66

Clifford, the minister of Westbourne Park Baptist Chapel, who during the remainder of the year was the most conspicuous and influential leader of the Nonconformist movement against the measure, moved the first of a series of resolutions. (all carried with practical unanimity and much enthusiasm) denouncing it for the reasons already mentioned, and others, such as the absence of a "mandate from the people" to Parliament for the "revolutionary" changes proposed-and vehemently appealed to his hearers to agitate for the destruction of "this accursed Bill." Other speakers at the same meeting were Mr. R. Perks, M.P., who referred to the Government as priest-ridden," Dr. Guinness Rogers and Mr. Alfred Illingworth, veterans of former education battles, the Rev. H. Price Hughes, Mr. A. Spicer, and the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, a protagonist of militant Lancashire Nonconformity, who declared that Free Churchmen would never submit to the conditions laid down in the Bill. Two days later Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman received very sympathetically a deputation from the Free Church Councils, and mentioned that he thought he could say pretty confidently that the Liberal party would be "united in a strong, fervent, and strenuous opposition" to the Bill. Among Wesleyans-who were the only non-episcopal body possessing any substantial number of Voluntary Schools-there was a considerable section of opinion favourable to the Bill as securing much-needed improvement in the efficiency of those schools, and as providing the desirable unity of local educational authority. Expression was given to this view (Times, April 18) by Dr. Waller, of the Wesleyan Training College at Westminster; but apparently it was only held by a minority of the important denomination concerned. At any rate when (April 22), at a meeting of a special Education Committee appointed in 1901 by the Wesleyan Conference, Dr. Waller moved an amendment generally approving of the Bill in place of a denunciatory resolution moved by Mr. H. Price Hughes, he was beaten by 44 votes to 22, and the resolution carried by 49 to 23.

Among educationists with no very decidedly marked denominational or political associations there appeared to be from the outset a very distinct preponderance of opinion in favour of the general policy of the Bill. The National Union of (Elementary) Teachers discussed it at length (April 1 and 2) and ultimately passed, nem. con., a resolution expressing "approval of the main principles" of the Bill, as providing for the creation of "local authorities controlling and maintaining all forms of education within wide areas.' The Union also recorded its "satisfaction with the Government's desire to place our educational system on a sound basis," while deprecating the option clause, and making various suggestions in subsequent resolutions for modifications in detail. In Nature of April 10 Dr. Oliver Lodge, Principal of the Birmingham University, criticised the

Bill on the whole favourably, but Sir Joshua Fitch thought that it would repress rather than encourage educational enterprise.

Mr. Arthur Acland, the Education Minister of the previous Liberal Government, examined the Bill in a long letter to the Times (April 15), and arrived at decidedly unfavourable conclusions. Among other things, he did not think the arrangements with regard to Voluntary Schools fair to the public or likely to tend to efficiency, and feared that many local authorities having to levy an increased education rate to meet the elementary charges would put the question of a really effective organisation and supply of secondary education into the background for many years. His views were strongly combated (Times, April 21) by Sir William Anson, Warden of All Souls and Member for Oxford University, a Liberal Unionist of wide educational knowledge, who was shortly destined for important educational office. There were, however, an appreciable number of Liberal Unionists in the country, and notably at Birmingham, who looked upon the Education Bill with great dissatisfaction, as threatening to involve them in a policy inconsistent with "the essential principles of Liberalism-representation with taxation, the soundest education of the people without waste of public money, and the liberation of teachers from ecclesiastical tests." In this sense Dr. J. G. Glover, a well-known London Liberal Unionist and Nonconformist, wrote to Mr. Chamberlain and received a reply of some length and of very decided tone (published April 24), which was of special interest in view of rumours which had prevailed in preceding months of Cabinet differences on the education question. The Colonial Secretary pointed out that, for the first time, the Bill provided "a single local authority to superintend and provide both elementary and secondary education," and he laid stress on the absolute and complete control which this authority would wield over secular education. In this connection, and in preferring, for educational purposes, the municipal authorities to authorities elected ad hoc with the cumulative vote, Mr. Chamberlain maintained that the Bill was "a great advance on previous legislation." In regard to the treatment of denominational schools, he acknowledged to a continued preference, in theory, for the plan of an entire separation between secular and religious education. But he pointed out that this plan, which had been tried in Birmingham under the second School Board of which he was chairman, had been abandoned "owing to the overwhelming pressure of the Nonconformists themselves, who refused to accept an entirely secular system." He did not believe that this plan had any better chance of success at the presentday, and therefore the practical question was what substitute could be provided for it. So far back as 1891 he had told his constituents that he "no longer thought that the extinction of the Voluntary Schools, painless or otherwise, was possible." He now maintained that the conditions attached in the Bill to

the provision of the assistance from the rates necessary to make them efficient on the secular side would have "far-reaching effects in popularising the schools," and removing grievances in the exceptional cases where they existed. As to theological tests for teachers, "the evil, so far as it was an evil, would be lessened and not increased."

Among the rank and file of Conservative politicians, in the first few weeks and even months after its introduction, there was not much evidence of warmth of feeling in favour of the Education Bill. They generally approved it, but the subject was a difficult one which had not deeply engaged their interest, and it was not until the opposition to it became both more passionate and more extensive that anything like enthusiasm was shown in its behalf by the mass of the larger section of the Unionist party.

The first business of importance when the House of Commons reassembled after the Easter recess (April 7) was the second reading of the Licensing Bill, the scope and purport of which were sketched in the Home Secretary's speech introducing it (see pp. 43-4). The measure was treated in a friendly manner both by the moderate and the advanced temperance reformers though the latter-for example Mr. Caine (Camborne, Cornwall)— regretted that the Home Secretary had not had the courage to include in it an attempt to reduce the number of liquor shops in the country. In his reply at the close of the debate Mr. Ritchie dealt with criticisms passed upon the Bill from various points of view. He denied that there was any injustice in clause 4 (throwing on the publican the burden of proving that he had not permitted drinking to excess in certain cases), for there was nothing unfair in requiring a licence-holder to exercise the utmost care to prevent drunkenness on his premises. The difficulty in dealing with the ante-1869 beerhouses was the question of compensation. If temperance reformers would only be reasonable, and sanction the principle of compensation, the liquor question, Mr. Ritchie observed, could be settled on a satisfactory basis. But, having regard to their present uncompromising opposition to that principle, it would have been folly to introduce into the Bill any proposals involving it. His intention with reference to clubs was that there should be no unnecessary interference with properly conducted clubs, and when proceedings were taken against bogus clubs the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 would be observed; so arbitrary action need not be feared. He was ready to listen in committee to the arguments of those who thought that the club clauses ought to be strengthened, but he was not in favour of making the law too drastic, as obstacles ought not to be put in the way of the development of bona fide workmen's clubs. agreed that the sale of liquor for consumption off club premises was undesirable, and he was prepared to consider amendments bearing on the point. With regard to clause 8, dealing with

He

retail off-licences, their number had doubled since 1879; they had, in fact, increased out of all proportion to the increase of the population. The effect of the clause, however, would not be so much to diminish the number of existing off-licences as to prevent their unnecessary extension. The Bill was read a second time without a division and referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.

On the following day (April 8) the consideration of the new Rules of Procedure was resumed, and evoked a good deal of independent speaking and voting on the part of Ministerialists. After Mr. Balfour had explained and agreed to defer discussion on a much modified set of proposals with regard to questions to Ministers, he moved that the sitting on Fridays should in future begin at twelve o'clock and end at six, and this was carried, after a protest by Mr. Gibson Bowles (King's Lynn), by 192 votes against 112.

Mr. Balfour then moved a new Standing Order giving Government business precedence before Easter at every sitting except the evening sitting on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the sitting on Friday, and providing that after Easter such business should also have precedence at evening sittings on Tuesdays, and after Whitsuntide at all evening sittings, and all Friday sittings, except the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday. Mr. Galloway (Manchester, S. W.) moved an amendment to enable private Members' Bills to be taken on Thursday afternoons, instead of at the Friday sittings. This was supported among Unionists by Mr. Chaplin (Sleaford, Lincs.), Mr. Stuart-Wortley (Hallam, Sheffield) and Mr. Hardy (Ashford, Kent), as well as by Sir C. Dilke (Forest of Dean, Glouc.), Mr. Bryce (Aberdeen, S.), and other Liberal Members, and only defeated by 194 votes to 145. On the motion of Mr. Caldwell (Lanark, Mid) it was agreed that private Members' Bills should have precedence of Government business at those evening sittings when such precedence was enjoyed by notices of motion. Majorities showing often considerably less than the normal Ministerial preponderance, but ranging from 52 up to even 80, sustained Mr. Balfour on April 8, 10 and 11 in resisting amendments curtailing in various ways the advantages secured to Government business under the proposed Standing Order. He assented, however, to an amendment providing that the complete supersession of the private Member (with the exception of two specified Fridays), from Whitsuntide forward, should not continue after Michaelmas-that is to say in an autumn session-unless the House should specially so determine. In the course of the discussion (April 11) Mr. Balfour pointed out that under the Government scheme private Members would have seventeen morning sittings for their measures in the present session, a larger number by three than they had had in any previous year since 1887. A normal session consisted of 120 working days, or 960 hours, of which he calculated that not more than 276

were available for the business of legislation initiated by the Government; and it was impossible to admit of any further inroads upon so small a space of time. Whether the rules affecting the conduct of private Members' business could be altered with advantage was another matter, and one of the utmost importance; but in any case changes could only be made after careful inquiry. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling Burghs) agreed that the Government had not enough time at its disposal, but held that the true remedy lay in a large devolution of business.

In the end the new Standing Order as to Government and private Members' business was carried by 160 votes to 101. Mr. Balfour then moved a new Standing Order as to Supplyessentially the same as that which had obtained for the last six years-providing that twenty, or at the most twenty-three, days should be devoted to the Estimates, but substituting Thursday for Friday as the ordinary day on which they should be taken. On an amendment, moved by Major Rasch (Chelmsford, Essex), to the effect that no Member should speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes, on any one question in Committee of Supply, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said that he was in favour of a time-limit for speeches, but did not think that it would be wise to try the experiment in the first instance with discussions in Supply. Mr. Balfour pointed out, as to the length of speeches, that Ministers often had to make statements which nobody would wish to be shortened in Committee of Supply. None the less did he recognise that, in all probability, the House would be eventually forced into the adoption of some kind of time-limit. The amendment was negatived by 268 to 24.

An amendment was then moved by Mr. Lough (Islington, W.) directed against the system perpetuated by the proposed Standing Order of automatically closuring Supply at the end of the allotted days, under which, he pointed out, some 88,000,000. had in 1901 been voted without discussion. He suggested that committees should be appointed to deal with the Naval, Military and Civil Service Estimates, and that there should then be a report stage of not more than twenty days. Mr. Balfour defended the present Supply arrangements as a great improvement on the old unmethodical practice, and maintained that too much rather than too little time had been given to the Estimates of late years. Including the days on which Supplementary Estimates were discussed, thirty-five sittings were devoted to Supply in 1901. To obtain more time they would be driven either to reduce still further the time available for legislation, or to extend the session beyond its normal length of six months. This year it was inevitable that they should sit for a longer period, but he considered it unwise, as a rule, to ask the House to exceed that term, and he believed that Mr. Gladstone had been of the same opinion.