almost, I believe, to a man would spend money, and large sums of money, rather than not do the work, still we must remember that it is upon them that the burden will fall. And, thirdly, we must take care not to destroy in building up-not to destroy the existing system in introducing a new one. In solving this problem there must be, consistently with the attainment of our object, the least possible expenditure of public money, the utmost endeavour not to injure existing and efficient schools, and the most careful absence of all encouragement to parents to neglect their children. I trust

I have taken the House thus far with me. Our object is to complete the present voluntary system, to fill up gaps, sparing the public money where it can be done without, procuring as much as we can the assistance of the parents, and welcoming as much as we rightly can the co-operation and aid of those benevolent men who desire to assist their neighbours.

Now, I will at once proceed to the main principles that run through all our clauses for securing efficient school provision. They are two in number. Legal enactment, that there shall be efficient schools everywhere throughout the kingdom. Compulsory provision of such schools if and where needed, but not unless proved to be needed. These being the principles, I now come to the actual provisions.

The first provision that would probably suggest itself to the minds of all hon. members would be a system of organisation throughout the country. We take care that the country shall be properly mapped and divided, so that its wants may be duly ascertained. For this, we take present known divisions, and declare them to be school districts, so that upon the passing of this Bill there will be no portion of England or Wales not included in one school district or another. I think it would be convenient if I at once state what these districts would be, although the grounds upon which we have proceeded I will, with the permission of hon. members, allude to hereafter. We have taken the boundaries of boroughs as regards towns, and parishes as regards the country, and when I say parish, I mean the civil parish and not the ecclesiastical district. With regard to the metropolis, the difficulties of which, from its peculiar position, defy almost all attempts at legisfation, we shall be guided very much by the counsel and advice of the metropolitan members; but after the greatest possible inquiry, we have come to the conclusion

that the best districts we can take in the metropolis are, where they exist, the school districts already formed for workhouse schools, and where they do not exist, the boundaries of the vestries. If, then, we get all England and Wales divided into districts, our next duty is to ascertain their educational condition, and for that purpose we take powers to collect returns which will show us what in each district is the number of schools, of scholars, and of children requiring education. We also take power to send down inspectors and officers to test the quality of the schools, and find out what education is given. Then, I may at once state that if in any one of these districts we find the elementary education to be sufficient, efficient, and suitable, we leave that district alone. By sufficient, I mean if we find that there are enough schools; by efficient, I mean schools which give a reasonable amount of secular instruction; and by suitable, I mean schools to which, from the absence of religious or other restriction, parents cannot reasonably object; and I may add that for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of these districts, we count all schools that will receive our inspectors, whether private or public, whether aided or unaided by Government assistance, whether secular or denominational. If we find the district adequately supplied, we let it alone so long as it continues in that state, retaining for ourselves the power to renew the examination from time to time. It would, however, be vain for us not to suppose that we shall find a vast number of districts--I am afraid the enormous majority throughout the area of the country-where the educational provision is insufficient, and where that is so, as it is by public inquiry that that insufficiency must be ascertained, so it is by public provision that that need must be supplied.'

Now, in taking account of the elementary education before making public provision, we consider as elementary all schools that will allow our inspectors to visit them; but, when we endeavour to make public provision for the necessities of the public, we deem it our duty to take security that the public gets what it wants, and, therefore, in the schools which we provide, and which we call public elementary schools, we define the conditions upon which schools ought, in our opinion, to receive public aid, and what they should, in our opinion, be responsible for providing. We consider that these public elementary schools should in future be subject to three

regulations one of them an old regulation, and the other two new. The old regulation, which is manifestly a necessary one, is that the school should be kept up to the standard of secular efficiency which Parliament from time to time may think it necessary to exact. The next regulation is a new one, and is one which I fear I may have to encounter some upon difference of opinion, though much less than I believe would have been the case last year. Inspection is absolutely necessary. Hitherto the inspection has been denominational; we propose that it should no longer be so. At present the state of matters is this-There are denominational inspectors all through the kingdom, crossing one another continually in the most curious and inconvenient manner. But though there are denominational inspectors everywhere, and though there are concordats which prevent certain schools from being visited by any but a denominational inspector, the examination into the doctrines of the denomination applies to only one denomination. It is only in the Church of England that inspectors have any power to examine with respect to re igious doctrine. Now, we do not think that fair to other religious denominations. We think alsoand I believe that that opinion is shared by many of the most active members of the Church of England and by many of the most hard-working of the clergy- that such a condition is unfair to the Church itself. I am not going to dwell upon this; but no one can for a moment be blind to the fact that there are different schools of doctrine in the Church; and I hear earnest clergymen complain that the children they instruct are subjected to examination in religious doctrine by an inspector whose sentiments are different from their own, while an inspector visiting a Wesleyan or an Independent school has no right whatever to make inquiry into points of religious doctrine. But go further, and say I do not believe that it is fair to religion. This inspection of religious teaching in Church of England schools misleads. It does not secure the teaching of religion, but it induces religious men, and the ministers of the Church, and the Church in its organisation, to relieve themselves, to some extent, of duties they would otherwise perform. I have heard that view stated in the strongest possible manner, and in a form much more clearly than I can do, by a high authority in the Church-by the Archdeacon of Berkshire, who probably has had more ex

perience in connection with schools than most clergymen, and it has been impressed upon me over and over again by clergymen of the Church of England. But if it be unfair to other persuasions-if it be scarcely fair to the Church herself, and no advantage, or a very mixed advantage, to religion, it is most inconvenient and costly, and, I may add, most injurious to the cause of education. It is most costly, for we have men going over the same ground continually; it is most inconvenient, because it prevents the department from organising inspection as it would wish to do; and it is most mischievous, because it tends to keep the schools divided one from another by denominational differences, and because it prevents the schoolmasters themselves from agreeing together as they otherwise would do. Therefore we propose that, after a limited period, one of the conditions of public elementary schools shall be that they shall admit any inspector without any denominational provision. Although we think the time has come for that change, we would not for a moment cast any reproach on those who framed the system which we now find it necessary to change. It was found necessary by those who first took national education in hand to establish denominational inspection, and I cannot allude to that without alluding at the same time to a man to whom probably more than any other we owe national education in England-I mean Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth established those concordats with the different denominations, and he did so because he found it almost impossible to help it. I do not think he would disapprove the change we are now making; but I am sure that hereafter, in the history of national education, it will be admitted that its origin was mainly due to his exertions.

I come now to another condition upon which also up to this year there would have been much difference of opinion, but as to which I expect there will be very little at present, and that is that after a limited period we attach what is called a Conscience Clause as a condition to the receipt by any elementary school of public money. I do not think there needs much argument to prove the propriety of such a condition. It seems to me quite clear, if we approach the subject without any prejudice, that in taking money from the taxpayer to give his children secular education, we have no right to interfere with his feelings as a parent, or to oblige him to accept for his children

religious education to which he objects. Therefore, in voting public money, or making public provision for elementary schools, we hold that they ought not to be schools from which the public would be excluded. The principle of that condition is so clear, and the violation of it has been found so mischievous, that I am glad to find the opposition to the proposed change has almost disappeared. In speaking of this opposition, I am not alluding to my right hon. friend the member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), who has long taken that view, and who on this question of education, as we must all acknowledge, has been always in advance of most of us on both sides of the House; but I am alluding to those who up to this year have strongly opposed the Conscience Clause. I find that in the National Education Union, which represents the views of an enormous majority of the clergy engaged in educational work, it is one of the conditions of membership that there should be a Conscience Clause for all schools. I have many accounts of meetings at which the same views have been advocated. I have received an account of a conference convened by the Bishop of Ely, at which many clergymen and laymen from four counties embraced by bis diocese attended, and I am informed that, after a discussion which lasted for several hours, a resolution was passed almost unanimously that for every grant, whether building or other grant, there should be a Conscience Clause as a condition, and that while, on the one hand, there should be perfect liberty of religious teaching, on the other hand there should be perfect liberty of withdrawal oy every parent from such teaching. It is upon that principle that we have framed the clause, and, as it is so important, perhaps the House will allow me to read the exact words

"No scholar shall be required, as a condition of being admitted into or of attending or of enjoying all the benefits of the school, to attend or to abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or to learn any such catechism or religious formulary, or to be present at any such lesson or instruction or observance as may have been objected to on religious grounds by the parent of the scholar sending his objection in writing to the managers or principal teacher of the school or one of them."

That clause has been framed with great care. It is one of the provisions on which we may expect difference of opinion, and we put it before the House with a desire that it should be fully considered, but

Before

without any disposition to prejudge what the opinion of the House may be. leaving this question, I must say that though there has been exaggeration with respect to this matter, and though I believe the amount of practical evil is not large, yet I cannot deny that there is practical evil, for I found in my department more of it than I expected. I have found but very few cases of undue interference when compared with the enormous number of schools; but I have heard of instances which I am sure would be regretted by hon. members on the other side of the House as well as on this, in which clergymen, from mistaken zeal, have endeavoured to oblige the children coming to their schools to attend Sunday schools against the wish of their parents. I am quite sure that there has been enough of this to make absolutely necessary the provisions we propose in the Bill. But it will be a Conscience Clause different from the present clause in one respect. Clergymen of the Church of England felt the present Conscience Clause to apply particularly to them, although I am sure it was not intended to do so. proposed clause will apply to all schools, secular as well as denominational, and will give to the parent the power of withdrawing his child from instruction if, on religious grounds, he thinks that instruction to be such as the child ought not to hear. I know there are several hon. friends of mine who have long studied this matter, and have come to the conclusion that a Conscience Clause, however stringent, would be of little use. I confess that is not the view that I have formed from my personal experience. In the first place, I do not know any case in which our present Conscience Clause has been applied in which it has not been found thoroughly effective; but our new clause will be different in this important respect, that whereas the old clause was applicable only in some cases to building grant, the new one will apply to all grants, and especially to all annual grants. It is perfectly clear in its operation, and I am quite sure that no manager of a school will risk the loss of the annual grant by violating its conditions.

The

Well, then, if these three regulations are accepted an effectual Conscience Clause; undenominational inspection; and compliance with conditions securing secular efficiency-then no other regulations will be enforced, and, especially, the present restrictions against secular schools will be removed. On this point I will not dwell,

as it is a foregone conclusion; it was in the Bill of the late Government, and I believe the general, if not the unanimous, feeling is in favour of it. There is, of course, no intention to interfere with schools which have received a past building grant, and which will not accept the Conscience Clause. They will not receive the annual grant; but no interference will be attempted with them on account of the building grant which they have already received.

After this digression, defining what we mean by public elementary schools, I must ask the House to go back with me to the school districts. In very many districts we have found that further provision is necessary. We have said that we must have provision for public elementary schools. The first question then is, by whom is it to be made? Now, here for a time we shall test the voluntary zeal of the district. Not only do we not neglect voluntary help, but on the condition of respecting the rights of parents and the rights of conscience, we welcome it. To see, then, whether voluntary help will be forthcoming, we give a year. We think we ought to give enough of time to test the zeal and willingness of any volunteers who may be disposed to help; but we ought not to give longer time, because we cannot afford to wait. If that zeal, if that willingness, does not come forward to supply the schools that are required, then the children must no longer remain untaught, and the State must step in.

Now, then, we come at last to what will undoubtedly be looked upon as the most important part of the Bill-namely, the compulsory provision where it is wanted. I have said that there will be compulsory provision where it is wanted-if and where proved to be wanted, but not otherwise. We come now to the machinery for its application where it is proved to be wanted. How do we propose to apply it ? By school boards elected by the district. We have already got the district; we have found out the educational want existing in it-we see that the district must be supplied-we have waited in the hope that some persons would supply it; they have not done so. We, therefore, say that it must be supplied; but by whom? It would be possible for the Government to attempt to supply it by defraying the expenses from the taxes; and I believe that one or two hon. gentlemen think that would be the best way. No doubt it would be possible for the Government to try to do

it

this; but I believe it would be impossible for them to effect it. I believe it is not in the power of any central department to undertake such a duty throughout the kingdom. Consider also the enormous power would give the central administration. Well, then, if Government cannot do it itself by central action, we must still rely upon local agency. Voluntary local agency has failed, therefore our hope is to invoke the help of municipal organisation. Therefore, where we have proved the educational need we supply it by local administration— that is, by means of rates aided by money voted by Parliament, expended under local management, with central inspection and control. I wish to be frank with the House, and I therefore say that undoubtedly this proposal will affect a large portion of the kingdom. I believe it will affect almost all the towns, and a great part of the country.

Well, now, as to the area of the district. As regards towns, I think there can be but little doubt. Almost everyone will jump to the conclusion that in boroughs we should take the municipal boundaries; but there may be a difference of opinion as to the rural districts. The Education Bills hitherto brought forward bave taken the union; we take the parish, with the power, of course, to unite parishes together. There are several reasons why we prefer the parish to the union, though it is a very difficult matter to decide upon, and there is much to be said on both sides. In the first place, there is a vast difference between the condition of town and country with respect to education. Any Bill to be successful must be elastic, to meet that difference. Take the parish in the country, and we at once admit the possibility of that difference, and make the Bill elastic, being in this way able to treat town and country in a different manner. Again, in a country district, the principle of our Bill is better fitted to a small unit of area, because we do not intend to meddle with a district that can safely be left to itself. Another reason is, that many unions throughout the kingdom are composed of a town surrounded by outlying country parishes. Well, if we had to take the town out of the union it would be like taking the kernel out of the nut, and making our organisation almost impossible. would be necessary either to have a school board to meet these conflicting, or at least entirely different, conditions, or you would be obliged to contend with the disadvantage of taking out the central and more populous district, and of trying to join

It