the grant from the department shall exceed the amount provided on the spot; nor is it, in our judgment, a sufficient plea for overriding this principle that the people on the spot are unwilling to contribute enough." There is another authority, even higher in rank, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, who, on November 21 last, at a deputation to Lord Salisbury, said: “We are willing to have a certain proportion of subscriptions insisted on as a condition of the grant.”

Thirdly, it ought to be made essential, as a condition of these schools receiving further money from the State, that you should introduce into their management some public representative element. There are in this country at the present moment 8,000 parishes in which the only school is a Church of England school. In those parishes the Nonconformists are compelled by law to send their children to school, and there is no other place to send them than the church school. And yet the absolute control, subject to the conscience clause, of the teaching and management of those schools, and of the all-important question, the appointment of the teachers, the determination of what duties those teachers are to perform and subject to what tenure they shall hold their offices-the absolute control is in the hands of irresponsible managers. I do not propose that we should destroy the denominational schools, and, if we are not to destroy them, I agree that they must continue to be denominational in character. But I am perfectly satisfied that if you can introduce into the management of these schools an element—and I use the word advisedly-of representative management; if, for instance, the provision of this bill which allows a reasonable number of parents to demand separate religious instruction could be applied to this case, so that a reasonable number of parents might demand representation on the board of managers, then a vast number of the abuses which at present prevail and the grievances under which the rural ratepayers suffer would, from the mere fact of the infusion of this popular element, almost immediately dis

appear.

As regards the religious instruction clause Mr. Asquith said:

The principle which has governed us hitherto in this matter has been this. We have two sets of schools. First, the board schools, entirely supported out of public resources, imperial and local. In those schools the teaching of any religious formulary or catechism is absolutely prohibited. We have another class of schoolsdenomination schools-which are largely supported out of the public funds. Yet, as in the view of the framers of the act of 1870, they were to continue to make substantial contributions of their own, they have given to them the power, while subject to a conscience clause, to teach any religious formulary they please. That is the compromise which has worked for twenty-five years. What occasion is there to disturb it? This new clause, which professes to be framed in the interests of Nonconformist parents in our villages, will, so far as those villages are concerned, be an absolute dead letter. I have never heard any demand put forward on the part of those who are entitled to speak for those bodies for any such privilege as the bill proposes to give them. And when we know that in a large number of these villages the conscience clause itself is a dead letter, for reasons very intelligible, but on which I need not dwell, will it be supposed that the parents of those children, who do not now claim for their children even the exemption allowed by the conscience clause, are going to incur-and there is no disguising the fact that they would incura considerable amount of odium and disfavor from those who control to a large extent the fortunes of their daily lives, by claiming for their children their distinctive religious teaching in church schools?

If this clause is to be taken advantage of at all it will be taken advantage of to get rid of the Cowper-Temple clause in towns. As to that I will only say one word. The religious teaching which is being given in our board schools is teaching which to a large extent has been molded and approved by churchmen. The highest possible testimony has been borne to its value by not a few bishops of the church.

I read a remarkable passage in the speech of one of the most respected bishops, the bishop of Durham, at Darlington, a day or two ago. He said he did not believe that the power which was given by this clause would be largely exercised. If the religious instruction given in the board schools was not all that was required, what was wanting, he said, would be supplied elsewhere. He believed that the greater completeness would be dearly purchased by the interference with the regular course of the school instruction.

What evidence is there, I ask, that the parents of the children for whom this religious instruction is provided are dissatisfied? This agitation is a clerical agitation. It is carried on for the most part by the most extreme members of the clergy and by a body of laymen who are more clerically minded than the clergy themselves. I do not believe myself that the parents will be found to avail themselves of this clause, but I can conceive that, under the stimulus of a more or less fanatical propaganda, it may be possible to get together in some of our towns a sufficient number of parents to make the demand. I ask the House to consider, if the demand were granted, what its effect would be? What would be its effect upon our local elections? It will introduce into them, with a vastly increased amount of bitterness than we have before experienced, the element of sectarian strife. What will be its effect upon religious life itself? It will destroy, or at any rate impair, its charities and amenities. What will be its effect upon the children themselves? At present in these board schools they are taught a form of religious teaching which has this peculiarity, no doubt, that it consists mainly, if not entirely, of those facts and principles upon which all the churches agree. If this clause were carried into effect and worked upon a large scale, you would have those children herded-if I may use the word-into separate theological pens, branded and labeled with the names of their particular sects, and taught under conditions which must compel them, if they have fairly receptive minds, to attach more importance, not to those truths which unite, but to those things that divide. This is, I suppose, the legislative embodiment of the inalienable right of the parent to have his child taught in any religion at the public expense. But where does this right come from? What is its origin? Where are its sanctions? In what line of any act of Parliament is any trace of it to be found? It is a metaphysical figment of the newest and crudest character.

I am convinced that, as regards this clause, the good sense of the country and the parents of the children will repudiate it. But, if it is adopted, it will be found to have a most deleterious and damaging effect upon the whole of our educational work and of our civic life. I have endeavored to demonstrate step by step every branch of the general condemnatory proposition with which I started, and of which the amendment I am about to move is the only adequate parliamentary expression. We are well aware of the fate which awaits that amendment in the division lobby. It will be rejected, I have no doubt, by an overwhelming majority. But this is only the preliminary stage in what is destined to be a stubborn and protracted campaign. You can succeed, if you are ill advised enough to try the experiment, by the use of your overbearing parliamentary majority, in placing this measure, with its absurdities and injustices, upon the statute book. But be assured that if you do so you are not settling, but you are opening, the controversy. Holding as we do, with as great a strength of conviction as it is possible for men to possess, that this bill if carried into law would create invidious inequalities; would embitter sectarian strife; would introduce friction and confusion over the whole area of our local government; and would permanently degrade the level of our system of national education, we are bound to give to it every opposition in our power, and, as the first step in the performance of that duty, I now beg to move that this bill be read a second time this day six months. (Schoolmaster, April 9, 1896, pp. 873-875.)

In reply to a letter from Mr. W. Ansell, member of the Birmingham. school board, who wrote to Mr. Chamberlain pointing out what he

regarded as blemishes in the Government education bill, Mr. Chamberlain replied as follows:

40 PRINCES GARDENS, S. W., April 19, 1896.

DEAR SIR: I am extremely obliged to you for your letter of the 16th instant, with the information as to your views on the education bill of the Government. I am desirous of learning what were the special objections which your experience of educational matters led you to entertain to the Government proposals, and I now proceed to offer some explanations which I hope may serve to, at all events, reduce the number of points at issue.

In the first place I must frankly express my entire and absolute disagreement with your general accusation that the whole tendency of the bill is to remove the direct control of education from the people and place it in the hands of irresponsible bodies. On the contrary, I believe that the main result of this measure will be to give much greater control to the people and to their direct representatives over primary education, and especially to extend the local influence and interest in the subject. This result will be secured by the decentralization, of which I am glad to see you approve as a principle, and I anticipate that when the bill becomes law there will be much greater freedom than at present, and the tendency to stereotype all education according to an official standard will be checked in favor of local initiative and local experience.

Coming now to the special objections taken by you, I find myself unable to agree with your first point in regard to the constitution of the new educational authority. This authority will be a statutory committee elected by the town or county councils, which are at present the most representative and popular local bodies in the boroughs and counties. A majority of the new committee will be members of the council directly elected by the people; the minority will be selected, as in the case of the free libraries committee, for special reasons, and because they are exceptionally qualified to deal with educational matters. They will be subject to the general instructions of the council, and will, no doubt, report to it like other committees, so that their proceedings will be public and subject to popular criticism and control. This provision of the bill is in accordance with the principles advocated by the Birmingham league in 1870. We then contended strenuously that the town councils should be the controlling authority in regard to primary education, and we protested against the creation of a new local authority, elected under the exceptional provision of the cumulative vote, and therefore not likely to be in any true sense of the word representative of the ratepayers. I think our predictions have been amply verified, and that the school boards have, as a rule, under this exceptional arrangement, been composed of members who have represented sectarian differences and special views on many subjects, but who have not in the true sense of the word been representative of the general opinion of the constituency. Besides this, the interest taken in the election has always been less than that shown in parliamentary or municipal contests, and the board has generally been elected by the votes of a small proportion of the electors. As a Liberal, therefore, I hold now, as I did in 1870, that the town councils and county councils in agricultural districts are much better qualified to represent public opinion than the present school board authorities.

As regards your second and third objections, namely, the differentiation between board and voluntary schools in the special aid grant and absence of any proviso that voluntary subscriptions shall at least retain their present level, I feel that there is prima facie much to be said, and I have no doubt that these questions will receive the fullest consideration in the committee on the bill.

Your fourth objection, namely, the subordination of existing school boards to county councils, must stand or fall with your criticism as to the constitution of the new education authority. If, as I hold, the new education authority is much more representative than the existing school board, there can be no possible objection to giving it the slight control which is provided for in the bill. I do not hesitate to

say for myself that I should be glad to extend the principle further-even to the extent of the full adoption of the policy of the old Birmingham league.

In regard to your last three objections, which concern the appointment of teachers, the requirement of extraneous duties as a condition of engagement in denominational schools, and the absence of a conscience clause in denominational training colleges, I feel that they are subjects for discussion in committee. At the same time I ought to point out to you that the raison d'être of a denominational school is that the religious teaching given should be, as far as permitted by the educational act, under the control of the managers and subscribers of the school, and it would be evidently inconsistent with the continued existence of denominational schools at all that their rights in this respect should be materially diminished. For reasons which I publicly stated to my constituents five years ago in distributing prizes at the Brookfields board school, I have been forced to the conclusion that it is neither practicable nor desirable to throw upon the ratepayers the whole expense of education now given in the voluntary schools of the country, and if this be granted it would be improper to attempt to secure by a side wind what can not and ought not to be attempted by direct action. (Schoolmaster, April 25, 1896.)

The bill as already stated passed the second reading four weeks from the date of its presentation and entered upon committee stage. It soon became apparent that the chief point of attack was not to be either the limit of expenditure or the religious instruction clause, but the new local authority. In fact, the hostile forces with whom no compromise was possible were the 220 noncounty boroughs of the country. In the second week of the committee stage the debate was still waging over the first clause. At that time an amendment was moved by Sir A. K. Rollit (Conservative) providing that "municipal boroughs as well as county boroughs should be local educational authorities." Though Sir John Gorst rejected the amendment it was accepted by Mr. Balfour as regards boroughs having a population of over 20,000. This added at least 45 educational centers to the 126 proposed in the bill as originally drawn.

Mr. Balfour was immediately confronted with the case of urban districts of over 20,000 inhabitants, but the amendment in their interest was defeated. It developed at once that the Government majority had dwindled from 267 to 74, and in the midst of inextricable confusion Mr. Balfour announced first a limit of time for the further debate of the bill and subsequently its postponement to January next. This action, as already stated, was tantamount to abandoning the measure. The bearing of Mr. Rollit's amendment was clearly exposed by Sir W. VernonHarcourt in a speech on the withdrawal of the bill. After reviewing its proposals and the course of the debate Mr. Harcourt continued:

At the commencement of this measure, was it the opposition alone who were opposed to this bill? County council after county council throughout the country had condemned the bill, and had declared that they would take no part in carrying it out. Devonshire, the West Riding, and many other counties condemned the bill; but when that amendment was introduced, at the instance or by the consent of the right honorable gentleman, there was a meeting held upon Friday last by the executive of the united county councils of the whole of England. There were present there, representing the county councils association, the Duke of Bedford, the Earl

1

1 Chancellor of the exchequer in Mr. Gladstone's third and fourth ministries.

of Morley, Lord Herries, Sir John Dorrington, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Bill, Mr. Hobhouse, Colonel Williams, and many others distinguished in the Tory party, and added to these were the clerks of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Monmouthshire, Lancashire, Bedfordshire, East and West Sussex, Middlesex, and Shropshire. They met together, and, with one exception, unanimously condemned this bill. The vice-president of the council the other day prided himself upon the support which he had received from Lancashire and from Sir John Hibbert. Sir John Hibbert, who ought to have taken the chair at that meeting, was judiciously absent, and the clerk to the Lancashire county council said: "The result of Mr. Balfour's concession would be that in Lancashire alone there would be as many as 46 educational authorities. Only yesterday the technical instruction committee resolved that the change would strike a serious blow at the administration of the technical instruction acts, and that under those circumstances they considered that the county council could not with advantage undertake the additional duties proposed to be conferred upon them in regard to public elementary education." That was the repentance of the Lancashire county council, and that was their withdrawal of the support which they had previously given to the bill. And then the right honorable gentleman says it is we who, by our factious opposition, have defeated this bill. What are the real facts of the origin and disappearance of this bill I do not know whether we shall ever really learn. But things will leak out on these occasions, and I observe that at this meeting of the executive of the county councils of England a gentleman who seems to have known something about it-the honorable member for Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) is reported to have said: "The parliamentary committee of the association of county councils drew up a list of reasons why noncounty boroughs should not be constituted separate educational authorities. These reasons were duly handed to Sir John Gorst, and apparently met with his approval, for his speech on Thursday last ran exactly on the lines of those reasons. It was therefore greatly to his surprise that within half an hour of Sir John Gorst having made his speech, and without any opportunity having been given to any representative of the county councils in the House of Commons to speak against the amendment, the first lord of the treasury got up and made the concession which was so much deplored. There was no doubt that the amendment was moved on other than purely educational grounds. Sir Albert Rollit had stated publicly that the boroughs would never rest content until they had broken down the line which was fixed at a population of 50,000 by the act of 1888, not only for educational but for all administrative purposes. That was what made the concession of such vital importance to nearly all county councils."

# *

The following analysis and classification of English boroughs, with a pointed statement as to the effect of Mr. Rollit's amendment, is taken from the Schoolmaster of June 20, 1896:

"Under the bill there are 126 counties and county boroughs which would be compelled to form education authorities. In our issue of 16th of May we gave a list of the 64 county boroughs so affected. These we now reproduce:

"Barrow-in-Furness, Bath, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Blackburn, Bolton, Bootle, Bradford, Brighton, Bristol, Burnley, Bury, Canterbury, Cardiff, Chester, Coventry, Croydon, Derby, Devonport, Dudley, Exeter, Gateshead, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Gloucester, Halifax, Hanley, Hastings, Huddersfield, Ipswich, Kingston-onHull, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastleon-Tyne, Newport, Northampton, Norwich, Nottingham, Oldham, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Preston, Reading, Rochdale, St. Helens, Salford, Sheffield, Southampton, South Shields, Stockport, Sunderland, Swansea, Walsall, West Bromwich, West Ham, Wigan, Wolverhampton, Worcester, York.

"We have compiled, from the Government return of school boards and school attendance committees, lists showing the municipal boroughs which will be affected by the acceptance of Sir A. K. Rollit's amendment. We find that on the basis of the 1891 census there will be 43 such boroughs which will have to provide their own