The first Amendment on the Paper, that in the name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, has already been provided for by words inserted in Clause 6.

What words are they which make this Amendment unnecessary?

That part of Clause 6 which says that the local education authority shall have the powers of the School Board under the Act of 1870. One of the powers thus transferred is that of the supplying from time to time such additional school accommodation as may, in their opinion, be necessary.

May I point out that my Amendment covers considerably more ground. It provides that the local authority shall erect all such schools as may hereafter be required in its area.

Then the point should be raised on Clause 9, which deals with the provision of new schools. The next Amendment on the Paper—that in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—is consequential.

said he did not know whether the, hon. Gentleman was serious in his desire to lay down Parliamentary instruction as to the character of the religious instruction which was to be given in the board schools. It was a rash endeavour, and he certainly would not encourage the House to pursue any such plan. He might remark incidentally that the first provision in the Amendment was in itself a proof of the difficulty which would attend such an I effort—the school should open and close, said the hon. Gentleman, "with religious worship" What religious worship? The hon. Gentleman failed to define it. It might be teaching according to the English Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Mohammedan, the Mormon, or anything which the fancy of the education authority might suggest. He did not know that much was to be gained by a provision of that kind. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment said that religious instruction, based on the reading of the Bible, was to form part of the regular instruction of the school, but his speech was that ethical instruction, based on the Bible, should form part of the instruction. The hon. Gentleman, however, was perfectly aware that what the great body of the people of this country wanted was religious instruction, as distinguished from that instruction which excluded religion, and that it was quite impossible to have religious instruction which did not include some religious dogma. It might not be dogma that separated Christian sects, but it must be dogma that separated Christianity from other religions, or from no religion at all. If the Amendment were adopted they would be starting a controversy in which the hon. Gentleman's own friends and leaders were not with him. In his opinion it was absurd to occupy the time of the children with Bible teaching unless that teaching conveyed religion to them, and he did not advise the Committee to embark on the impossible task of laying down the foundation of a universal Parliamentary theology.

said the proposal was, in substance, if not in form, to make it compulsory to give undenominational religious instruction in all schools hitherto known as board schools. He believed that the form of religious instruction given under the Cowper-Temple Clause absolutely satisfied 90 per cent, of the working classes of the country. He was thoroughly intimate with it, and his own children had been under it. The syllabuses under it had been prepared by eminent Churchmen in conjunction with eminent Nonconformists, and the scheme had been praised by Bishops and Archbishops.

I never attacked, or intended to attack, the religious instruction given in board schools.

said the purport of the Amendment was to make that system compulsory, and all he desired to do was to show how admirable it was. But whilst he personally agreed absolutely as to the desirableness of the Cowper-Temple form of undenominational teaching, he could not help recognizing that there were a great number of people who had very strong conscientious objections to it. He hoped that at this juncture they would be free from deciding on any proposal in regard to religious instruction rather than adopt a scheme which his hon. friend must admit was partial and would have to have added to it a dozen other things before it was complete. He believed that between them they could so agree on such a repeal, not of the essence of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but of the practice under it, as to secure full and free facilities for all those who desired something different for their children. He wanted to meet the views of those who desired something different. There were Amendments on the Paper, such as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tunbridge, designed to secure facilities outside the school. That seemed to him to be a suggestion which, given public control of the schools, they could accept. There was no reason under the sun why such facilities should not be given. He hoped that before they concluded these discussions they would come to a working arrangement of that sort, and he appealed to his hon, friend not to press his Amendment, which would fail to secure that liberty in the form of religious instruction which so many parents desired.

said the hon. Member who moved tin Amendment in such moderate terms had claimed that there were more children in undenominational than in denominational schools, and had urged that as an argument in favour of his proposal. He did not agree with him, but if the fact were as stated, surely they ought to have some regard to the rights and wishes of the minority. Undoubtedly there were more children in voluntary than in board schools, and he was certain that this proposal would not be acceptable to the great majority of the parents of the children in voluntary schools.

The Amendment does not apply to the voluntary schools.

said that fact only strengthened his argument. This was an entirely new departure in educational legislation. It imposed the duty, for the first time, of inquiring into and controlling religious instruction, and he was surprised at such a proposal, coming from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who always professed a desire to vindicate on every occasion, and in every possible manner, the fullest and freest range of liberty as regarded religious instruction. The hon. Member had cited the example of America, but from what he could gather, the conditions there were not such as to encourage the people of this country to adopt a similar system. The same might be said with regard to Canada. The Amendment would not hold water. It did not meet the difficulties of the case and it would afford no assistance in satisfactorily solving this great controversy.

said it was not necessary to discuss what had occurred in either Canada or the United States. Let them confine their attention to the Amendment, the object of which was to make obligatory by statute a practice which already obtained in the great majority of the board schools. He entirely sympathised with his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell in desiring to show that board schools could and did give excellent religious instruction; but the proposal of the Amendment was to make religious instruction universal and statutory in all public schools whatever. His hon. friend would no doubt remember that this question caused the greatest difficulty in 1870, when they had a party like the Birmingham League who desired to make public education entirely secular.

"Where is that party now?"

said that there were others who took exactly the opposite view, and after a while, as the discussion went on, the general sentiment of the bulk of the people declared itself to be in favour of trying the experiment of having the instruction—not dogmatic and denominational, but based on the Bible. This general desire, this general opinion of the country, by degrees overpowered both parties in this House, and hence arose a sort of negative compromise, the essence of which was that it did not throw on the State the duty of making provision for denominational education. The only direction which the State gave to the local authorities was that they should not introduce into the schools any formularies. Under that system excellent religious instruction had been given on which his hon. friend had dwelt—a system with which he believed the enormous majority of the laity and the people of this country were content. Why should that system be disturbed and the whole controversy of 1870 re-opened? He hoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. Before he sat down he wished to take the earliest opportunity of referring to an extraordinary statement which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman said that it would be absurd to occupy the minds of children with the Bible or Bible instruction except for religious purposes. He was astonished to hear, from the right hon. Gentleman of all men, that the Bible was of no use except for religious purposes. Even if no religious instruction were given from the Bible, he would say that it should hold its place in our schools. The Bible was the only means by which a great number of children in our schools had any access to the ancient world, and the whole immense field of imagination, poetry, thought, and history. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman—if he indeed meant what his words seemed to convey—to read the preface which Matthew Arnold wrote to his edition of part of the Prophecies of Isaiah, in which he indicated the enormous importance, for the purpose of training children, of giving them some knowledge of the Bible. He was sure that if the First Lord were to read that preface he would come to the conclusion that it would be the greatest pity in the world to exclude the Bible from our schools.

said he gathered that on both sides there was an agreement that at this time it was not desirable to go further into the religious question; but at the same time they could not ignore the fact that this was one of the many suggested Amendments which had been put before the country, in the Press and at public meetings. For that reason it was desirable that he should say a few words, more especially because the corporation which he had the honour to represent, which had very carefully and very temperately gone into this question, had suggested various modifications on the present Bill, and one of their resolutions was very much in the same words as his hon. friend had put into his Amendment. As to the question of religious worship at the commencement of school work, he, for one, had a strong feeling. If they desired that the children of the Church should be taught according to the tenets of the Church, they also equally desired that the children of parents of other religions should have similar advantages of worship and religious instruction. He was glad to think that in this matter the School Boards had, in the greater number of instances, carried out what, he believed, to be the public demand. But when they came to put an Amendment to the Clause in the Bill, how many difficulties arose as to what kind of worship should be used at the opening of the school work. He was afraid that if the Amendment were adopted the religious controversy would become more and more acute. He wished to support the hon. Member for North Camberwell in his suggestion that facilities should be given to the children to attend the same worship, and receive the same religious education which was in harmony with their parents' religious views. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment, although he believed that the majority of the House agreed with the views he had expressed.

said he could not help regretting that the spirit displayed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich in treating of the religious difficulty, could not also be imported into the sentiment in regard to the denominational schools. At the same time, he trusted that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division, as it did not raise this religious difficulty to a clear issue. It was not a question as to whether they were for or against religious worship or teaching in schools. There were many Members of School Boards who would vote against this Amendment, because they would regard it as a kind of national instruction to every school authority throughout the country. The question was whether they were to give liberty to the local education authority to work out the religious difficulty in their own way? They could not go on giving directions to thirty-five millions of people as to whether they were to worship at the commencement of school, and as to how they were to teach religion. What they should do was to permit a number of people, who were neighbours, to meet together and thrash the thing out as to how and what they should teach the children. His experience was that there was no difficulty when the matter was left in that way. Some hon. friends said that undenominational education was Nonconformist education: but he asked anyone who had really had experience of the working of School Boards whether that was so? Was not a certain syllabus of religious instruction thrashed out round a table? I He knew the most Nonconformist valley in all Wales—the Rhondda Valley— where the rector himself had told him that lie had the main hand in drafting the syllabus. In another mining centre where Nonconformists were in an overwhelming preponderance, the rector and two or three curates met the ministers of various denominations and agreed as to the kind of religious instruction which should be given in that district. Not only that, the rector and the curates took their turns with the ministers of other denominations in examining the children on the agreed-upon syllabus. After all, was not that the way to settle this vexed question? This difficulty was not a practical difficulty when the people met in a practical way. But hon. Members would insist on creating artificial difficulties, or in arranging their verdict before they heard anything of the case, or upon arranging the jury in such a way that only one verdict could be given. For his part he trusted the people. He could not quite see the contention of the Prime Minister about separating religion from ethics.

said that what he had stated was that while religion implied ethics, ethics did not imply religion. That was surely a common-place.

said he was not sure but that the highest form of religion was ethics. Any other would be a thug religion. He was very glad to find that the Prime Minister had taken to study Dr. Clifford's utterances. There was some hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to understand the Nonconformist case if he studied Dr. Clifford's pamphlets. At any rate, he would find that the Nonconformists did not separate ethics from religion. In America they had tried to settle this difficult problem, and he thought that in the United States religion was much more prosperous than here, from the point of view that they taught the children in the schools, not dogmas, but religion, which they could understand. The Prime Minister was raising a false issue here. It was a question as to whether they were going to lay down, as a matter of law, what kind of religious instruction was to be given. He thought if they could not have an agreement in a district as to the particular kind of religion that was to be taught, they had better not teach it at all. Otherwise religious strife was imported, and infinite harm was done to religion if they crammed every child with dogma. Therefore, it was pre-eminently a matter for concord and agreement, and one to be treated in that spirit of religion which Iron. Members opposite appeared so anxious to teach the children; but what they insisted was not religion at all, until they could get hold of something they could quarrel about.

said he would not enter into the discussion which would take place later on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, but if the Committee were to pass the Amendment of his hon. friend they would shut out a great part of that discussion. Personally, he was in complete sympathy with the object of his hon. friend. If he were the dictator and the universal manager of all the schools in England, the system he would devise would be the system laid down in his hon. friend's Amendment. He believed in a simple unsectarian system of religion, especially in teaching children, as he thought they would derive the most advantage from it. But he was not the dictator or the universal manager of the schools; and he recognised that there was a vast number of persons who did not agree with his view of the matter. He sympathised completely with what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, that if they had their way they would prefer the system set forth in the Amendment; but if they could get complete control of the secular part of the instruction—he meant real and complete control—then they would lie prepared to meet their hon. friends opposite and accept the point of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. He believed himself that having regard to the religious differences in the country the only system which could ultimately prevail was an united secular and separate religious instruction—that was to say, that the different denominations should be allowed to teach their own creed to their own children, and that afterward the children should unite for secular instruction. He did not propose to prolong the discussion on the Amendment, and only wished to say that when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was reached if, in the meantime, they had got what they were seeking for—control over the secular part of education, which they felt to be absolutely necessary—they would be prepared to support it.

said that although he thought that there were many reasons why it would not be desirable to press the Amendment to a division, he was still glad his hon. friend had taken that opportunity to emphasise the important fact that the prevailing sentiment of the country was in favour of some form of religious instruction in every school in the country. What they were aiming at was to arrive at a state of things which would enable one form of religion to be given in every public elementary school. It was a most unhappy circumstance in the educational life of the country that there should be a want of union in regard to that essential matter in the teaching of little children; but he felt that the Amendment would perhaps be the means of blocking the way to the most excellent settlement of the question proposed by the hon. Member opposite. If ever they did succeed in settling the difficult question of religious instruction, they should beware of doing anything which would stand in the way of coming near that ideal, which would make them, at all events, one in their efforts to teach the spirit of religion, not in discordant tones, but in harmony and union in every school in the country. He felt strongly that every effort should be made to permeate the atmosphere in every school in the spirit of religion, and he was glad the discussion had been the means of showing very clearly that both sides of the House were on that question united in their aim and ideal.

said his hon. friend might congratulate himself on the discussion which had taken place. He felt, however, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, as that was not the moment to decide the question which it raised. He listened with very great pleasure to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Norwich—because he thought, if the Committee considered this matter in the spirit indicated by the hon. Member—they might come to something like an understanding in this matter. They on that side of the House were fighting for popular and complete control over every sixpence spent in the schools which was contributed from public funds, or local funds. If hon. Members opposite would apply their minds to that point, and meet his hon. friends fully and amply in that respect, as he believed the Prime Minister was to a certain extent trying to do, speaking for himself, he would be prepared to meet hon. Members opposite in a like spirit as to denominational teaching. In 1896 he had suggested an exchange of the Cowper-Temple Clause for complete, absolute, popular, universal, control. He did now bind himself to the words he had used in 1896, but given complete absolute and universal control, there would be much less difficulty than some hon. Member thought in dealing with the other matter. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division and he congratulated him again on the interesting discussion which it had raised.

said he did not agree with the Amendment, which would do for Paradise but not for England and Wales. He was a man who be lieved in religion, and who desired to instruct children above all in religion but he thought in the present state of affairs they could not give religious instruction in popular schools by Act of Parliament. If they wanted the children taught religion, they must largely rely upon the teaching in the Sunday schools and from ministers of the Gospel, but he held that they would not be able to give the children proper religious instruction in the elementary schools. If they wished to attempt it they would have to see that the teachers were men of piety, and they could not do that. Would hon. Members support a State taught and aided religion in the schools? Parliament was already connected too much in religion by having a State Church, but we have not yet taught all Members of Parliament to be religious. He hoped that Parliament would not connect itself still further with religion by attempting to give State taught religious instruction in the schools. He did not believe Welsh Members would approve of the Amendment, and lie urged the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw it. It did not come from a Nonconformist, but from a Churchman; and he held that the hon. Member no more understood the religious feelings of Nonconformists than the Prime Minister.

said that the Amendment called attention to one of the most important and, at the same time, most difficult problems that surrounded the settlement of this great educational question. In the interests of an agreement on the religious question which could only be settled by consent, he merely wished to ask the Government (if it was not too late) to confer with the representatives of the great Nonconformist churches. It was well understood that they had consulted with, and, in some measure, attempted to carry out the wishes of the representatives of the great Anglican Church. On all sides there was a desire—and he agreed both sides were actuated by conviction that some way should be found to; secure a settlement and this only could be——

I think the hon. Member is speaking at large now. He must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee

said that the Amendment proposed to secure in all schools teaching of an unsectarian religious character. There was a feeling in the country that that teaching should be universal, and he would content himself with asking the Government if they would take into account the opinions of the Nonconformist churches in regard to the question, without which no real settlement could be arrived at by inviting their representatives to a conference

said he would be best consulting the feelings of the Committee if he acceded to the opinion which had boon expressed on both sides and did not press the Amendment. The remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich and the general spirit shown by the Committee gave him much pleasure, and he would withdraw the Amendment.

said the object of the Amendment which he proposed to move, was to make clear on the face of the Bill the control of the authority, and he proposed to do that by moving to leave out the word "subject" and inserting the words "so long as." The effect of his substitution would be to make compliance with these conditions, in legal language, a condition precedent to the control of these schools and to obtaining the Parliamentary grant. Under section 7 of the Act of 1870, a public elementary school was one that was conducted in accordance with the conditions required to be fulfilled in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant, and, taking these Clauses together, if the school did not comply with those conditions, it ceased to be a public elementary school, and the local authority would no longer be required to maintain it. That point I was not quite understood even by hon. Members who had made a study of the subject, and the probability was it would not be well understood outside, therefore he submitted that the meaning of the Clause ought to be plain on the face of it. For that reason he desired to put in common language, in words which; would be clear to everybody, that if the: conditions were not observed, there would; be no obligation upon the local authority to maintain the school, and that as far as finances were concerned, the school would be practically closed. He could see no objection to words of that kind, if they carried out the common object they all had in view. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. He might observe that the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for North Birmingham as an Amendment to that which he now moved was, in fact, not an Amendment to the Amendment, but raised a different question which could be better treated at a subsequent stage.

said the Amendment moved by his hon. friend would have to be taken in conjunction with the subsequent Amendments the hon. Member proposed to move. He proposed to leave out the word "subject" and to insert words to make it quite clear that the compliance with the conditions was necessary in order to impose the obligation to support the school upon the local authority. He agreed that the Clause ought to have that effect, and under those circumstances the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment.

supported the Amendment proposed, in-asmuch as he had an Amendment a little lower down on the Paper which proposed to effect the same object in a different way. The point it was desired to maintain was that the education authority should have a certain amount of control over the managers. Inasmuch as they would have to supply the money, they should have a certain amount of power over the managers. He congratulated the Government on having accepted the Amendment.

said that the discussion that had arisen would show the extraordinary way in which the Bill was drafted. The whole of these words were unnecessary, because it would be seen that the earlier part of the Clause said that the local authority should maintain and keep efficient all elementary schools, and elementary schools were defined by the Act of 1870 to be schools conducted under the conditions necessary to obtain a Parliamentary grant. If a school did not work under those conditions, it would not get its grant, and therefore would cease to be an elementary school. He had an Amendment lower down to leave out all the words from "subject" to the end of the Clause, and he would briefly explain why not only the word "subject" but all the rest of the words should be left out. Clause 8, as it stood, was complete in itself, and any words limiting the power of the management ought to be incorporated in a new Clause, showing precisely what the powers of the managers should be. The Prime Minister had struck out Clause 7 as it originally appeared in the Bill, and therefore the Committee did not know what the initial duties of the managers were to be; there was no definition of the word "managers," and he submitted that they ought to commence the Clause with a definition of "managers," and that they should put in a sub-Clause which should extend or limit their powers as the case might be. Let hon. Members consider how absurd the Clause would be if this Amendment were accepted. Could any greater nonsense be conceived? If the Clause were allowed to stand as amended it would read—

"The local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all elementary schools … so long as … the consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers."

They had had one badly drafted Act in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and ever since it was passed the Judges had been trying to construe an Act which no one could understand. The drafting of the present Bill was even I worse than that of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The remainder of the Clause ought to be omitted, a definition of "managers" inserted, and that definition limited in the case of non-provided schools as proposed under the existing Clause.

said the condition was obviously inapplicable to the present series of provisions, and its inapplicability would be emphasised by the insertion of the words "so long as." The intention was to create a statutory obligation, which would arise only in the event of certain conditions being complied with by the managers. The sub-sections ought to define the conditions, compliance with which was essential to the claim of the managers upon the local authority. But so far from defining those conditions, the subsections were general provisions in character, and some were declarations of right. As amended, the Clause would be utterly unintelligible; it was jargon. By sub-section (b) the obligation upon the local authority would exist only so long as the authority had the power to inspect the school, and so on. He suggested that while the Clause was in the crucible it should be so amended that it would emerge in an intelligible form.

reminded the Committee that Clause 7. as it originally stood, ran—

"… and in the case of schools not so provided, by the persons who are the managers for the purpose of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, and this Act."

That seemed to recognise certain powers given to managers, such as they had under the Act of 1870. But that provision had been struck out (if the old Clause 7, and it did not reappear in the new Clause 8. He therefore asked the Attorney-General to state where in the Bill, as now drawn, there was a positive power given to the managers to appoint the teachers? As far as he could see, there was nothing but an inferential statement assuming such a power to exist. The managers no longer had the powers given them under the Act of 1870; there was no power given either to foundation managers or to elected managers other than that given in Clause 8. Some of the sub-sections in that Clause applied only to the foundation managers, others only to the elected managers. The whole plan of the Bill divided the managers into two classes, certain duties being given to one class, and other duties to the other class, but there was no section declaring the powers and duties of the managers as a whole. What were the powers, rights, and duties of the foundation managers which did not belong to the elected managers, and what were those of the elected managers which did not belong to the foundation managers?

I do not see where there is any distinction drawn between the functions of the different classes of managers.

Is it anybody except the foundation managers who are to find the money for the repair of the schools? I ask where is the definition of the powers of the managers within this Bill, beyond what we find in Clause 8?

said the question of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be based upon a complete misconception of the effect of the section. There was no such distinction as the right hon. Gentleman supposed between the functions and duties of the foundation managers and those of the elected managers. The managers were one body, and every condition in the section, so far as the managers had to do anything, would have to be complied with by the managers as a whole. The effect of the section was perfectly clear, and until he heard his concluding remarks he did not appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman's question. What he wanted defined were the respective functions of two bodies of managers. All he could say in reply to that was that there were not two bodies. The whole of the managers, foundation and elected, would act jointly, by a majority.

By a majority on matters concerning secular education?

On all subjects. The Committee, after a prolonged debate, had determined the composition of the Board of Managers. That having been settled, the managers would act as one body with regard to all subjects relating to management.

With regard to all subjects, including secular education and religious education?

With regard to I all subjects, including secular education and religious education—of course, as regards secular education, under the control of the local authority. Turning to the complaints as to the drafting, the hon. and learned Member contended that all the sub-sections were perfectly consistent as they stood. As to (a), if the managers refused to carry out the directions of the local authority, they would fail to satisfy that condition, and would cease to be entitled to maintenance. The same with (b), if the managers refused to allow the local authority to inspect the school, or withdrew their accounts from audit, they would cease to be entitled to maintenance.

Where are the words "if they refuse?" It is a mere declaration of right to inspect and audit.

thought there ought really to be a limit to subtlety as applied to construction. The hon. and learned Member would never venture to urge in the courts of which he was so distinguished an ornament that the power of the local authority to inspect did not impose upon the managers the obligation to submit to that inspection. As to sub-Section (c), if the managers appointed the teachers without the consent of the local authority, they would not have fulfilled the condition.

asked whether the words should not be "so long as the consent of the local education authority should have been obtained?"

said it was not in the least necessary. It really required great legal ability to perceive such difficulties, and he complimented his two hon. and learned friends on the skill they had shown in confusing that which was so perfectly plain.

said the hon. and learned Member had failed to answer the principal question of his right hon. friend, viz., as to where this fresh grant of powers was made. As to the use of subtlety, they were indebted to the Attorney-General for an admirable display of that quality in twisting sub-Sections (b) and (c) into the form of conditions. Instead of debating this question at length would it not be simpler for the Government to admit words suitable to positive gifts of power? He suggested that if the Clause read "so long as the following conditions are complied with, and the following provisions observed "it would make no difference to the Bill from the Attorney General's point of view, and the objections as to the drafting would be met.

pressed for a statement as to where the words were to be found by which the managers were given the positive right to appoint the teachers.

It is clearly implied. If we say that the consent of the local authority should be required to the appointment of the teachers, who else by any possibility can appoint except the managers?

The Education Department.

, on a point of order, submitted that the important question of the relations of the managers to the local authority, involved in the Amendment, could more properly be discussed on a proposal of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for the Morley Division. He therefore asked whether that Amendment would be in order, because, if not, the question would have to be discussed now.

thought the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and the reply thereto of the Attorney General, had opened up a very wide field of discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that the managers were to be one body. He would have thought that to discuss that point on the present Amendment was out of order, but in any case the question would arise on the first words of sub-Clause (a).

pointed out that the relations of the managers to the local authority could very properly be discussed on sub-clause (a) which dealt with, that very matter.

That condition refers only to the non-provided schools.

All that follows after "subject" refers to the case of schools not provided by the local authority. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Morley Division, the provisions referred to are already included in the Bill.

said they might be included, so far as the provided schools were concerned, but not in regard to the schools not provided. It was really a very important point.

, speaking as a layman, thought that sub-Section 3 of Clause 18 would include the word "managers."

submitted that the effect of the Amendment would be to undo the decision of the Committee that the local authority were to have the control of all secular education in public elementary schools, whether provided by them or not. By Clause 13 (2), only the Parliamentary grant of a school maintained by the local authority was to go to that authority, and by the Amendment it would be possible for the managers of a school to refuse to fulfil the conditions of Clause 8, withdraw themselves from the purview of the local education authority, and still receive the Parliamentary grant in respect of their school. If that was the intention it was one to be condemned.

said that a ruling was given on exactly the same point yesterday.

respectfully begged a ruling on the point now. The Amendment dealt with a matter which was dis-

I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. It is a very simple matter to substitute the words "so long as" for the word "subject."

thought the Government should accept the Amendment.

said it was desirable it should be perfectly clear that the rights set forth in the sub-Sections were conferred only subject to the performance of certain duties, and for that reason he thought the words should be introduced.

said it appeared on the face of it that the control of expenditure was only to be retained so long as certain conditions were complied with. He would suggest that the Attorney General should consider whether, on report, he could not remove the words "control of expenditure" and make them a condition by themselves.

said he did not think the change proposed by the hon. Member would be an improvement. It would be rather a pity to adopt the suggestion and make control of expenditure a separate Clause.

I am sorry my hon. friend has thought it necessary to import into this debate the controversial matter with which he has dealt in his speech, but he has appealed for some words of sympathy. If, by sympathy, my hon. friend desires me to express the wish of the Government that the dignity of the local authorities to whom is to be entrusted the whole secular education of the country should be maintained and augmented, he has my heartiest sympathy. My firm belief is that in supposing that this Bill will do anything to diminish the consideration in which those authorities are now justly held my hon. friend is profoundly mistaken. My belief is that this Bill will increase the dignity of the local authorities and induce many of the most public-minded of our citizens to devote themselves to municipal work which at present, for some reason or other, they do not do. Over and over again I have expressed my anxiety that so far as education is concerned the authority of these great bodies should be very great indeed. As regards the Board, no one has ever suggested that, so long as the State makes the great contribution it does towards education, the State, or some Department of the State, should be excluded from some share in the work of seeing that the money is properly expended. Apart from that controversy, I have always desired that the local authorities should have the greatest control. If my hon. friend inquires, I think so far as the financial aspects of the Bill are concerned he will find that much has been done in the way he desires by the Amendment we accepted two nights ago. But my hon. friend explicitly stated that it would be in the power of the voluntary managers to flout the local authority, under Clause 8, as regards the details of management of secular education. I do not think the fears of my hon. friend are well founded, but, lest there should be the smallest mistake about it, if he will look at the White Paper at page 36, he will see an Amendment which stands in my name, in which the Government proposes that—

"Where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority under this section as to the secular instruction to be given in the school, that authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question, as if they were the managers."

It would be, of course, quite improper to discuss that Amendment now, but, at all events, my hon. friend, after reading that, will, I know, acquit the Government of any desire to constitute the voluntary managers, so far as secular education is concerned, an independent body, who could hold their own in face of a hostile education authority. It must be perfectly clear to my hon. friend that, if this Clause passes in the shape in which the Government desires it to pass, there can be no question as to who it is who has supreme and absolute control in secular education over any and every elementary school in the country. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend is content and happy in the matter of secular education, but he seems to think the control should go further, and that the voluntary schools should be placed under the control of the local authority—not only so far as secular education is concerned, but also religious instruction. He desires that the religious instruction also should be placed under the control of the education authority. That is not consistent with the policy of the Bill, and it is not a policy which the Government could possibly approve of. The Government frankly and avowedly say that the denominational character of the voluntary schools must be protected. We could not accept any Amendment which would destroy that protection. My hon. friend seems to think that the appeal to the Education Department is without precedent, and that it is an insult to the local authorities. I deny that it is an insult to the local bodies. If it is an insult, then almost all the great Bills giving powers to local authorities convey the same kind of insult, and I really do not see that there is anything to complain of when the Government decides that there should be this appeal. The Education Department is bound to carry out the provisions of the statute, and I really cannot, for the life of me, understand why my hon. friend is so anxious that, in all these matters, the education authority should be the judges in their own cause. If my hon. friend lays down the abstract proposition that the people, meaning the ratepayers, are to have absolutely uncontrolled authority over not only the secular but the religious education in their district, then I am afraid my hon. friend has no alternative but to move an Amendment which would remove the restrictions of the Cowper-Temple Clause.

said that if the education authority was not to be the judge in its own cause, what became of its independence? In other clauses of the Bill they were not even allowed to appoint their own Committee, and, indeed, through the whole Bill they were made subordinate and subject in all respects to the judgment of the Education Department.

Nothing of the kind.

It was no use denying that sub-Section 2 of this very Clause gave the Department power to determine any question arising under the Section between the authority and the managers. The whole matter was to be referred to the Education Department. Why should they trust the Education Department? They were the authors of this Bill, and it was to them, and the spirit in which the Bill was drawn with reference to denomi- national schools, that the local authority were to address themselves. The Department was to determine whether the majority of the managers was right, or whether the representatives of the education authority were right. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to an Amendment he had placed upon the White Paper. That could not, of course, be discussed now, but he (Sir William) would just ask whether that was dependent on Clause 8, sub-Section 2, which declared that differences of opinion on school matters should be referred to the Board of Education.

said he did not want to anticipate the importance of the debate which the right hon. Gentleman would initiate on sub-Section 2 of the Clause. But the object of that sub-Section was that the Education Department in London should decide any dispute as to demarcation between the powers which were reserved in respect of denominational education by the managers and the powers which were given by the Bill as to secular education under the education authority. The Education Department would have no power to reconsider the decision of the education authorities in the matter of secular education. It had the power to say that it was not secular education at all, but it had not power to override the education authority as regarded decisions on matters within the competence of that authority. All that the Bill laid down was the common-sense proposition that if there was a divided jurisdiction there must be some one other than the two powers who should decide the point in dispute.

Then there is a divided jurisdiction?

Of course there is. Have we ever denied that, as regards religious education, the local authority are not supreme? We have never concealed it. To that extent there is a divided jurisdiction, because there are two kinds of education—religious and secular.

But sub-Section 2 governs the whole. That has no relation whatever to religious education alone. It refers every question to the Education Department.

Let us wait until we get to sub-Section 2

said he had no hesitation in saying that he had no confidence whatever in the Education Department to determine these questions. It governed the question of secular education. Any dispute which arose upon the divided jurisdiction was determined by the Education Department as to what was secular education, and if this was so, what became of the authority of the county or borough council? Let the Committee picture to itself what would happen among these managers. There was the standing majority, and then the education authority, which gave certain directions through its representatives. The majority differed from the representatives, and then the dispute as to whether the majority or the representatives of the education authority were right or not was to be determined by the Education Department. The Department was therefore supreme, and the Committee had to consider whether or not, from what they had seen and learnt of the Education Department, it was likely to be favourable to one side or the other. Let the Committee look back on their past experience. Had the Education Department been in favour of School Boards or of the denominational schools? Hon. Members knew perfectly well what had been the animus hitherto, and there was nothing in the Bill which should; lead the Committee to have any confidence in the Education Department as the over-ruling authority over the county or borough councils. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Birmingham that it was a humiliating position to place the authorities of Manchester, Leeds, or even Birmingham, under the control of the Education Department in all matters which concerned Clause 8.

They are under the control of the Local Government Board for many purposes.

But is that what we mean by decentralisation? There was never such a centralising Bill as this.

That is not the case.

said that the same thing was seen in Clause 12. The authorities could not appoint their own committees or make their own schemes; they were subject to the consent of the Education Department. It was a humiliation to treat these great municipal bodies in such a way. In his opinion, there was no reason whatever, from anything they had seen in the administration of the Education Department, which should lead the Committee to give them this authority; and it was necessary to declare that the municipal authorities and their opinions should be those which should govern the education of the country when the Government constituted them as the education authority.

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth had constantly expressed distrust of the Board of Education. He asked the right hon. Gentleman upon whom this attack was made. Was it an attack upon a branch of the Civil Service of this country? If it was not that, was it an attack upon the Parliamentary chiefs of that Department? If it was not that, it was an attack upon the Cabinet as a whole. If it was an attack on the Cabinet as a whole, was it not an attack on the House itself? What was the policy of the Board of Education, except that which the House had made it? Complaints had been made, and the House had given its judgment against those complaints. There was no escape from that dilemma. The Education Department was what the House made it, and it was the fault of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they had not more effectively pressed objections in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had found a stumbling block to trusting the people, who had made the House what it was. He was glad that the Government could not assent to this Amendment. If it were passed, it would practically wipe out all the conditions upon which the local authority was to exercise its jurisdiction. It would make it impossible for town councils to exorcise their power.

said that he did not understand the hon. Member for North Birmingham to raise the question of religious or denominational education at all, or any interference with the powers, whether right or wrong, proposed, to be given to the Board of Managers in that respect. The Committee were dealing with a sub-section which defined the conditions on which grants were to be made for the maintenance of schools. The Prime Minister said that the Clause denned the demarcation between the powers of the education authority and the managers.

No, not at all; what we are trying to do is to get rid of the fallacy which haunts the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire as to the relation of the Education Department to the general scheme of the Bill. It is not one of the control of secular education at all, but it intervenes to demarcate among other things the boundary between religious and secular education. It does not interfere in the matter of secular education.

said that this was not the question raised by the hon. Member for North Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was that it would put the control of the denominational schools in the hands of the education authorities. That was the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that was the issue upon which the Committee were going to divide. The issue involved the exercise of powers given by the Bill. There were two questions in which the local authority, according to the opinion of the hon. Member for North Birmingham, should be the final authority to decide, but with respect to which, according to the opinion of the Government, there should be delay and the trouble of appeal to an office in London. Sub-section (b) of the Clause said:—

"The local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, and the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority."

Was the local authority competent or incompetent to say "Yes" or "No" where that decision had been arrived at? Thou there was sub-Section (d), a vital pare of the Clause, relating to the keeping of the school in good repair. Did the Government mean that this question should be in every case a subject of appeal? How was the office in London: to decide? Were they to send down and inspect the schools? If the local authorities could not be trusted to decide whether the schools were not in a fit state of repair, a slur was cast upon them by allowing appeals from their decision on a simple matter of fact involving no question of principle. The principle that the local authority should have control of secular education—for which the Prime Minister had contended all along—was violated by this appeal to the Board of Education.

Let us wait till we get to sub-Section 2.

said it would be a pity if this point were cumbered with religious controversy which did not arise on this Amendment, and which the hon. Member for North Birmingham did not intend to raise. The question he desired to raise was simply whether the decision of the local authority was to be final on matters of secular education. It was inviting the local education authority to say "We decline to carry on a system in which we shall not be trusted in these small and trivial matters." This was not similar to the control exercised by the Local Government Board. He knew something about the control exercised in this country over such bodies as these. It might be perfectly true so far as Ireland was concerned that the Local Government Board interfered with the administration, but this was unknown in Great Britain in regard to municipalities. All that the Local Government Board interfered with was the borrowing of money. Mr. Gladstone once said that the Local Government Board were the trustees for posterity. This Board, however, ought not to interfere in administrative matters. If Wolverhampton said they would repair their streets in a certain way, no other authority had any right to say "You shall make such improvements, and such you shall not." There was no question of that description arising at all on this Bill. It was simply a straight-forward question of administration, and he should support the Amendment.

said he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing back the Committee from a rather wide discussion which perhaps he himself, out of courtesy to the hon. Member for North Birmingham, had perhaps done something—quite unintentionally—to encourage. He was sorry he had done so. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said that the matter before them was simply a question of administration. He should be perfectly prepared to fight it out on the single issue as to whether, in respect of sub-Section (d) the local authority should be the judge in its own case. They could deal with the other questions later on, but let them now say whether this was right or not right in respect of sub-Section (d) which the right hon. Gentleman specially referred to. The Committee knew what his views were, and he was not going to trespass on their attention any further. In the opinion of the Government, it would not be right to allow the local authority, without appeal, to impose any amount of expenditure on the voluntary schools.

said that the crux of this Bill now was sub-Section 2 of Clause 8, and it was no use providing that there should be full powers if under sub-Section 2 the local education authority had no power to enforce its own recommendations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point.

said that upon this Amendment they had to judge whether the Prime Minister stood by what he said last week at Manchester. He said that the voluntary managers wore to be put in a similar position to those under the Act of 1870, but he drew the distinction that the religious powers of the managers should be distinguished from, the Act of 1870, and also the appointment of teachers. Outside those two questions the managers appointed under the Act of 1870 would have no appeal to the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman said they would have an appeal upon all matters relating to secular instruction The First Lord of the Treasury had again and again declared that the control of the local education authority was to be absolute on all matters relating to secular instruction. He now said that there was to be a divided jurisdiction. If this Amendment were passed it would not prevent the managers appealing to the Board of Education as to whether the subject was one of secular instruction or not. If the Board of Education decided that it related to religious education, it would be removed from the power of the local education authority. The right hon. Gentleman was now refusing the local education authority absolute control over secular instruction. He had given the managers the power of appeal on matters relating to secular instruction from the local authority to the Board of Education.

Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, I would beg hon. Members to confine themselves to the issue whether it is or is not right that there should be an appeal over these various subjects, and especially with regard to sub-Section(d).

said these sub-heads related one and all to secular instruction, and if there were any questions outside them the managers could have an appeal as to whether the controversial subject was a matter of secular or religious instruction. By objecting to this Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury was departing from the attitude he took up at Manchester, and was giving a right of appeal on matters of secular instruction. The right hon. Gentleman said it was only reasonable that the State should have control over the local education authority in dealing with the managers, because the State found the money. The Board of Education would always have control over the local education authority, inasmuch as that authority could only get the grant through the Board of Education.

That is precisely what I said.

thought the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury that they should devote themselves to sub-Section (d), had rather landed them into a contradiction. He would say a word or two upon a different question of policy, which was how far it was desirable that the central authority should have any control over the local authority. The control of the central over the local authority should exist only for the purpose of keeping the local authority up to the full mark of its duties. But the control here proposed was in the direction, not of encouragement, but of restraint. Therefore, on the general ground of policy, it was just bringing in the central authority in the wrong direction. He understood the First Lord of the Treasury answer's was that the Board of Education would only be brought in to decide where the matter in dispute related to religious or secular education, and if the latter, the control of the Board of Education would drop. He understood the First Lord of the Treasury to contend that as far as secular education was concerned no local education authority, however enthusiastic or desirous to proceed, could be in any way curtailed or restrained by the Board of Education under this Section with regard to secular education. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to concentrate attention on sub-Section (d). An appeal was given, in the case of sub-Section (d), lest the local authority should, make too extravagant demands. But supposing the local education authority said that the school buildings and the class rooms were wanted for secular instruction, then, on the contention of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Board of Education would have to stand aside. He would have the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham accepted as a general proposition, and then, if it was really thought that there was a danger that the local education authority might require expenditure for religious purposes on the buildings, they could introduce the necessary limiting words. His contention was that as a general matter of policy the local education authority would not accept control upon these conditions. These limiting words were required and should be introduced, and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Birmingham.

instanced a case in which the local education authority called upon the managers of a voluntary school to put its buildings into a proper state of repair. He understood that in such a case they would have a right of appeal to the Board of Education if they thought the demands were unreasonable, as the First Lord of the Treasury suggested that the local authorities might be extravagant in their demands. He wished to point out that if extravagant demands were made the local authority would have to find out of their own local funds an alternative building, and that was a check upon extravagance which would be of the most potent character. What was the outlook? The head of the Board of Education was the Marquess of Londonderry. He was now dealing with a point on which a great many appeals would be raised—he referred to the character of the fabric of the schools. Suppose the schools managers said "These demands are too severe; we will appeal to Whitehall." What was the position of the head at Whitehall on this matter? Within the last few days he had delivered himself on this point, and had told the chief inspectors of schools that there was really no need to carry out these building and sanitary laws with anything like precision or rigidity. What were they to contemplate in regard to these matters with a reactionary head at Whitehall? He could only foresee that the same bad old system would continue of allowing insanitary and unsuitable buildings to be used as elementary schools. He thought the Government would do well to leave the local authority to themselves on this matter. He did not think they needed to fear any extravagance, because that would mean that the local authorities would have to build new schools themselves, and he did not think those local authorities would be found tumbling over each other in their desire to erect new school premises. Therefore, having regard to what they might expect from Whitehall, he urgently asked the Committee to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for North Birmingham.

contended that there was no such interference with corporations or county councils by the Local Government Board as would arise under this Clause from the Board of Education if it were carried in its present form. Although there were ample precedents for this measure of interference as regarded the treatment which boards of guardians had received, there was, however, no precedent as regarded municipalities. The right hon. Gentleman should consider how far powers of interference had been exercised, and what was the probability of their being exercised. Every local education authority having these powers given to it would have to raise the question of the suitability of the school accommodation in a very large number of voluntary schools, and every hon. Member of the Committee knew that in every one of those cases there would be an appeal to Whitehall. Surely every member of this Committee must in his heart be perfectly aware that difficulties would arise, and by this Clause. Unless these words were put in, they would be handing over the government of the school business in the most essential features from the local education authority to the Board of Education. Therefore, the promise to give the local authority full control disappeared if they carried this Clause without the insertion of these words, for in every important matter that concerned the local authority the control would be transferred to the Education Department at Whitehall. That Department already had the deficiencies of these very schools before it, and it would be called upon to declare that the local authority must take a different view next year to the view which the Department took last year. The whole action of the local authorities would in this way be retarded and checked until the best men would refuse to serve, just as many men refused today to serve on boards of guardians on account of the control over them exercised by the central Government department. He hoped the Committee would insert these words.

I said the Prime Minister had invited them to confine their attention to sub-Section (d). An issue arose clearly in regard to that sub-Section, and the question was whether the buildings were I in a good state of repair. The buildings might not be in a good state of repair in the opinion of the local education authority, but they might be in a good state of repair in the opinion of the managers. That question should be determined by some authority. The question as to whether they should leave the local education authority to determine that issue, or whether the manager should have the right to refer the matter to the Board of Education, was an important one. The issue was very much complicated when they took into consideration, not sub-Section (d), but sub-Section (a), because there were a number of questions which might arise under that sub-Section, and they must make up their minds whether ail these questions, or any of them, were to be subject to the opinion of the Education Department. A dispute might arise, and the contention of the managers might be that they had complied with sub-Section (a). There might also be a question whether the managers had carried out the directions given by the education authority. In the next place there might be a question whether those directions came within the sphere of the power of the education authority. Under sub-Section (a) there might also be a question of whether the directions of the local education authority were reasonable or unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Was that question to be the subject of an appeal or not?

was understood to say that there was not to be an appeal.

Then, assuming a direction which is in the sphere of the education authority, it creates an imperative obligation on the managers to carry it out?

Yes.

said he hoped, then, that the Prime Minister would reconsider the phraseology of sub-Section 2, and limit the reference by the words, "If a question arises under this section, whether the conditions have been complied with or not." That would exclude the difficulty; but if these words remained in the present wide phraseology, "If any question arises under this Section," it would leave the managers of a school open to complain to the, Education Department that they were being kept under the heel of the local education authority, and that they were being subject to the most oppressive and unreasonable directions, and to ask for some relief from that control, when it was not the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury that that should be a question which should be subject to appeal.

said this right of appeal was created for the first time, and was created, not for the purpose of protecting the power of managers over religious instruction, but of fettering the powers of the education authority over secular instruction, It was clear that in everything relating to secular instruction there would be a right of appeal to the Board of Education, and that the arguments the Prime Minister had used in the country were not really founded on the provisions in the Bill. It had been said that the School Boards were incompetent for the work they had to do. They gave no right of appeal against the incompetent bodies at present, but they gave the right of appeal when setting up what were to be the best and most competent bodies to deal with these matters. The important thing was to consider what were the subject matters which might give the right of appeal under the Section. He was going to confine himself to the points in relation to secular instruction. It was perfectly clear in his opinion that in everything relating to secular instruction there was an appeal to the Board of Education in London. If so, and it must be so under sub-Section (a), then it was perfectly clear that the contention of the Prime Minister in the country was wholly unfounded, and that the argument he laid before the electorate in order to get them to favour the Bill was an argument not founded on the provisions of the Bill itself. Sub-Section (a) was in these terms—

"The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school."

That confined the matter to secular subjects, and he thought it must be admitted that, whatever the intentions of the Government might be, every question that arose as to the directions which might be given by the local education, authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school was a question subject to appeal. He wanted to discuss what these subjects might be. Sub-Section (b) set forth—

"The local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, and the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority."

That must be the subject of appeal. He did not say that there would be a successful appeal on the matter. There might be great irritation between the local authority on the one hand and the managers on the other, which would have a very detrimental effect on the education of the children. Sub-Section (c) said—

"The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds."

That was a case which required great consideration. Supposing the local education authority refused their consent, there was the right of appeal in every case of that description, and the managars could come to the education authority in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division had posed as a high constitutional authority. He said "Whom are you attacking?" "When you attack the right of appeal," he said, "you are attacking the head of the Education Department." High treason ‡ That was a matter which he desired to hoar greatly discussed on the Education Estimates. Personally, if in the House then, he would have something to say on the utter incompetency of the Marquess of Londonderry to be head of the Department. Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that the education authorities in the counties—the combined wisdom of the great County Councils and the great municipal bodies—were rather better than the singular, solitary, and rather doubtful wisdom of the Marquess of Londonderry? Would; the right hon. Gentleman go down to Sheffield and say that Lord Londonderry was better able to decide on the matters set forth in the three sub-Sections he had