and girls in that particular school will be treated on terms of perfect equality, without distinction of faith or creed. Surely it is worth accomplishing, but it can only be done by united effort, for there are great obstacles yet to overcome, obstacles we dare not confront if there are divisions among ourselves.a

As a result of the deliberations in committee, clause 4 was modified by a series of Government amendments intended to safeguard its application. These amendments provide with respect to the extended facilities: (1) That the wishes of parents shall be ascertained by ballot; (2) that a child to be counted among the required "four-fifths" must have been in attendance upon the school in question for at least six months; and (3) that the use of school buildings in cases where the extended facilities are adopted must be allowed to the local authorities without rent.

Although the effort to make clause 4 mandatoryb upon the local authorities failed, it led to the most noteworthy departure from the general tenor of the bill. An amendment to clause 4 (eventually incorporated in clause 5) authorizes an arrangement briefly termed "contracting out." Under this provision the central authority (board of education) may agree with the managers of a denominational school that it shall "go back and live on Government grants and voluntary subscriptions only.”

In summing up the exciting contest over the clause and the conditions which it estab lishes, the School Government Chronicle says:

Political discipline in the House of Commons has proved easily equal to the strain put upon it by clauses 4 and 5 of the education bill. That is not to deny the severity of the strain, but only to assert the greater power of the discipline. * * * We have to take the measure of clauses 4 and 5 as they now stand, and to realize their effect upon the general scheme. By the addition of "contracting out" as an alternative to denominational status within the local authority's system, clause 4 [subsequently 5] must be recognized as establishing a triple in place of a dual system. And to this system clause 5 admits conditions of indefinite extension. Little time was afforded to the majority of people interested, whether in or out of Parliament, to exchange views on the contracting-out amendment before it came forward, with the rest, for discussion. But time enough, perhaps, for it was clear that the longer this alternative was studied the less it was liked by the great majority of those who, nevertheless, voted it into the bill. To a greater or less extent we shall have the voluntary school system reestablished on the footing of 1870 to 1902; that is to say, grant aided and independent of the local education authority. And within the administration of the local education authority will be two other kinds of schoolsundenominational and denominational. The fact itself of this new tripartite classification of the public elementary schools is of prime importance. The contraction or extension of its importance in the practical work of future years will depend chiefly upon the local education authorities.c

The Schoolmaster (edited by Doctor Macnamara), which from first to last has opposed the concession of "extended facilities," explains the influences that are working to restore certified, private, state-aided schools, as follows:

It is, of course, extremely easy to see how "contracting out" has been brought about. The extreme wing of nonconformity wants the denominational schools outside, so that they may be slowly extinguished as a result of the pressure of Whitehall demands. The extreme denominationalist wants them outside, because it puts them and the teachers again into the hollow of his hand. * * * Finally, there is the ratepayer. He will be the most potent influence in this nefarious scheme. He has hated the act of 1902, not so much on account of any religious disability it imposed upon him, as because of the fact that it imposed upon him—in a great many areas for the first time-burdens of rating. It will be his persistent purpose to make the conditions of clause 4 so onerous that, with this "contracting out" as an alternative, denominationalists asking for "extended facilities" will have, in a great many cases, no alternative but to stand outside; and he will do this because he knows that every school which he can compel to "contract out" by one device or another means pro tanto in lightening the burdens of rating.

a The School Guardian, June 23, 1906.

In this connection the decision of the High Court of Appeal in the case brought before it by the West Riding County council is important. According to this decision no local authority "is required to pay the whole salary of any teacher who gives religious instruction in a voluntary school.' The decision also "opens the question whether the legal power to do so does not disappear with the legal obligation." (School Government Chronicle, Aug. 11, 1906, p. 120, on the case of Rex v. West Riding County.)

c School Government Chronicle, June 30, 1906, p. 577.

However, the Government has been heartily bombarded during the week upon this proposal, and in reply on Tuesday to the attack by Doctor Macnamara on Monday, Mr. Birrell went so far as to make the following statement:

"All he could say was that the bias of the board of education-whoever was in the position of its president or permanent secretary-would always be against resorting to allowing a school to stand out in any form or shape if they could by any possibility avoid it. The board of education would always regard with intense dislike and ill-concealed hatred anything which would remove from the national system-from the national obligation of support, both in form of parliamentary grants and rates, any school in the country where children received their education."

This is all very well. But if it means anything at all it means that "contracting out" ought never to have been put into the bill. Still the matter will come up again on report stage, and we very much hope that the friends of education of all parties and creeds in the meantime will put such pressure upon their parliamentary representatives as to induce the Government to see the unwisdom of retaining in any form a proposal which is fraught with the gravest danger to all save the very richest of the denominational schools of the country."

."a

It is interesting to note in this connection that the "contracting-out" scheme accords with a suggestion made by Dr. Michael Sadler in a letter to the London Times and elaborated in an article in the Independent Review. In the latter Doctor Sadler says:

* * *

The vested interests of existing voluntary schools, safeguarded by the act of 1870 and attenuated by that of 1902, are swept away. The local authority will be master in its own house. It deserves consideration, therefore, whether such certified efficient schools should not be permitted to earn their share of the parliamentary grant. They will exist in any case, for they represent tenacious conviction. This being so, it is expedient that the State should help them to keep up with the rising standard of secular efficiency, rather than leave them in poverty and, therefore, liable to sink below the normal standard of staffing and equipment. Their admission to a share in the parliamentary grant would remove what would otherwise be felt as an injustice. It would open a way for the continuance of denominational schools, as a minority, without embarrassing the administration of the local authority. It would relieve the latter from many difficult questions relating to existing endowments. It would throw upon the supporters of the schools in question the duty of paying the whole cost over and above what we received from the parliamentary grant—a duty which would test the sincerity of their conviction. And the efficient maintenance of the two sets of schools side by side-not linked, as hitherto, in a dual system which embarrasses the action of the local authorities, but enjoying nonconflicting recognition—would ensure a fruitful variety of influence in English education.

THE STATUS OF TEACHERS.

Incidental to the general policy of the bill as set forth in the clauses above considered are the explicit provisions freeing teachers from religious tests, and safeguarding their tenure (clause 8) and the provisions respecting the school buildings held under charitable trusts (clause 9). Section 4 of the former clause brings to light a peculiar hardship to which teachers in an existing voluntary school may be subject by reason of the school ceasing to be a public elementary school under the new conditions. The mere continuance of the teacher on the pension list for a year as provided for in the section was so unsparingly condemned that provision was ultimately made for a money compensation to the injured teacher. (Part IV, Supplemental, Clause 27.)

THE NEW COMMISSION.

Clause 9 introduces a new authority, a Royal Commission whose power is absolute in the cases for which it is created, namely, in any case of appeal on the part of a local authority for action relative to the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school held under charitable trusts. Objections to this commission were somewhat modified by the fact of its limited duration and still more by the high character of the three men specifically named for its duties. (Clause 10.)

a Schoolmaster, June 30, 1906, p. 1350.

The future of denominational schools, The Independent Review, June 1906, pp. 261-2€2.

PART II.

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOLS UNDER THE BILL OF 1906.

The consideration of the education bill of 1906 up to this point has been limited to the clauses of Part I which pertain to the national basis of the school system and the future of denominational schools. Part II (originally Part III) of the bill deals mainly with the question of local administration. The chief purpose of the provisions in this respect is summed up in two words, the keynotes to their discussion, viz, "devolution" and "delegation." The words indicate the means by which the new measure aims to correct the evils of excessively large areas of administration resulting from the universal county system. By the provisions of clause 15 of the present bill the county and borough councils remain nominally the paramount education authorities for their respective areas as they were constituted by the law of 1902; but it is provided that within two years after the passage of the proposed law every council shall prepare a scheme for the purpose of delegating some of their powers and duties with respect to education to representatives of minor areas. The initiative in this respect is left to the councils, but the requirement is mandatory. All parties were agreed as to the necessity of this provision, but, as Mr. Balfour pointed out, "underlying the general agreement as to the value of delegation, there was the widest divergence of opinion as to details."

As a result of the discussion in committee, this section of the bill was greatly modified, but in its final form it preserves the points which Mr. Birrell noted as of chief importance, namely, "delegation to bodies as varied as possible" according to local conditions, the preservation of "the elective element," the exemption of small counties from obligations under clause 15, and large place for the service of women.

"Nothing personally," he said, “gave him more sorrow than the exclusion of women from the administration of the educational work of the country, for they were by common consent among the best members of the old school boards. It was a work for which they were eminently fitted, considering the number of female children in our schools, and the whole character and abilities of women lent themselves to educational zeal. Though they could not be elected upon local councils, he hoped there would be no objection if the Government proposal enabled women to play a more useful, responsible part in a great work from which they ought never to have been excluded.a

The minor authorities provided for by clause 15 will not, however, have the force of bodies elected directly by the people for the control of their schools. In the larger cities the demand for a return to the ad hoc system, as it is popularly termed, continues. Even in the report stage of the bill a clause was moved for the establishment of an "education board for London," and although it was withdrawn, Mr. Birrell himself took occasion to express his belief that sooner or later the necessity for some measure of this kind would be recognized. Lord Stanley, of Alderley, for many years identified with the London school board, in a critical examination of the present bill, says:

Personally, I regret that the legislation of 1902-3, which put on the heavily weighted municipal and county authorities the additional task of education, has not been set aside. I do not say that it was politic at this moment to reopen that controversy, but I believe that before many years have passed we shall have to return to elective bodies chosen to administer education, and that alone.

Peculiar interest attaches to Lord Stanley's discussion of the entire measure, since its fate in the House of Lords may be largely determined by his influence.

Aside from the main purpose of creating smaller areas of school administration, Part II is of interest as showing great advance in respect to national solicitude for the welfare of children. When the law of 1870 was passed the Lowe Code (regulations for elementary schools) was in force. It authorized a very limited course in the elementary branches and the allotment of the Government grant on the results of the examination of the individual

a From the Times (London), Thursday, July 12, 1906.

The new education bill. The Contemporary Review, May 1906, p. 609.

children. The bill of 1906 provides for vacation schools and play centers, after the example of our own country; the medical inspection of schools; and for scholarships available for children in elementary schools above the age of 12 years (clause 24, secs. a, b, c).

The two clauses, 15 and 24, which in the opinion of Mr. Asquith, chancellor of the exchequer, “are worth all the rest of the bill," carry this measure far beyond the limits of political or sectarian controversy into the higher realm of educational ideals. Taken in connection with clause 18, which removes the two-penny limit of rate (local tax) for "higher" (secondary and technical) education, they justify the opinion expressed by Doctor Sadler in discussing the bill. "It is true," he says, "that, in some of the issues, religious controversy and denominational rivalry are both involved; but neither of these causes is strong enough to account for what has happened. For the real explanation we have to look elsewhere, and I believe we shall find it in the stir of a new conviction among the masses of the people that in a kind of education, very different in range and quality from that which has passed muster hitherto in our public elementary schools, lies their children's best chance. The conviction is still, for the most part, inarticulate. It vaguely demands reform, without a very clear idea, in point of detail, of what it wants to get; and multitudes of those who have most to gain from great changes in educational opportunity' are still indifferent to the need. But the conviction spreads. The fire is alight. The old situation is completely changed. What sufficed five years ago will suffice no longer. For what can be accomplished by skilfully directed education, the English people has in its heart at last begun to care."a

This opinion is emphasized by the strong support given to the clauses above considered by the vote of the labor party in the House of Commons.

PART III.

THE COUNCIL FOR WALES.

The greatest surprise of the bill was Part III, clause 26 (originally Part IV, 37), which would give Wales independent control of its educational system.

In committee an amendment was moved by Mr. F. E. Smith (Liverpool) to substitute for the proposed "central education authority for Wales, to be called the Council for Wales," a "consultative education committee under the board of education, to be called the 'Welsh central committee.' In the course of his remarks the member expressed doubts as to there being any "real unanimity among all denominations in Wales" with respect to the principle of the proposal. In support of this position he referred particularly to the conference at Cardiff, at which it was presumed the clause originated.

In response, Mr. Lloyd-George, to whose leadership Wales is indebted for the success of the provision, said:

He did not complain generally of the statement made by the hon. member, but he pointed out that at the first conference, representative of all creeds, this clause was not in existence. The bill had not been produced, and therefore he could not have said that the Cardiff conference was in favor of a council for Wales. * * It would be too much to ask that there should be absolute unanimity in any country on any particular proposal; but here they had a representative conference at which were present two Anglican bishops, two Roman Catholic bishops, and the majority of the Conservative candidates for Wales. A resolution was unanimously passed in favor of a national council for Wales to aid and supply education of all kinds primary, secondary, and higher. The resolution was carried in this form on the suggestion of the bishop of St. David's. * * * The first conference was held before the bill had been prepared; but a second conference, representative of Welsh education authorities, was held in June, and expressed its approval of the establishment of a Welsh national council for education. The resolution was proposed and seconded by supporters of the Conservative party, and was carried with only four dissentients. That showed that this was not regarded as a political question in Wales. * * The hon.

*

and learned member was wrong in saying that in regard to intermediate education there was no autonomy in Wales. Autonomy was complete, and it had been an unqualified success. There was no country in Europe which made such sacrifices for secondary education as

a The future of denominational schools. The Independent Review, June 1906, p. 253.

Wales. Some Welsh counties had surpassed even Prussia.

While in England

the whisky money had been used for a long time in relief of rates, the Welsh counties had applied the whole of the money to building up their system of secondary education. The result was that, while secondary education was in England largely a matter of class, in Wales 8,000 out of the 10.000 children in the secondary schools came from the elementary schools. Colleges like that at Bangor-to which there was no parallel in the poor districts of England—had been founded by the voluntary contributions of quarrymen and agricultural laborers. ** The success of the Welsh University colleges was attributable to the fact that the religious controversy had been kept out. Any power which would allow the council to wrangle about religion would destroy its efficiency from the outset. He should welcome any help in eliminating the virus of this religious controversy from the system of Welsh education. As to criticisms of detail, the first amendment dealt with the question of control. He was not afraid of control, and if it was felt that real and effective Parliamentary control ought to be retained, he was perfectly willing to agree to amendments with that purpose.a

In accordance with this declaration, Mr. Lloyd-George proposed the creation of a “special minister for Wales.”

Mr. Balfour in an impassioned criticism of the unexpected proposition declared “that the clause conferred administrative and legislative home rule on Wales. That was their first objection; and the Government knew the second objection they felt to the clause. Those who followed the action of the Welsh opponents and critics of the bill of 1902, and not least that of the right honorable gentleman who spoke to the committee in such mellifluous accents just now, knew that they had gone, beyond the verge of legality in their attempt to destroy, or to minimize, the effect of the act of 1902, and they were justified, therefore, in looking with the extremest suspicion upon any proposal which handed over to a Welsh central body powers to do legally that which these gentlemen had endeavored to do illegally.” The new proposal, according to him, was not merely to give a central authority to Wales for primary education, but for all sorts of education, and it was to create a new ministry.

Never [he said] until the right hon. gentleman got up had it been breathed that a new paid member of the Government, a new staff, a new office, new duties were going to be set up for a portion of the United Kingdom, a new minister dealing with Wales as a whole and with no other part of the United Kingdom. That, whether right or wrong, was a constitutional change of the utmost gravity and moment. And when they had got their minister for Wales, did they think he was going to be confined to education? Did the Welsh members want him to be confined to education? Of course they did not. He was not discussing the question of home rule at all, but this was the beginning, and he did not think the right hon. gentleman would deny it, of a new system under which Wales was to bear the same relation to this House and to the other parts of the United Kingdom that Ireland or Scotland bore.

* * * Never before had such a proposition been made under such circumstances. It was thrown at their heads within five hours and a half of the moment when all discussion must cease before a House of Commons which knew nothing of the proposal beforehand. That was a deliberate insult to this House which no other government in his recollection had ever dared to inflict. b

Mr. Asquith, chancellor of the exchequer, in reply to Mr. Balfour, explained that the proposal on the part of the Government was simply "to give to Wales in this matter the same kind of separate educational administrative control as now prevailed in Scotland and in Ireland."

The discussion was prolonged to the limit of time allowed by the closure when the clause as amended was carried by a vote of 335 to 107. The proposal of a separate minister for Wales was, however, subsequently set aside.

REPORT STAGE.

In the proceedings of the report stage on the bill no new points were elucidated, but special emphasis was laid upon its treatment of the religious problem. Mr. Balfour, closing the discussion for the Opposition, claimed that the bill did not remedy the grievances of Nonconformists, and that it was unjust to parents and to the Church of England. In

a Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 161, No. 1.

b Ibid.