The debate was continued and concluded on Wednesday. Sir Richard
Jebb defended the measure as promoting the efficiency of the public elementary schools, co-ordinating the different kinds of education, and rendering education a popular feature in local life; while Sir William Harcourt accused the Government of deliberately framing their scheme with a view to excluding popular control The Attorney. General dealt at length with the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. There would, he explained, be a reference to the Bishop upon the question whether the religious instruction was in accordance with the tenets of the particular denomination, while the management and control would rest with the managers. But he hinted that, to prevent all possible misunderstandings, the clause would be redrafted in the House of Lords. Mr. Asquith regarded the Bill as compact of blunders and injustice, and described the Kenyon-Slaney Clause as presenting a series of complicated conundrums for solution by the Law Courts. Yet the clause as it stood asserted a valuable right—that of Par- liament to treat the denominational schools as State schools— and disposed finally of the notion that the parish priest was supreme. Thus he was not without the hope that the Bill, which was designed to vitalise denominationalism, might turn out to have the opposite result. Mr. Balfour closed the debate in a dignified speech. The Bill, he contended, might not be an ideal solution of the problem, but no rival scheme held the field, and as compared with the present system it was a great educational reform. The Motion for the rejection of the measure having been negatived by 286 votes to 134, the third reading was carried by 246 to 123, or a majority of 123.
Previous page
