment you must do so." He had no objection to a teacher playing the organ if he liked to do so, but he objected to it if it was made a condition of his obtaining and retaining his situation. He admitted that in recent years there had been a very great improvement in the matter of this particular question. He could very well remember that within the last fifteen years more than half of the advertisements for teachers for voluntary schools began with three words, "School, organ, choir," but still it was much too often a condition precedent that if a teacher wished to get an appointment he had to take other duties to those of the school. The hon. Member produced a copy of the School Guardian, the organ of the National Society, for
1000
21st June, 1900, in which there were six advertisements for head teachers, and in four cases the requirements included qualifications which were extraneous to those of school teacher, the qualifications being made a condition precedent to appointment. No doubt payments were made in many cases for these extra services, but that was not the point. The condition narrowed the circle of selection. They were now giving the local authority power over secular instruction, and anything which militated against the teacher's proper discharge of his duties as secular instructor was a matter over which the authority should have a veto. His point simply was, if the teacher wished to do these things—playing the organ, superintending the Sunday school, and singing in the choir—by all means let him do so, but he should not be compelled to do them, and he should be able to give them up if he thought fit. Some time ago he sent out a circular to the teachers in certain counties on this subject, and. in their replies, some of which the hon. Member road to the Committee, they made it clear that the extra duties, with some of them, were made a condition precedent to their engagement, and that they could not give them up without prejudice to their office. These things might have been tolerable in the past, but they were not so now, when the money came out of the public funds. This problem would be vastly improved under this Bill, because candidates for teacherships would have six managers to deal with instead of one. He had no doubt that where in the past it had been possible to make appointments with such conditions attached, it would not be so possible in the future. If a teacher refused to perform these duties he might be dismissed by the managers, but the local authority on appeal by the teacher could veto the dismissal. He hoped he rightly interpreted the effect of the appeal to the local authority. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
"To insert the words, 'Provided also that it shall not be lawful, for any body of managers to make it a condition of appointment in the case of any teacher, that the said teacher shall undertake to perform or to abstain from performing any duties outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school.'"—(Dr Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that al though he was not disposed to recommend the Committee to adopt this Amendment, he had nothing to complain of either in the tone of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman or in the matter of it. He had gone very completely into the question in a spirit of great moderation. He gathered that the hon. Member agreed that it would be a great pity if the Committee were to suggest or, still more, to lay down in exact terms that a schoolmaster should do nothing except teach the children secular instruction in the school. It would be a great injury to the schoolmaster, because in manv cases the schoolmaster could earn an addition to his salarv, and it would be a great injury to the parish, because in many out-of-the-way parishes there was practically nobody who could aid a certain side of parochial life except the parson and other religious ministers in the parish and the schoolmaster. It would be as profound a pity to limit the activity of the schoolmaster to his scholastic duties as it would be to limit the duties of the clerical strict work. On these points he thought the Committee on both sides of the House would probably be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and himself. Then the question arose—Was there likely, under the Bill as it now stood, to be such an abuse of this practice as to make it now desirable to add the rather elaborate provision which the hon gentleman proposed by his Amendment? He thought not. From the hon. Gentleman's own statement it must be evident that the protection already given to the schoolmaster was of so elaborate a kind that any further elaboration was hardly necessary. To begin with, his salary would be paid for teaching in the school, and for that alone. It could not include in the future, as it had in the past, payment for anything outside the work in the school during school hours. The education authority would be acting illegally, and would be liable to surcharge, if they permitted any of the money they gave to the schoolmaster to be payment for work in the Sunday school, or in connection with the choir
1002
or the service of the church. Therefore, if the schoolmaster had to do anything outside his strict scholastic duties, he must do it because he liked it, or because it was worth his while. There was another great protection. He admitted that there were cases, he hoped not many, in which teachers, already over-. burdened by their strictly scholastic duties, were obliged, in order to keep their places, to do other work during the few hours of rest which Saturday afternoon or Sunday might give them, but by the Bill that was absolutely stopped. There could be no doubt that by thus overburdening the teachers, their efficieney as teachers of secular education would be interfered with, and therefore the education authority would have, not only the right, but the duty, to intervene. In the third place, it was quite clear that if any contract was entered into between a teacher and the managers before the teacher was nominated and appointed, the whole sanction for that contract was removed by the Bill, If the teacher was threatened with dismissal for refusing to fulfil such a contract, he could appeal to the education authority. That appeal would be heard by the education authority, and they could enforce their view of the matter He hoped that he had made the position so clear to the Committee that they would see that they would be doing no good to the teachers or to the managers by cumbering the Bill with this condition, which he thought was perfectly unnecessary, either in educational or the personal interests of the teachers.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that the Amendment could do no harm, and might do good, as it only asked that the managers should not make it a condition of the appointment of a teacher that he should do parochial work. As the Bill stood, the managers might appoint a schoolmaster, and promise to give him a salary of £150 a year provided he did extraneous work He earnestly asked the Government to accept the Amendment, which only carried out the ideas of the Prime Minister himself.
MR. YOXALLsaid he thought the First Lord of the Treasury

1003
was mistaken in supposing that the payment of the salary by the education authority would prevent the performance of extraneous tasks being made a condition precedent to the appointment of a teacher. The thing would work out in this way. The vicar, or the churchwardens, or the denominational managers would convey to a given candidate that if he would consent to undertake certain parochial duties on Sunday, he would be placed in the way of obtaining, after his nomination and appointment, from the education authority a salary for performing the secular work of the school. In that way they might induce him to do Sunday School work, play the organ, superintend the clothing club, and for these offices he might receive £5 or £10 per year. This was not such a new thing as the First Lord of the Treasury supposed; and he was afraid that the alteration proposed to be made in the Bill would not remove the ground of complaint which existed in many cases. He recognised the difficulty in laying down a hard and fast line, but he suggested to the First Lord of the Treasury that the right hon. Gentleman should take time to consider this matter, and whether another course might not be possible. In justice to the teachers and to the efficiency of the schools, he hoped that the First Lord would not absolutely refuse to accept this Amendment altogether.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that this matter had been exclusively discussed hitherto from the point of view of the teachers, and he asked the Committee to consider it from the point of view of the local authority. It appeared to him that the Amendment would be a great advantage and protection to the local authority as well as to the teachers. Unless he entirely misinterpreted the Bill, the local authority would be in a very difficult position when fixing the salaries of the teachers. They would not know what the exact position of the teachers was to be, and whether they were, or were not, expected to perform other duties than those connected with the school. It had been pointed out that under the Code an attempt had been made to make it clear that the salaries of the teachers were not to be paid except for duties in
1004
connection with the school, but that it had been exceedingly difficult to keep to that rule. In certain parishes the teacher were expected to play the organ, and even to perform the duties of the sexton. If the Government did not insert this power tonight, he hoped they would take another opportunity of doing so. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury to complete the admirable work he had commenced, and make a clean job of the matter.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that every member of the Committee would be in entire sympathy with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But it would be clearly ultra vires for the managers to impose an extraneous duty on a teacher as a condition of employment. They could no more impose a condition of that kind than they could impose conditions as to the salary. There were six managers, of whom the majority were laymen, and two were appointed by the local authority; and there was the veto of the local authority on the appointment and dismissal of teachers, which he had no doubt would be at once exercised if a man was dismissed for not performing duties he was not selected to perform; so that the protection was ample. It was not, in his opinion, wise to multiply minute provisions of this kind. Even if it were found that the six managers were guilty of attempting to do that which the Section would not allow, the hon. Member could trust the veto of the local education authority. He hoped the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to press this Amendment.
MR. ASQUITHexpressed surprise at the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed upon the Clause, which amounted to this, that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, under the Clause as it stood it would be ultra vires for the managers to make the performance of any non-scholastic duty a condition of the teacher's appointment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was not what he said. What he said was that it would be ultra vires for the managers to impose other duties which were to be covered by the salary paid by the local authority, which was rather a different proposition.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that that distinction showed the necessity for the Amendment. It was clear that the question of the protection which the Prime Minister agreed the teachers ought to have was not traversed by the Amendment of his hon. friend. It was not given the Clause. Ho agreed that the debate had been conducted in a fair and temperate spirit on both sides of the House, and he agreed that the protection was increased, but in this matter it must be remembered that there was a long, inveterate, and traditional practice to be overcome. In a large number of denominational schools the teachers had always been appointed on condition that in their spare hours they should perform parochial duties. They could not change that position. The pressure brought to bear on managers by persons interested in the Church to keep to the old system would be so strong that unless there were the prohibition of an Act of Parliament the system would be continued. Nobody objected to the schoolmasters utilising their spare hours in these matters, but on the other hand the State had the right to demand their best labour and best ability. This was a very important matter. It was not sufficiently covered in the Clause as it stood. The Prime Minister agreed that the principle of the Amendment ought to be adopted, and the House was also practically unanimous upon the matter. That being so, why should not they put the effect of what they agreed upon on the Statute Book?
MR. DUKEsaid he was glad that the objection to this Amendment on the part of the Government was not one of principle. The objection to its acceptance was the overloading of the Bill with matters of detail. That was an objection that every one took in common with the Prime Minister, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, see his way at a later stage to reconsider this matter and accept the principle which underlay the Amendment. No doubt it would be a breach of trust to apply as remuneration for extraneous duties a part of the money given for payment of salaries, and no such breach of trust was probable, but there was a further question to be considered. The question was whether willingness and ability to perform extraneous duties were to be con-
1006
siderations in the appointment of teachers. If that was maintained the matter was far more serious, because the first thing the managers would do would be to inform themselves as to whether the schoolmaster was one who would bind himself to perform these duties. The candidate who was willing and able would be welcome, while the candidate who was not, though educationally more efficient, would be unwelcome. He did not wish to labour the point; all he desired to add was the observation that this was a Bill that was not regarded without jealousy, not only among the political supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but also the political supporters of members on the Government side of the House. There were those who heartily supported the Bill but felt that it was a new departure in education which needed to be watched and safe guarded. He trusted the Leader of the House would have regard to that jealousy, because jealousy was a factor which would affect the working of the Bill, and that in this matter, which did not involve a question of principle, and where, in the words of the Attorney General, the interests of the teachers were to be safeguarded, the right hon. Gentleman would see if it were not possible to meet the demand of the hon. Member for North Camberwell at any rate by drafting a form of contract for teachers which would make clear the actual conditions of their appointment.
SIR JAMES JOICEYhoped after the general expression of opinion in favour of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it. He thought it would be found that throughout the country the schoolmasters were only too glad to assist in Church matters, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the great grievance was that there was no additional payment for the services. He could see no reason why the Amendment could not be accepted.
MR. JOHNSTONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he could not see his way to give the substance of the Amendment. He fully agreed with what had been said about overloading the Bill, and it appeared to

1007
him that the Committee had been engaged too long in trying to paint the lily and gild refined gold. Personally he did not think the Amendment was necessary; he thought all that was necessary could be done under the Bill as it stood; but the teachers would value the substance of these words very much, and it would also convey to them the message that the House of Commons appreciated their difficulty.
SIR W. HART DYKEexpressed the opinion that the Committee were devoting a great deal of time to a matter not worth discussion. All were agreed as to what was to be secured, and that was, once and for all for Parliament to put its foot down upon a very evil system. He was very much opposed to burdening the Clause with these words, but he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would go further than he had done in his speech, and would give them an assurance that words should be introduced, either in some future clause of the Bill or in the Code itself, specifically declaring that this evil system was illegal.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid this matter could be perfectly well dealt with in the Education Code. At the present moment it was required under the Code that the engagement of every teacher should be made in writing. There was a form specially prepared, and there was nothing in the form of that engagement which gave any encouragement whatever to extraneous tasks.
DR. MACNAMARA: It does not exclude them.
SIR. JOHN GORSTsaid that was so, but it discouraged them in so far that the model form of agreement did not exclude extraneous tasks. It was very easy to go a little further, and there was no difficulty whatever in the Government now making a promise to consider the propriety of providing that the engagement between the teacher and his employers should be made according to a specific form, and that that form should specifically exclude any extraneous tasks, and that the Board of Education would not recognise any teacher who was engaged in any other form than that laid down in the Code.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid it appeared to him that for the purpose of aiding those who had to administer this Act it would be much better if this were embodied in the Clause; it would not have the same weight if embodied in the Code. There was another point, also; if it were embodied in the Code, when the Code came before the House, if the form of agreement were not satisfactory the Government might not be in so friendly a mood as at present. Therefore he hoped the Government would give way on this trifling point, and get to other business.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid all were agreed as to what was wanted, but they differed as to the means by which the desire should be effected. It had been suggested that it might be effected by the introduction of words in the Code next year, and he would undertake that this matter should be dealt with in the Code of next year in the sense in which the Committee evidently wished it to be dealt with. He could not help feeling that this course would be very much better than encumbering the Bill with the proposed words.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONcontended that the responsibility for this matter should lie with the local authority and not with the Board of Education. The Committee had had the painful experience in the past of the inability of the Board of Education to enforce such a provision in its own Code. The right hon. Gentleman had previously said that the local authority would be able to override the Code, and therefore the responsibility in a matter of this kind should be laid on the local authority. Would the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Education undertake to put in the Code a provision that the terms of agreement come to between the managers and the teacher should be submitted for the approval of the local education authority?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought that when the local education authority was asked for its consent to the appointment of the teacher, it might reasonably ask to see the terms of agreement.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEadvised the Committee to insist on the insertion of the Amendment in the Clause. At the

1009
moment the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the attention of the country, was fixed on this matter, and whatever pressure was brought to bear upon the Hoard of Education would lie in the direction of getting rid of this grievance. Directly the Bill was passed, the attention which was now fixed upon the subject would be relaxed, and by the time an opportunity came for discussion of the Code, extraneous influences would be brought to bear on the Hoard of Education, influences very difficult for the House to deal with. It was of no use to attempt to disguise the fact, and it was only necessary to read the resolutions in reference to the Bill passed in Convocation to know whence the influence came. The terms of the contract might clear up the question of extraneous duties, but the inquiries with regard to the qualifications of the teacher would have been gone into and the man selected on the question of extraneous duties before the contract came into the matter at all. The whole question was whether these matters ought to be taken into account in the selection of the teacher. The Code and the form of contract did not affect the point. He hoped the Committee would insist on settling the matter now, and not permit it to be deferred to the Code.
MR. BOUSFIELDhoped that the Committee would not risk losing the substance by grasping at the shadow. Most hon. Members were in favour of the substance which was embodied in the concession of the Government, but many objected to the form of the Amendment. He did not agree with those who considered that the managers ought to be prevented by hard and fast legislation from taking into account the willingness or ability of a teacher to perform certain duties. He fully agreed that teaching efficiency ought not to be sacrificed for these extraneous duties, but there were many parishes the condition of which was such that as between two teachers of equal teaching ability these outside matters might very well be a determining factor. The risk of their being the determining factor should be provided against, and the Government had promised to see to that. While they all agreed as to the substance—that in
1010
no case should teaching efficiency be sacrificed to any extraneous consideration—they could not accept the hard and fast provision that extraneous matter should never be taken into account, and therefore they would have to vote against the Amendment.
MR. LOGANthought it quite possible to find away out of the difficulty. Everybody admitted that it was unfair that the teacher should be asked to carry out certain duties not connected with education. He suggested, therefore, that as this was not a matter of life or death to the Government, the right hon. Gentleman should allow his followers to vote as they liked on the question. The teachers of the country would then get all they asked, viz., simple justice.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid there need really be no division. The language on the other side had been quite as strongly in favour of such an Amendment as the speeches on the Opposition side. All were agreed as to what they wanted; the question was whether it should be in the Bill or in the Code. Were they to be satisfied with a promise that it should be in the Code? Managers never read the Code right through, but they would read this Bill. It would therefore be much better that the provision should be inserted in the Bill itself.
DR. MACNAMARAwas profoundly grateful to the Committee for the way in which they had considered the question, and to the Prime Minister for the attitude he had taken up. The suggestion had been made that the memorandum of agreement in the Code should be strengthened so as to render it impossible for these encroachments to be made matters precedent to appointment. He knew what he was talking about in these matters, and he declared that the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary would, from his point of view, and from the point of view of the teaching profession, be an admirable settlement of tins question. His view was that the promised alteration would remove this long-standing grievance, and as far he personally was concerned he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Leave being refused,
(7.24.) Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 430.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Price, Robert John

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Arthur

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rea, Russell

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Barlow, John Emmott

Joicey, Sir James

Rigg, Richard

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bell, Richard

Kitson, Sir John

Runciman, Walter

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Lambert, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Brigg, John

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Shackleton, David James

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Leng, Sir John

Soares, Ernest J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Levy, Maurice

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Caine, William Sproston

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Logan, John William

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Cawley, Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

Crombie, John William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wallace, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Mather, Sir William

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ellis, John Edward

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Newnes, Sir George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Paulton, James Mellor

Yoxall, James Henry

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Perks, Robert William

Harwood, George

Philipps, John Wynford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pickard, Benjamin

Mr. Samuel Evans and

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sir Edward Strachey.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bigwood, James

Chapman, Edward

Aird, Sir John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bond, Edward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boulnois, Edmund

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

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Balcarres, Lord

Brymer, William Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edward Bambridge

Baldwin, Alfred

Bull, William James

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Batcher, John George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Carew, James Laurence

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Carlile, William Walter

Cust, Henry John C.

Bartley, George C. T.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dalrymple Sir Charles

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Beckett, Ernest William

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Diekson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pym, C. Guy

Doughty, George

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rankin, Sir James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Kennedy, Patrick James

Remnant, James Farquharson

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Renwick, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Keswick, William

Richards, Henry Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kimber, Henry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawson, John Grant

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Finch, George H.

Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Finlay, (Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fisher, William Hayes

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Fitzroy, Hon. Edwand Algernon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Flower, Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Forster, Henry William

Lockie, John

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

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Eveshara

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gardner, Ernest

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

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Iver,Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Greene, Sir EW (BurySEdm'nds

Malcolm, Ian

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Gretton, John

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Thornton, Percy M.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Milvain, Thomas

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Groves, James Grimble

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

Valentia, Viscount

Gunter, Sir Robert

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

Hain, Edward

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morrell, George Herbert

Walker, Col. William Hall

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mount, William Arthur

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Myers, William Henry

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Newdegate, Francis Alexander

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholson, William Graham

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pease, Henry Pike Darlington

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Higginbottom, S. W.

Peel, Hon Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wylie, Alexander

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Percy, Earl

Younger, William

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pierpoint, Robert

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Plummer, Walter R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sir Alexander Acland-

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

It being after half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the proceedings of the Committee.
Where upon MR. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the (Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word, "school," in line 17, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
(7.38.) Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word "school," in line 17, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 131.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Aird, Sir John

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lockie, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Lowe, Francis William

Arrol, Sir William

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bailey James (Walworth)

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Baldwin, Alfred

Flower, Ernest

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

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

Forster, Henry William

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Balfour, Captain C. B (Hornsey)

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

Malcolm, Ian

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Gardner, Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Garfit, William

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Bartley, George C. T.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Milvain, Thomas

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Beckett, Ernest William

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

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gore, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bignold, Arthur

Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

Morrell, George Herbert

Bigwood, James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

Mount, William Arthur

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Boulnois, Edmund

Gretton, John

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bousfield, William Robert

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Groves, James Grimble

Myers, William Henry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Newdegate, Francis A.N.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gunter, Sir Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Brymer, William Ernest

Hain, Edward

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bull, William James

Bull, Edward Marshall

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Butcher, John George

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Pemberton, John S. G.

Carew, James Laurence

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Percy, Earl

Carlile, William Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pierpoint, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Plummer, Walter R.

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hay, Hon, Claude George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Heaton, John Henniker

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. A (Worc.

Helder, Augustus

Pym, C. Guy

Chapman, Edward

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Charringion, Spencer

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Rankin, Sir James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Higginbottom, S. W.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Renwick, George

Coddington, Sir William

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Richards, Henry Charles

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Canborne, Viscount

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kennedy, Patrick James

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Cust, Henry John C.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

Dalrymple, Sir Chares

Keswick, William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Kimber, Henry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Smith, James Parker-(Lanarks

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

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

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Doughty, George

Lecky, Rt Hon. William Edw. H

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stone, Sir Benjamin

1016

1017

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Wylie, Alexander

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

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thompson, Dr E. C (Monagh'n, N

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Younger, William

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Sir Alexander Acland-

Valentia, Viscount

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

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH. (Sheffield

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harwood, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Priestley, Arthur

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Atherley-Jones, L.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Reckitt, Harold James

Barlow, John Emmott

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rigg, Richard

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Runciman, Walter

Bell, Richard

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Schwann, Charles E.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kitson, Sir James

Shackleton, David James

Brigg, John

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Langley, Batty

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Burns, John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants

Burt, Thomas

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Buxton, Sidney Charles

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caine, William Sproston

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Causton, Richard Knight

Logan, John William

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Cawley, Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Crombie, John William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Toulmin, George

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mather, Sir William

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J Hastings

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellis, John Edward

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Newnes, Sir George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norman, Henry

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woodhouse, Sir JT. Huddersf'd

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Palmier, Sir Clarles M. (Durham

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Partington, Oswald

Griffith, Ellis J.

Paulton, James Mellor

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Perks, Robert William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Philipps, John Wynford

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pickard, Benjamin

Mr. William M'Arthur.

(7.48.) Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 432.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Aird, Sir John

Banbury, Frederick Greorge

Brymer, William Ernest

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bartley, George C T.

Bull, William James

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bullard, Sir Harry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Butcher, John George

Arrol, Sir William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bignold, Arthur

Carew, James Laurence

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Bigwood, James

Carlile, William Walter

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Balcarres, Lord

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Boulnois, Edmund

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

Bousfied, William Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

'school,' in line 17, inclusive, stand of the Clause."

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Chapman, Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Charrington, Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Pemberton, John S. G.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Percy, Earl

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coddington, Sir William

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Plummer, Walter R.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Purvis, Robert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rankin, Sir James

Cranborne, Viscount

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Renwick, George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Richards, Henry Charles

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge

Cust, Henry John C.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Kennedy, Patrick James

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Keswick, William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Kimber, Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Doughty, George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow-

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawson, John Grant

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lee, Athur H. (Hants., Fareham

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Finch, George H.

Lockie, John

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Col. Chas.W.(Evesham)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lowe, Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Thormpson, Dr E. C (Monagh'n, N

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

Macdona, John Cumming

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Gardner, Ernest

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Valentia, Viscount

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Malcolm, Ian

Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milvain, Thomas

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

Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edmunds

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und. Lyne

Grenfell, William Henry

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Gretton, John

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Groves, James Grimble

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mount, William Arthur

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

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hain, Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wylie, Alexander

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Myers, William Henry

Younger, William

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sir Alexander Acland-

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Burns, John

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Bell, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Caine, William Sproston

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brigg, John

Caldwell, James

Barlow, John Emmott

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Causton, Richard Knight

1020

1021

Cremer, William Randal

Levy, Maurice

Shackleton, David James

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lloyd-George, David

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Logan, John William

Soares, Ernest J.

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

Dunn, Sir William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Frank

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mather, Sir William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Moss, Samuel

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moulton, John Fletcher

Tomkinson, James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Newnes, Sir George

Toulmin, George

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Norman, Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Harwood, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir, James Galloway

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Perks, Robert Williams

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pickard, Benjamin

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Joicey, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Kearley, Hudson E.

Priestley, Arthur

Yoxall, James Henry

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Rea, Russell

Kitson, Sir James

Reckitt, Harold James

Langley, Batty

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Mr. Cawley, and Mr.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Runciman, Walter

Robert Wallace.

Leng, Sir John

Schwann, Charles E.

Whereupon 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 8:—
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON(9.0.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON moved to insert in sub-Section (d) after "the managers of the school," the following words, "shall provide the school-house free of any charge, except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any, to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school and." This was intended to make it clear that, whether the school-house was owned by the managers in fee simple, or let to the managers on a lease, or simply hired by them at a rent, these managers must provide the school; and, that being done, the school was a
  1022
  school "not provided" by the local authority. The Government had hoped it had been made perfectly clear that the payment of any rent whatsoever for a school made it a school provided by the local authority, but in order to satisfy hon. Members they now proposed to insert these additional words. There was a certain ambiguity in the word "school-house." In the Act of 1870 it was denned to include the teacher's dwelling-house; but the managers of the denominational schools were not bound to provide more than the premises for the school. The local authority had to keep up the school, and if they did not provide the teacher with a dwelling-house they would be bound to increase his salary. Therefore, if in the school-house there should be, as often was the case, a teacher's dwelling-house, the managers would not be bound to provide that free of charge, because, if so, that would be making a contribution towards the maintenance of the school. Therefore, the Government had included in the Amendment the words, not originally on the Paper, "except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any." This would enable the managers to charge a rent for the use of the teacher's dwelling-house, and would also lay upon the managers the obligation of putting that dwelling, where there was one, at the disposal of the local education authority. By the insertion of these words

  1023
  regarding the teacher's dwelling-house he had anticipated an Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster, which proposed to interpret "school-house" as "not including the teacher's dwelling."
  MR. PERKS: Who is to fix the rent for the teacher's dwelling?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Surely it is reasonable to suppose that the managers can agree as to that with the local authority.
  MR. LANGLEY: Is it to be optional or compulsory on the part of the education authority to take the house?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Optional, I should say. If they prefer it, they can find a residence for the teacher away from the school.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'shall provide the school house free of any charge, except for the teacher's dwelling-house if any, to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school and.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the original Amendment seemed innocuous, but ho confessed that the speech of the Secretary to the Education Department and the new words had not made it more acceptable. What they wanted to make clear was that during the whole time of school hours the school buildings and school rooms should be entirely at the disposal of the local authority. He was afraid these words would involve a very inconvenient limitation. But the most serious objection he had to raise was to the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment, in the name of one of their own followers, which entitled the trustees or owners to charge rent if the teacher's house formed part of the school buildings. That seemed to him totally contrary to what they had understood to be the object of the Bill. They had always supposed the intention to be to give the local authority whole control over the buildings during school hours, as
  1024
  far as secular educational work was concerned. This would interfere with that, and he was very sorry indeed that the Government had accepted the Amendment. Who was to decide the amount of rent? Innumerable questions might arise which would lead to inevitable and intolerable conflict. It might be that the trustees or owners might demand an exorbitant rent and the local authority might find itself in the position of being unable to obtain the necessary buildings for the proper working of the school.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I have handed in a written Amendment dealing with this point. Can it be taken now?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment seems to deal with the question of the master's house in an inverse sense to that held by the Secretary to the Board of Education.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Not only the master's house but other premises as well which are usually connected with a school-house.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the alteration of the Government Amendment would make it necessary for him—if, of course, it were carried—to move the deletion of certain added words.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsuggested that the Committee should first deal with the original Amendment of the Secretary to the Education Board. What was really wanted was a clear definition of the word "school-house."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Government took the definition of school-house from the Act of 1870. Therefore he did not imagine that there would be any dispute as to the first few words of his Amendment. He suggested that the Amendment should be accepted down to and including the words "free of any charge," and then the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire might move his Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLpointed out that the Act of 1870 defined the term school-house as including the teacher's house and all offices and premises belonging thereto.
  SIR JAMES RANKINsaid the object of his Amendment was to get a clear expression of opinion from the Government on the point.
  THE CHAIRMAN: And it is the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment that has caused all the trouble.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: But my Amendment has not been embodied in the Government Amendment. The Secretary to the Education Board has not adopted the words "shall provide." My main point is whether the managers shall provide teachers' dwellings or not. The Bill does not say they are not to.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEWe understand the Government to agree that the term school-house does not include the teacher's dwelling-house.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: And I warn to make it clear that the managers are not to be under the liability to provide a teacher's dwelling in any case.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: Has the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster been accepted?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has been incorporated in the Government Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Government had never desired to depart from the definition of school-house given in the Act of 1870.
  MR. WHITLEYremarked that if the Government Amendment as amended were passed it would place many of them under a serious disability by cutting out some very important Amendments.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had better move his Amendment now.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN moved to insert after the word "school-house" the words "together with all buildings and all other hereditaments usually
  1026
  occupied or enjoyed therewith." He said it was within his knowledge that in the case of many rural schools the outbuildings were scattered about, and sometimes separated altogether from the school-house and buildings. In order that there might not be disputes as to the property which actually passed from the managers to the local authority, he begged to move the Amendment. The words he proposed would include, for instance, the light to fetch water from a well or access to necessary buildings not in the ownership of the trustees.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'schoolhouse' to insert the words together with all buildings and all other hereditaments usually occupied or enjoyed therewith.'"(Mr. Hamphreys-Owen).
  Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas afraid he must oppose tins Amendment. He thought it was much better to retain the definition of the school-house as given in the Act of 1870. The Government only proposed to depart from that definition so far as to declare how much of the premises were to be found free of charge. Otherwise they did not intend to depart from the definition.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLagreed that it would be better to adhere to the definition contained in the Act of 1870. If there were two definitions it might lead to considerable difficulty of which ingenious counsel would make much.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid there was danger that the words would be construed as making it the duty of the managers to provide the dwelling house. In the vast majority of the schools there was no dwelling house attached.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought it would be better to stick to the definition contained in the Act of 1870.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that if the Attorney-General could assure him that the two instances ho gave were covered by the definition in the Act of 1870 he would withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the definition included "offices and all premises belonging to or acquired for the school."
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JAMES RANKINasked if his Amendment should not come next.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me it has been accepted by the Government and moved by them.
  SIR JAMES RANKINsaid the Government had not accepted it to the extent that managers were not to be called upon to provide the teacher's dwelling.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he understood that where there was no teacher's house the obligation would not lie upon the managers to build one, but where there was a teacher's house it was to be provided as part of the school.
  SIR JAMES RANKINthought it would be most unfair if those who had provided a school-house should not have the advantage of it. In cases where there did not exist a school-house the local authority should pay an additional salary so that he might rent a convenient house. The words suggested would satisfy him if the managers were not under an obligation to provide a teacher's dwelling.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that was made quite plain by his Amendment, "Except for the teacher's dwelling, if any." He thought that also met the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, who seemed to have confused the terms "school-house" and "teacher's dwelling house."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the question was whether the provision of a teacher's dwelling was part of the equipment of a school for elementary teaching. In the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury he assured his clergy that, under no circumstances, would they have to subscribe anything at all. He said that they were not going to be liable even
  1028
  for the ordinary repairs of the schools, and he stated that it would only be under extraordinary circumstances that they would be called upon to pay anything. He thought this spirit of shabbiness on the part of the richest religious community in the world in respect of their paltry contributions was shocking. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question."] He was perfectly in order in what he had said, and he had a right to say that it was showing a spirit of shabbiness not to give up the school-house without a statutory consideration, and, endeavouring to contract out of the liability of providing a house for the teacher, which was the most necessary part of the school. It seemed to him shocking. They wanted to have everything for nothing. [Ministerial interruptions and cries of "That's what you want."] It seemed to him that the people who were bound to supply the school, and who were to have a majority of two to one in the management of the school, should also be bound to supply a school-house for the teacher. Did any one know the real condition of a great number of the small village schools in this country? It was absolutely necessary that there should be a school-house for the teacher attached to the school. This was just as necessary as the school itself. Of all the things created in this Bill the most extraordinary thing is this shabby attempt of the Church to get rid of its liability of providing a house for the teacher. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was to his mind perfectly shocking. He thought that a great many other people would think so too when they realised that the Church of England claimed, on account of its bricks and mortar contribution, that they should have for ever a statutory majority of two to one in the management of the school, and then endeavour, upon this Amendment, to escape the liability of providing a dwelling for the teacher in order to secure the few pounds which they would get for the rent of this school-house. This Amendment threw a light upon the spirit and the purpose with which this Bill was inspired. This was a demand which was utterly unjustifiable, and he should resist this Amendment as far as he could.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had

  1029
  just told the Committee that the Archbishop of Canterbury had said something which was shocking. What he was perfectly certain of was that the greater part of the remarks of his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire were absolutely irrelevant to the Amendment under consideration. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] The situation was a very simple one if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case. They had very often in a country village a teacher's house provided as part of the school building, and they might have cases in which there might be difficulty in finding another house for the teacher. The Amendment of his hon. friend would have the effect of requiring that the managers should put at the disposal of the local education authority, not only the school-house, but also the teacher's dwelling house attached to the school. That disposed of the first charge. He was only referring to charges made by the right hon. Gentleman which had any relevance whatever to the Amendment. The second charge was, "Are you going to charge a rent for it?" Of course the managers ought to have a rent for it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would give two minutes dispassionate consideration he would see that if the teacher got a school-house thrown in he would get a less salary. If he got £150 a year plus a house, he would expect £170 or £180, or whatever might be a fair rent for the house, in case he had to provide it himself. In many cases there were no teachers' dwelling houses at all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then the managers ought to build one.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the most convenient course was, in such a case, to give the teacher a higher salary and let him provide the dwelling house for himself. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a piece of shabbiness that the managers should not give a part of the salary. Did he suggest that the managers should be bound to build a dwelling house for the teacher where
  1030
  one did not exist at the present time? [An HON. MEMBER: That is not the Amendment.] He was simply dealing now with the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be perfectly preposterous to place on the managers the obligation to build a teacher's dwelling in cases where it did not already exist, for the simple reason that it would be more convenient to rent a house somewhere in the neighbourhood for the teacher. He should strenuously oppose any such Amendment as that put forward, which would compel the managers to put up a teacher's dwelling house. The Amendment proposed by his hon. friend exactly hit the justice of the case. It prevented any managers from withholding the teacher's dwelling house from the use of the teacher, and entitled them to a fair payment by way of rent because the letting of the dwelling house to the teacher would reduce the salary which would have to be paid to the teacher by the local authority.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Who will fix the the rent?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it seemed to be a fixed idea with hon. Gentlemen opposite that in everything which concerned this Bill everybody would act in the most unreasonable way possible. [An Hon. MEMBER: Will they agree upon the rent? Of course they would, because they were reasonable people, and in case of any dispute the Board of Education would intervene.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the great majority of the teachers' dwellings attached to voluntary schools were given to the teachers free of rent, and he thought the Government ill represented the Church of England if they said that, in the altered condition of things, the Church of England should charge a rent for those dwellings.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The rent is to be charged to the local authority, for if the teacher is provided with a house he will not receive so much salary from the local education authority.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he did not imagine that the teacher was involved at all, but, as he understood the question, in future the local authority would be charged a rent for a building which had hitherto been used rent free.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONpointed out that in the past the teacher's dwelling had affected the salary, and it would continue to affect it when the schools came under the local education authority. He did not think they were entitled to ask the managers to contribute that portion.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that at present the denominationalists found the school buildings and residences for the teachers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] The teachers used the school-house rent free. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, but that affects their salaries."] No doubt it was so. The point of the matter was that the teacher's salary would remain the same as at present. Therefore, what would happen as a practical issue would be this—that, where in the past a building had been used by the teacher with no rent paid, in the future the trustees or managers would get a rent for that for which in the past they had got no rent at all. The Government ill represented the Church of England in such a proposal. He did not think the Church desired to drive a hard bargain. Now the Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education argued that in consequence of having had these residences rent free lower salaries had been fixed. Did they think that the teacher's salary would be changed? The teacher would remain the same person, and he did not think that any change would be made in the salary. What would happen would be that where in the past a building had been used by the teacher rent free, in future the denominationalist trustees would get a rent for that building. He did not think the teacher's salary would be modified at all. Did the Attorney General suggest that the local authority would agree to make up this rent by an increase in the teacher's salary?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYreplied that if the voluntary schools gave the teacher a house, at the present time they gave him so much less salary, When the local authority took over the school, if they got the house for the use of the teacher, they would continue to pay him so much less salary. It was obvious that if they got the salary reduced they should recoup the owners
  1032
  of the house, who enabled the local authority to obtain a teacher at a lower salary.
  DR. MACNAMARAcontended that the teacher would still get the saint salary, and he did not think by this proposal they were representing the views of the Church of England. He was quite sure that where the Church in the past had provided a building free of rent they were prepared to continue that in the future. He should have thought it would not have paid a great National Church to drive a hard bargain like this and be rather haggling in a small matter of this kind. He thought the word "shabby" was very well used in connection with these proceedings.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLpointed out that the Legislature had already drawn a distinction between the school building and the part used as the teacher's dwelling. The Act exempting elementary school from rates laid down that the school dwelling was rated and had to pay rates. Therefore it was clear from that Act that the Legislature had drawn a distinction between the school buildings and the dwelling. He knew a case where a teacher had ceased to reside in the official, dwelling, and her wages had been re assessed. That was a proof that the value of the dwelling was taken into consideration when the salaries were fixed. Everyone who knew the working of the School Board system in London, Bradford, and all great towns, knew that the dwellings were not part of the school premises, and the teachers were paid a higher salary when they had to provide their own residences. He was astonished to hear that great educationists sitting opposite did not seem, to have the most practical elementary knowledge upon this subject. As regarded the remarks made by the hon. Member for Poplar, who stated that there would be a difficulty in finding out the rent——
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In fixing it.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLthought the hon. Member did not give the education authorities much credit for

  1033
  business capacity. A teacher's dwelling was like any other dwelling, and any other person acquainted with the management of property would have no difficulty in fixing the rent. He regretted that in dealing with a matter like this, which was really somewhat of a commercial character, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire should fulminate against the Church of England. He could not see how those fulminations had any relevance to the matter under discussion. He had not read the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but if his Grace had said that the charge for the maintenance of those buildings would be a light one his statement was not based upon careful consideration of the facts. The cost imposed by this Bill upon voluntary schools would be a heavy, serious, and a growing charge, and ho felt quite sure that as far as the Church of England was concerned Churchmen would spend money upon this object to the utmost of their capacity. Instead of making this serious attack upon the Church of England, he thought the light hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful to the Church for the educational work it had accomplished.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreminded the hon. Baronet that the Archbishop had expressed the view that it would only be in exceptional cases, where a large improvement had to be undertaken, that the subscribers would be called upon in future for any subscriptions at all.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That is not the Amendment before us.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it was part of the same thing. It was a provision for paving the repairs out of the schoolmaster's house, which, he contended, was an essential part of the educational equipment of the school. And, as to introducing a commercial matter into the discussion, that was not the fault of the Opposition, but of the Government and those who inspired them. When they built a now school in the country, who was to build a dwelling-house for the schoolmaster? A school without a house for the master would be utterly insufficient. Really, to claim as a right the appointment of the teacher, and then
  1034
  to say that the teacher's house was no concern of the managers, was one of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONrose to a point of order. He asked whether they should not discuss one thing at a time, namely, the point raised by the proposal now before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I called upon the hon. Member for North Camberwell to make his speech, but he did not move his Amendment.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood that the Amendment did not include the teacher's dwelling-house.
  THE CHAIRMAN: What we have been discussing—perhaps the Committee will be surprised to hear it—is the Amendment of the Secretary of the Board of Education.
  MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY moved an Amendment omitting the words from the Government Amendment "except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any." He thought this Amendment would bring the subject to a clear issue. He did not propose to go back to the subject whether rent was part of salary or not. The ground he took was—Is it, or is it not, part of the bargain that these schools should be provided without any charge, including the master's house which had always been taken to be part of the school premises? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] There was a bargain made with the Bishops. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University told them a little about it in a speech to his constituents the other day. He would be very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were to get up and say to the Committee that it was not understood when the Bill was drawn, that what the Church brought into the hotchpot, as lawyers said, was the whole of the educational equipment for the purposes of elementary education, including the master's house where there was one. He could prove his contention in this way. The figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when speaking in the country as to the sacrifices made in the great amount of money spent in years

  1035
  past on educational purposes, in every case included the money for the teachers' houses. He would go so far as to say, without fear of contradiction by any one who had a share in the drawing up of the Bill, that it was originally intended that the whole of the hereditament should be given free of charge in return for having four of the six members in the managing body, and in his judgment it was rather mean to charge a rent for the schoolmaster's house. The result would be that in many places the Church would get a money value out of the Bill sufficient to provide an additional curate in addition to the two to one majority on the Board of school management.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that the simple business question was this—Is it right, as has been assumed, that under this Bill the salary of the teacher is to come out of the public funds? Hon. Members opposite had based a large number of their arguments against the Bill on the allegation that the whole of the salary of the teacher was to come from public funds, and that he ought not to be appointed to denominational schools by denominational managers. If it was true that the salary of the teacher was to come out of public funds, it was clear that the Amendment of the Secretary of the Board of Education was right.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid if the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House yesterday when a speech was made by the noble Lord the Member for the Biggleswade Division he would know that they were told they were in error in supposing that the teachers' salaries were to be met by public funds. The noble Lord developed the argument by stating that as the buildings were being transferred to the local authority, the managers were in fact paying part of the salary. It was on that ground that the noble Lord got the support of many members, and now,
  1036
  the day after the battle, the hon. and learned Gentleman came and told the Committee that the salaries were to be paid out of public funds. Why were the Government playing fast and loose with this matter? The Act of 1870 laid down that the school-house included the master's house, if any. He believed he was justified in saying that the action of the Government was a shabby and mean proceeding. They had represented to the country that they were going to get a certain asset from the denominational schools and that asset was now being reduced. What the Government were now proposing was to make money out of the local authorities; in other words, they were asking that those authorities should pay the managers for the dwelling-houses. He trusted the Committee would adhere to the definition in the Act of 1870.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid this difficulty would never have arisen but for the definition in the Act of 1870, which included in the term "school-house," the teacher's dwelling. He ventured to think that many Members of the House, and many people outside, never know until this discussion arose that the definition included the teacher's house. It was really absurd to make capital out of the fact that the term school-house was originally inserted in the Bill. The term "school-house" was not intended to be interpreted according to the definition in the Act of 1870, and to insist upon that by adopting the Amendment to the Amendment would be to throw an unfair burden on the managers of the denominational schools.
  MR. PERKSsaid this was a question which affected the Wesleyan Church as well as the Established Church, and certainly the managers of the Wesleyan schools, in all about 500, never entertained the idea that they were going to receive rent for the teacher's house. In the county of Lincoln almost all the teachers' dwellings were part of the school buildings, and in many cases building grants from the State had been received, not merely for the school, but for the teacher's house. It therefore seemed to him that it was going back on a bargain for the Government to suggest in the interests, not of the Wesleyans or the Roman Catholics,

  1037
  but of the Church of England, that in respect of the teacher's house rental should be paid, which manifestly must go as an endowment to some Church institution in the village. It seemed to him, regarding this as a business transaction, when they had to balance the question as to who was to pay the burden, the County Council or the Anglican Church, that the Amendment was a just one.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite did not take a sound view of this question. It was possible that they had too many leaders, and not one. He had come most distinctly to the conclusion that the very best thing that could happen was that the local education authority should pay rent for the teacher's house because it would give that body more control. If they wanted the new education system to work well, the more the local authority paid the better, because it would give them more control. That, was absolute commonsense and he thought that the denominational managers and the proprietors of the schools were making a mistake in pressing their opposition to the Amendment. If they had a sense of logic they would not boggle at the Amendment, but swallow it at once. He should vote for the Amendment. He suggested to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were rather on the wrong tack in this matter and that they should consent to the payment of the rent of the teacher's house in order to get control over him.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that his hon. friend, the Member for East Somerset, seemed to argue that this difficulty had arisen because no one knew the definition of a school-house given in the Act of 1870 until this Amendment came up for discussion. But surely the draftsman of the Bill, and the Attorney General, and the First Lord of the Treasury knew the definition in that Act. They all remembered that when the First Lord introduced the Bill he told the House that the consideration which was being given for the Bill by the denominations was the provision of the school buildings and their repairs. When the right hon. Gentleman said
  1038
  that, everybody took him to mean buildings in the sense in which the phrase had been previously used; that: was in the sense in which the phrase was defined in 1870. It was not a fair way to treat the Committee to depart from the bargain held out to Parliament and the country in April last. The Government Amendment now effected a complete alteration of the terms on which the Bill was recommended to the country. He agreed with the hon. Member for Newton that the more the local authority paid the better would be their control, but he questioned whether the local authority would acquiesce in a system which would shift the burden of repairs from the managers to them. He maintained that this was an unfortunate proposal in the interests of the Bill and of the Church of England it self, and he believed that the Government would later on regret the proposal.
  SIR JAMES RANKINsaid it seemed to him the very height of injustice to those who had been generous enough to build the school-house in conjunction with the school itself, that they should not have the benefit when the local authority took over the school. He believed that until the debate that night not a single word had been spoken by a Minister or a Leader of the Opposition mentioning that a teacher's dwelling-house was part of the school building If it were laid down that all these poor parishes must provide teachers' dwellings as well as school buildings, it would be a sure way to turn quickly the denominational schools into provided schools. He therefore thought that, in justice to the denominational schools, the Amendment of the Secretary to the Education Department ought to be carried, and he hoped that the Committee would support it.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment forgot that this was a new bargain—that those who provided the school-houses and the dwellings were going to be relieved, under the Bill, of a burden of something like. £800,000 a year. On that ground, he insisted that the public should have the whole of the plant and apparatus by means of which elementary education had hitherto been carried on.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he wanted to put a question to the Government, and also to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It was alleged that the intention of the Government from the first was that rent should be paid for the teachers' dwelling-houses. Let him call attention to the Bill as originally introduced. Clause 18, sub-Section 3, set forth that—
  "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any expression to which a special meaning is attached, in the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, shall have the same meaning in this Act."
  Now, there was an expression in the Act of 1870 which said that "school-house" was taken to include the teacher's dwelling. But it was not until the Secretary to the Education Department placed his Amendment on the Paper that this exception was brought before the Committee in any shape or form. That was not the original proposal of the Government. It was not in the Government Bill. Why was it now proposed? He did not think it was a proposal so much in the interests of the Church as in the interests of the owners of property. He knew that in Scotland the schoolmaster's house was universally attached to the school-house, and he believed that it was so in most cases in England. It was part of the equipment and plant which was to be handed over to the local education authority; but it was not until four or five months after the Bill hail been introduced that a new term and a new burden had been proposed to be imposed.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that according to the definition in the Act of 1870, the whole buildings, including the school-house and the teacher's dwelling, were included. If the Amendment were adopted, in large towns where the value of land was so rapidly increasing, the land owners would have the right to demand an exorbitant rent, or to take over part of the ground.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that as a matter of fact, many of the teachers' dwelling-houses were not fit to live in. They were too small, badly lighted, and ill supplied with water. If the local authority was required to pay the rent for the use of these dwelling-houses, they should have a choice in the matter, and not to take them over if they were not in a sanitary condition.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that in answering another question on the same subject he had stated most distinctly that he did not consider the local education authority would be under any obligation to take over the teacher's dwelling-house if they did not choose to do so.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the Secretary to the Board of Education had stated that the local authority would not be obliged to take over the teacher's dwelling-house though it was part of the school building.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not obliged.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then who is to live in it?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he very much regretted that the Government had gone back on the proposal they had placed on the Paper. The previous night an hon. Gentleman opposite had objected to the appointment of the teachers by the local authority on the plea that a fair bargain had been made. He asked whether the Government, by the proposal they were now making, were not breaking a bargain. Supposing the rent was charged in respect of a schoolmaster's house where the school premises were held under the same trust deed, what would become of the rent? The educational trust was to give elementary education to the children of the poor. He wanted to know if the rent was to be given for educational purposes, or for what other purpose? Was the money to go to the Church, or to the land owners, or to the trust for elementary education? There was one other point. In some cases, in addition to the school premises, there were endowments. He would like to know whether these were to be handed over for educational or for some other purposes.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that if the Amendment was carried the rent would go to the managers' fund, and would be applicable to any object to which they could apply it within the terms of their trust. In regard to the question of endowments, that was a matter that would have to be dealt with separately. The question how they should be divided between the managers

  1041
  and the education authority would depend largely on the original purpose for which they were given.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he wished that the Committee had copies of the trust deeds laid before them. He had in his possession a copy of the model trust deed of the National Society. This was the trust deed on which the land was conveyed—
  "To permit the said premises and all buildings thereon erected, or to be erected, to be for ever hereafter appropriated and used as and for a school for the education of children and adults, or children only, of the labouring, manufacturing, and other poor classes of the parish, and as a residence for the teacher or teachers of the said school, which said school shall always be in union with and conducted in furtherance of the principles of the National Society for promoting the education of the poor in the principles of the Established Church."
  He thought it would be a very strong order to appropriate the income derived from such property to a private purpose.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that the money would not be devoted to any private purpose. It would be strictly applied to the purposes of the trust, and for the purposes of education. The trust was modified somewhat by changed circumstances, but it was perfectly clear
  that if the rent was received it would go to the managers' fund, and when applied to the repairs of the building, was really being used in furtherance of education.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the rent would be one of the receipts mentioned in Clause 13, sub-Section 2, which said that all receipts in respect of any school should be paid to the local education authority.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the sub-Section he would see that it excluded sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers.
  MR. M'KENNAasked if the right hon. Gentleman had considered Section 23 of the Act of 1870 in connection with the Amendment. He submitted that under that Section there could be no letting, except at a nominal rent.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that Section 23 of the Act of 1870 had not the remotest application to the matter before the Committee.
  (10.48.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 111. (Division List, No. 433.)

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt Hon. James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'nN

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Myers, William Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nicol, David Ninian

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

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsham

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Williams, Colouel R. (Dorset)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pilkinaton, Lieut.-Col. Richard

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kemp, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Purvis, Robert

  Younger, William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pym, C. Guy

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Renwick, George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther-

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leng, Sir John

  Allen, Charles P, (Glouc., Stroud

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Levy, Maurice

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barran, Roland Hirst

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Burns, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burt, Thomas

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mather, Sir William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hemphill Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Moss, Samuel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  Crombie, John William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kitson, Sir James

  Partington, Oswald

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lambert, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Langley, Batty

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Edwards, Frank

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Price, Robert John

  1044

  1045

  Priestley, Arthur

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Sehwann, Charles E.

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Toulmin, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  DR. MACNAMARA(11.0.) DR. MACNAMARA moved to insert in line 2, after the word "free" "for all educational purposes," and if that were accepted he would afterwards move to omit all the words after "authority." They had been told that the use of the school buildings was part of the bargain which had been struck between the public and the denominational system; but after what had happened during the evening he believed that before the contract was sealed one of the parties to it would relent. The denominationalists were giving the use of their schools and an undertaking to keep them in repair; the public, on the other hand, were paying the whole of the cost of maintenance and had conceded four-sixths of the management to the denominationalists, and also the right to continue denominational teaching, although the whole cost of maintenance was provided from public funds. He thought it was hard that a great national Church, of which he spoke with great respect, should begin to haggle over the bargain in the way they had heard; and he thought that the Government were doing the Church a very ill service in allowing it to haggle as to the extent to which the buildings should be used. He was aware that Dr. Temple had stated that the annually recurring repairs would be taken out of the rates. That was an addition to the bargain of which he was very sorry to I hear. The Question before the Committee was, what was meant by the words "for use as a public elementary school." He understood that the Bill was for the purpose of co-ordinating all forms of education, but directly they found the money, then co-ordination was off. When the money was to be found there was to be co-ordination to any extent, but when it came to the use of the buildings, then co-ordination was to cease. He resisted the proposal on one
  1046
  ground only. According to the Bill, all night school work was other than public elementary education. Therefore, under the Bill, if they were to have the use of the buildings for public elementary education only, the local authority, if they desired to run a night school, would be charged rent for the use of the buildings for that work. He called that preposterous, and he would cite, in support of his contention, the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice-President, who said that the buildings should be had free of charge for ordinary night school work. The great bulk of that work was purely elementary education. It might be defined in the Bill as other than elementary, but that did not make it higher education. Was it conceivable that the Church desired to charge rent for the use of the buildings for ordinary elementary night school work. That would be the effect of the Bill unless amended. The rent which would be charged for the use of the building to be used as the teacher's residence, plus the amount of money that would have to be paid for the use of the buildings for all education other than elementary, would easily cover the whole cost of the repairs. He did not believe that the Church desired to drive such a hard bargain with the local authority, and he trusted the Government would not do the Church the ill service of insisting on it. The least they could ask, and the least the Church and the Government ought to give, was that for all public educational purposes—elementary, higher, or technical—they ought to have the buildings rent free. He should have thought that in a Bill the main purpose of which was the co-ordination of education, the Church would gladly and willingly agree to give the public authority the use of the buildings free for all public educational purposes.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, after the word 'free' to insert the words 'for all educational purposes.'"—(Dr. Machamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not believe that there was any difference between the two sides of the Committee on the subject. They had to deal at the present moment with school-houses which were the absolute property of the existing owners, but which were to be used I for educational purposes during the hours in which elementary education was to be carried on within their walls. On that they were all agreed, and they had provided the buildings free of charge during these hours. Then came the question as to whether they ought to use the buildings for any purpose outside these hours. He quite agreed that it was probably desirable, in the educational interests of many districts, that the un-provided schools should be used in the evening for the purposes of continuation schools and other analogous purposes. That was quite true, and he was, sure every hon. Gentleman would agree with him up to that point. But that was not the whole case. But they had also to remember that these schools were used for parochial purposes, and a great many other admirable purposes connected with the social life of the district, and if every evening was used, or if there was the power to use every evening by the education authority for purposes in which the owners of the schools were not interested, they might be doing a great injury and injustice to the trustees and managers of those schools, and to the denomination at whose cost they were built. [HON. MEMBERS: Partially built.] They would not go into that ancient controversy; What they had got to do was to find a compromise between these two perfectly legitimate views, and the only compromise which he thought would meet both the case of the education authority and that of the owners of the schools was that the education authority might use the schools for educational purposes on not more than three nights a week. That
  1048
  would cover the requirements of the local authority for educational purposes, and would leave the schools open for the use of the trustees and managers for purposes connected with village life, and for the purposes of the denomination whose requirements ought to be considered. The hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that the Government were anxious to obtain rent for the schools for evenings on which they might be used for educational purposes. He would not suggest that. He thought it was fair that there should be a rent for the teacher's residences, but he also thought that in those cases where the education authority could not find accommodation elsewhere—that was the important point—they should have the right to use those schools for three nights a week rent free. He ventured to suggest that the Committee should adopt the view he had expressed.
  MR. BRYCEasked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid he would be prepared to move an Amendment to carry out the general policy he had adumbrated.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked if he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that if the public authority wanted the school for any educational purpose whatever [MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.] for three nights a week it was to have it rent free?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid provided, of course, that the public authority had no schools of their own in which to carry out the same object.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid that at present board schools in large towns Were used six night a week for continuation classes; and he asked how was it possible to have a public elementary school, in any sense of the Word, where the work was restricted to three nights a week.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was greatly interested in evening schools; and thought that as far as they were concerned the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

  1049
  would meet the case; but there were other questions to be considered. For instance, it might be desirable that certain ex-voluntary schools should be used for higher grade education; and unless the words in the Amendment were modified, the managers would be able to charge rent for that purpose. He protested strongly against limiting the right to use the buildings in cases where no other room was available. The schools were to be handed over for educational purposes to the local authority, in return for great privileges; and he did not think that the local authority ought to be put under the liability of finding other schools if they possibly could. The day school was the natural place in which to hold continuation classes; and, certainly, if they only asked for its use for three nights a week, without any further qualification, he thought their demand was very moderate and reasonable.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid the proposal of his right hon. friend did not sound in his ears as an unreasonable one, but he thought it right to point out to the Committee that it was not a question of what they themselves might think was reasonable or unreasonable. There was a certain danger that if these matters were piled one upon another, if concession after concession were made, that there might come a point at which a large number of managers might refuse to go on with their schools. The proposal seemed perfectly reasonable to him. He thought it was certainly desirable that the schools should be used for educational purposes, assuming that they were legitimate and bona fide; but he had observed, in some instances, that the patience of the managers was running out, and that there was an increasing opinion that the Bill was nor such a very good Bill. Though no doubt it relieved the managers from the hard task of raising considerable sums of money, yet it put upon them disabilities, inconveniences, and in some instances humiliations, to which they were not accustomed. Was it desirable that there should be a general, or anything like a general, repudiation of the Bill by existing school managers? He did not know what hon. Members opposite, might say in their controversial moments, but in
  1050
  their uncontroversial moments he believed they did not desire to throw on the ratepayers the great cost of replacing the existing voluntary school buildings. He did not think that they would find that very popular. Further, he was quite sure that his hon. friend would very much deplore the great denominational system suddenly, or to any very large extent collapsing. They themselves, were able to view these matters calmly and dispassionately; but they should not press them too far, or forget that there were others to be considered who did not always take a perfectly calm view, and who might easily take the bit between their teeth and upset the education system of the country. Having uttered that word of caution, he would, suggest to the Government that it would be very desirable at the proper opportunity to carry out the assurance which had been given time after time, that the ownership of the buildings would not be affected by the Bill, and to insert express words saving the ownership—not only saving it in law, but making it manifest to everybody that it was saved. That might have a soothing effect on the minds of managers. Everyone would agree that the schools existed for educational purposes; and, further, that there was really no controversy between the supporters of the schools and their opponents as to the importance of education, or that it was not most desirable that the buildings could be used in the evenings to advance higher education or any other legitimate educational purpose.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, although he did not always agree with his noble friend with regard to the controversies raised by the Bill, he agreed with him absolutely in everything he had just said. He agreed that there were many owners of voluntary schools who would be tempted to say, he thought quite erroneously, "If all these limitations and disabilities are to be put upon us, why should we give up our building at all. Why should we not throw on the district the whole cost of providing elementary education, and use our buildings for our own purposes?" That was a real possibility, and, although hon. Gentlemen opposite would not agree with him, he thought a real danger in the present Bill. All he could say was

  1051
  that while he perfectly recognised that the scheme of the Government required great sacrifices from the owners and managers of voluntary schools, he quite agreed that voluntary schools in extremis would have nothing but gain from the Bill, although many voluntary schools would lose largely. To all he would say that they should sacrifice their relatively personal and individual views in order to carry out the general scheme of education which the Bill provided. He understood his noble friend to say that he did not dissent from the Government in thinking that three nights a week was not an unreasonable compromise. Private owners were being asked to give up their buildings without fee or reward for educational purposes, which were not legally associated with elementary education at all, and he thought that the Committee should recognise that that was a sacrifice.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was surprised that the proposal was spoken of as if it were something new. The buildings were already taken under two Acts of Parliament for the use of candidates at elections. Surely that was a public purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are paid for."]
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he thought the concession made by the Prime Minister was perfectly reasonable one. The evening continuation schools were now regarded as secondary schools, but he asked anyone who knew anything about continuation schools in country districts whether they were not, in reality, public elementary schools. They were used to teach children of agricultural labourers who were irregular in their attendance at the day schools, who had forgotten nearly everything they had learned, and who came to the continuation schools to recover a little of their lost knowledge. Could such a school be called a secondary school His hon. friend the Member for the Rossendale Division referred to the large towns, but they had to consider the case of the country districts also. In the large towns there would be the old School Board buildings, and although, no doubt, it might be very desirable to
  1052
  have the use of the non-provided schools on every evening in the week, he thought, however, it would be wise to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, because in the country districts three evenings a week might prove sufficient, and in the large towns there would be the provided as well as the non-provided schools. The noble Lord who had addressed the Committee said that they might find that the owners of the non-provided schools might be inclined to throw up the Bill altogether and let the country face the great expense of purchasing the schools. He did not claim to speak for anyone but himself, but he thought that was what his hon. friends would desire. He said unhesitatingly that the further they went with the Bill through Committee, the more it could be seen how absolutely absurd it was to try and make a school at the same time a non-provided and a provided school, a sort of school which was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. He believed that the whole system was likely to break down, and that the only logical solution was, as Lord Salisbury said, "Buy them."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, with reference to a challenge that was made from the other side of the House, that he had now verified the matter, and there was no doubt whatever as to the absolute accuracy of the statement that there were seven different purposes for which these schools could now be used free of charge in every case.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that the hon. Member for North Camber-well had referred to the bargain between the public and the owners of the denominational schools. He thought, however, that the Opposition might accept the concession which had been offered by his right hon. friend, especially as he had always understood that the hon. Member for North Camberwell was of opinion that the Bill ought to pass, and also because of the fact that the bargain, from the point of view of the Opposition, had been very much improved.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had not yet been able to see the precise terms of the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury, but he understood from the

  1053
  right hon. Gentleman's statement that the public authority was to have the use, free of rent, of the buildings three nights a week for educational purposes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Where they have not their own buildings.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid it might be as well to have the exact words before proceeding further, and he would, there-fore, withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that two important questions had been raised. One was that the words "public elementary schools" excluded higher grade work, and the other was the restriction foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman that the buildings could only be used if no other premises were available. He hoped both points would not be overlooked.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the; provision of schools for other educational work would not be governed by the words "public elementary school" in his Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURunderstood the hon. Gentleman to be reluctant to withdraw the Amendment until he knew what the substitute was to be. He proposed, after the word "school" to insert "and also for other educational purposes if the local education authority have no other suitable accommodation, but not oftener than three days a week."
  SIR WILLIAM MATHER: What is meant by "other suitable accommodation?"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In schools belonging to themselves. I do not mean that they should go into the open market and hire rooms. But if they have provided schools under their own control, I think it is rather unfair that they should come upon the non-provided school when it is really not necessary.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the point, ho had raised was not yet covered. The conversion of a part of a school into a higher grade school under the second part of the Bill was excluded. It would be desirable to leave out the limiting words "public elementary school."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that that could not be done. The Government never contemplated that it should be in the power of the local authority to convert a primary voluntary school into a secondary school. That would be destroying its whole value as an elementary school.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and also for other educational purposes if the local education authority have no other suitable accommodation in providing schools, but not more often than three days a week.""—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed "that those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. BRYCEthought a hard and fast rule might prove rather hard and inconvenient in practice. In many cases more than three days a week could well be given, but as far as he could see, there was no means by which the local authority could call for more than that number of days. The purposes for which the schools Would be wanted when not educationally employed were laudable and excellent, and all would desire to see the buildings put to the best possible purposes. But the words of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be deficient in elasticity. What was wanted was a scheme under which it would be in the power of some impartial authority to say if it could not be shown that the buildings were wanted for denominational purposes, that the education authority could have them for more than three nights.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought it would be well for the Committee to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which the Prime Minister had moved it. As he understood it the right hon. Gentleman would not have the slightest objection to providing that the school-house should be available for educational purposes, if necessary, on more than three nights a week, unless it was reasonably required by the managers for other purposes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that matter would be open to arrangement; but he did not believe that there would be the smallest difficulty in having the schools for educational purposes six nights a week, unless there was some local reason to the contrary. What the Government desired to prevent was the managers taking advantage of their power over a school in the evening hours because they happened to have a quarrel with the local authority. The Amendment declared that the local authority had a right to demand the use of the school on three nights in the week, and all the rest, he was sure, might be left to arrangement between the parties.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that was; why he thought it would be wise to accept the Amendment now, reserving the right to move subsequently the extension he had suggested
  Question put and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. A. K. LOYDsaid the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to remove the ambiguity which at present existed as to the funds out of which the managers were to keep the buildings in repair. By some the words were understood to imply a personal liability on the part of the managers, and by others that the fund was to be provided ad hoc. The words he proposed would remove the ambiguity by enumerating a few specified sources of the kind to which the Clause was intended to apply, while the words "or other" would show that an exhaustive list had not been attempted. Another object of the Amendment was to meet the hostile and unwarranted limitation which some people would be ready to put upon the resources available for this purpose, Amendments already appeared on the Paper proposing to deprive the managers of the power to use endowments for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the local education authority. Thus to cripple the managers could only have the effect of rendering it impossible for them to comply with the local authority's requirements, with the result that the
  1056
  school would be broken up. For the most part, the trust deeds would fall under four heads. They provided that the income for endowments should be applied to the fabric of the school, to the support and maintenance of the school generally, to the provision of free education, books, etc., for a specified number of children, or to the payment of teachers' salaries. The exclusion of endowments from the resources available to the managers would be directly contrary to the first two of those articles of the deeds. He submitted that the only condition which ought to be placed upon the application of endowments was that they should be used for educational purposes in the parish or locality for which the trust was created; and that condition would be complied with by applying the income from endowments to the necessary repairs called for by the local authority.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, after the words 'out of,' to insert the words subscriptions, donations, income hum endowment, or other.'"—(Mr. A. K. Loyd.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the Government had promised to bring in fresh proposals with regard to endowments, and, as the Amendment raised the question of endowments, it was necessary that the Committee should know what the Government were going to propose.
  MR. BRYCEagreed that the question was very important, and suggested that Progress should be reported.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o' clock.