Talk:Education Act 1902

message: Need some help with categories - feel free to add this article to the odd category as I can't seem to do it!Bigfridge 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The 1906 Birrell Bill "would have ended public support of religious schools". Are we sure this is quite right? According to what I've just read the 1906 bill aimed to end the dual system of the 1902 Act and put all schools receiving taxpayers’ money under local authority control. Cowper-Temple teaching was preferred, but denominational teaching was to be permitted, but not by regular teachers. Urban schools could, if 80% of parents wanted, offer denominational teaching by regular staff on the rates.Paulturtle (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It being assumed that the high threshold of 80% for one religious denomination would most likely only be achieved in the Catholic areas of Liverpool.Paulturtle (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Rather annoyingly I can't remember which book I read the above in.Paulturtle (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text: After I've racked my brains to recall what books I was reading in 2015, it was the Travis Crosby biog of Lloyd George. I've been looking in other books for a year or more trying to verify the above.Paulturtle (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1906 Bill 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Education Act 1902. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728012559/http://lib-161.lse.ac.uk/archives/fabian_tracts/114.pdf to http://lib-161.lse.ac.uk/archives/fabian_tracts/114.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Clifford in 1906 worked tirelessly to mobilize Baptist voters to defeat the Balfour government.
This is technically incorrect and the sentence needs a rewrite.  There was no Balfour government in 1906 because Balfour had resigned as Prime Minister in December 1905 and was immediately succeeded by the Liberals' leader Campbell-Bannerman who called the general election of 1906 that was held in January that year. Can you defeat a government that is out of office?Cloptonson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the words "the" and "government" and it is fine. DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism (in section Opposition)

message: Which came first in 1902 - the passage of the Act into law or Balfour's becoming Prime Minister in July? It would be good if someone could pinpoint it as I am hesitant to describe Balfour as being Prime Minister when it passed. I understand before his succession of his uncle Lord Salisbury, Balfour was Foreign Secretary.Cloptonson (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It received the Royal Assent on 18 December 1902. I don't know when it had finished its parliamentary progress. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't Foreign Secretary but First Lord of the Treasury - Salisbury was the last PM not to hold that office, a distinction he shares with Pitt the Elder. Balfour did take a strong interest in education though - he was instrumental in making state elementary schools free in 1891.Paulturtle (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Balfour's political office at time the Act passed