EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HL Deb 08 November 1906 vol 164 cc655-719

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 5:—

LORD ASHBOURNE

proposed to amend the first subsection of the clause, so that it should read— Where the owners of the school-house are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, they may appeal to the Board of Education," etc. He said it had been implied from the Government Benches that the changes made in Clause 4, especially the one making it mandatory on the local authority to grant the extended facilities, had tendered Clause 5, providing for appeals to the Board of Education, unnecessary. He did not agree with that view. The need to the owners of an appeal under subsection (1), and to the parents of an appeal under subsection (4), of Clause 5, had not been affected by the alterations in Clause 4. and he considered it would be a very serious thing for their Lordships at that stage to be asked to assent to a proposal for a substantial variation of that clause. They could not say exactly what might be the final shape of the Bill as it would leave their Lordships' House, but, taking the Bill as it stood with the changes that had been introduced, he felt that an appeal was needed, and that it would not be wise, prudent, or reasonable to divest those aggrieved, the owners in the one case and the parents in the other, of their right of appeal. There were many probable points of difference in regard, for instance, to the way the extended facilities were granted by the local authority, which would still render necessary the appeal to the Board of Education. He was quite willing to trust the local authority; he believed that in the majority of cases the local authority could be trusted. But in this world everybody was not an angel, and it was only fair that there should be some opportunity of revising and reconsidering mistakes which had possibly been honestly arrived at. This was an appellate section, intended to give an appeal to those who were dissatisfied and felt aggrieved, and he would very much regret if it were seriously interfered with and the right of appeal substantially taken away.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 4, to leave out from the word ' where ' to the first 'the' in line 8, and after the word ' schoolhouse ' to insert the words ' are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4 or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, they.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord has brought this matter forward, because it undoubtedly is necessary to understand clearly how we stand with reference to the relations of Clauses 4 and 5 after the alterations which have been made by your Lordships in the former. As we introduced the Bill, an option was left to the local authority as to whether it should grant these extra facilities. If it declined, there was an appeal to the Board of Education, who might then do one of two things. They might proceed to issue an order which would ultimately, no doubt, have to be enforced by a Court of law; or, if they did not choose to do that, they might make special arrangements by which the schools should be carried on in a different manner as a State-aided schools. That was an appeal, and an appeal on a refusal. It appears to me that the noble and learned Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, has mixed up two things. He has mixed up points of dispute which may arise in the course of the arrangements with the refusal of the local authority to give facilities at all. I think 'this undoubtedly the fact that the points which may arise during the progress of the arrangements are covered and dealt with by the Amendments which were inserted at the instance of the noble Viscount Lord Ridley yesterday, giving an appeal in cases where any difference of opinion arose.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That Amendment the noble Earl refused to accept, and it was not pressed.

THE EARL OF CREWE

At any rate an Amendment to that effect was inserted at an earlier stage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is true.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Lord did not press his last Amendment. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 2, you will see that, as the clause now runs, the arrangements are not a question for the Board of Education at all, but for the Commission, and that all points of dispute which arise during the progress of the arrangements come before the Commission. These are the, words— If the local education authority fail to make an arrangement by agreement with the owners of the schoolhouse, the arrangement shall be made by the Commission appointed under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with reference, to schemes shall apply to any arrangement made by the Commission. This makes it unmeaning to have a concurrent appeal to the Board of Education during the progress of the arrangements. That, I think, will be clear to noble Lords.

I pass from the differences which may arise during the progress of the arrangement to the refusal of the authority to make any arrangement, but that is what is dealt with under Clause 5 as it stands. When the local authority refuses to make any arrangement we are surely recalled to the word "shall" which was inserted at the instance of noble Lords opposite, "Shall" makes it mandatory, peremptory, for the Board of Education immediately to proceed to see that the local education authority does not persist in. its refusal, and to take legal steps in the matter. Surely "shall" is not compatible with the alternative of appeal, i If the noble Lord inserts his words, or if this clause remains as it stands, you are in effect saying to the local authority, "You shall do so and so, but if you do not, you will not be obliged to, because the Board of Education may take steps to institute a different a kind of school." It appears to me that what the noble and learned Lord will do if he inserts his Amendment is in effect to restore the word "may" in place of the word "shall." It appear there is no answer to that. Consequently, as far as regards subsection (1), to which the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord apply, it involves a positive contradiction in terms, the word "shall" having been inserted, to leave this alternative possibility to be dealt with at the instance of the Board of Education. As regards the latter sub-sections, I think perhaps it would be wiser not to say anything upon them until they are reached.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think it is quite clear that this section will require re-drafting, whether exactly in the terms suggested by my noble and learned friend beside me or not is another matter. The noble Earl called our attention to the wording of Clause 2 of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee what that clause contains. Under that clause the local education authority is compelled to continue a school if it complies with two conditions. The school must be structurally fit, and it must be one required for the educational purposes of the locality; in other words, it must not be a superfluous school. There is no appeal in Clause 2 on either of those points. It is quite true that the clause does provide for the case of inability of the local education authority to come to terms with regard to the arrangements under which a school is to be taken over; there is an appeal to the Commission. But, upon the other point, the question of fact whether the two conditions are or are not complied with, Clause 2 does not provide an appeal, and in our opinion such an appeal should be provided. Then with regard to Clause 4. The noble Earl, I think, was under a misapprehension when he told the Committee that an Amendment had been inserted in the Bill for the purpose of providing an appeal on facts under Clause 4. I think my noble friend Lord Ridley had an Amendment framed for that purpose on the Paper, but I cannot find it in the print of the clauses as we have them before us. Therefore, there also, it seems to me, an appeal on the facts should be propided. Again, in Clause 4 I cannot find any provision for an appeal upon the kind of points which were raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne— I mean points concerning the manner in which the facilities were or were not afforded.

THE EARL OF CREWE

That comes under the heading of sub-section (4), Clause 5.

LORD ASHBOURNE

That is only for parents. I want it for the owners as well.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I did not deal with that subject because I had no wish to discuss the question of State-aided schools at this stage.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I agree with the noble Earl that we had better not discuss the question of State-aided schools, now; but, putting that on one side, I do think that the question of the appeal provided under these different sections is one which requires the attention of the Committee.

LORD DAVEY

thought the noble Marquess had not quite appreciated the effect of Clause 5. It was confined exclusively to the case in which the local education authority was dissatisfied with the arrangements offered by the owners of the schoolhouse and the school was one in respect of which extended facilities under Clause 4 were desired. When their Lordships struck out "may" and inserted "shall" in Clause 4 they completely altered the whole scheme of the clause, and, in his humble opinion, made nonsense of it. Clause 4, as originally framed, provided that the local authority might take a particular school where certain conditions were complied with, and Clause 5 enacted that, if the local authority declined to take that course, an appeal would lie to the Board of Education, who might do one of two things. Clauses 4 and 5 as they stood were certainly inconsistent. If the clause was mandatory the only question would be whether the local authority had taken the course prescribed or not. The substitution of "shall" for "may" in Clause 4 had made nonsense of Clause 5.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought, with the greatest deference to the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, that there was ground for an appeal to the Board of Education, notwithstanding their Amendment of Clause 4. There ought to be some means of settling whether the local education authority was right or not in the conclusion they came to—that was to say, whether they had satisfied the conditions. The view he took was that the appeal under Clause 5 had reference to a state of things before the existing voluntary school became a transferred voluntary school. In point of fact, it had reference, when the Government drafted their Bill, to an appeal from Clause 2 and not from Clause 4. The drafting of the Bill was a truly wonderful performance; but, so-far as he had been able to make out, that was the meaning of the appeal under Clause 5. It was an appeal from owners who were dissatisfied with the decisions under Clause 2 and who intended their school to become an extended facilities school. He thought that, notwithstanding the alterations that had been made in Clause 2, they still wanted the appeal provided in Clause 5. In his opinion Clause 5 should be mandatory too. If the Board of Education were satisfied that the facts were as the appellants alleged it should be mandatory upon them to reverse the decision; and, when the proper time came, he would ask their Lordships to strike out "may" and insert "shall" just as they did in Clause 4.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, we have, I think, to some degree passed away from the point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. That Amendment was taken, exception to by me on the ground that, after having made it peremptory that the school should be taken over, it in the following clause left a discretion to a third party as to whether the school should be taken over or not. When you say a school shall be taken over it is not open to you to say it shall only be taken over in certain instances, and, therefore, as regards the latter part of the clause, on which we heard nothing from the noble Marquess who last sat down——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not speak on that because it would have confused what I said.

THE EARL OF CREWE

So far as that part of the clause is concerned, it does seem seem to me impossible for it to stand part of the Bill in its present form. The school has to be taken over, but before it can be taken over certain conditions have to be satisfied, and it is upon those that the noble Marquess desires that an appeal should be lodged. His appeal, I take it, is only intended to run in the case of no arrangement being arrived at. That appeal, of course, exists in a form in our Clause 5 as it stands. What would have happened under our clause was this: the. local authority refuses to take over a particular school on the ground that certain conditions have not been properly fulfilled; the Board thinks they have been fulfilled, and either makes an order or allows a school to become State-aided. What the noble Marquess wants to do, I take it, is to leave the first sixteen lines—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should ask to strike out "may" in line 9. There is a consequential Amendment down in the name of the noble Viscount on the cross benches, Lord Llandaff.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Leaving that for a moment, we are considering the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and I think it would be well to clear up the point as to what the noble and learned Lord proposes to do with his Amendment, whether he desires to strike out the words he proposes to strike out and to insert the words he proposes to insert.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLE1GH

Might I ask the noble and learned Lord to let us know how his Amendment will run?

LORD ASHBOURNE

It would read— Where the owners of the schoolhouse are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4 or as to the mode in which extended facilities are offered, they may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Board may"— and then the clause proceeds as in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said this would extend the action of Clause 5 and make it apply to any school.

LORD ASHBOURNE

replied that the governing words were in Clause 4. He proposed to strike out the words in question in deference to the suggestion made yesterday by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, that the altered conditions following upon the changes that had been made necessitated some change in the drafting. He took that view, and had applied himself to the governing idea of Clause 5 that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education given to anyone who was dissatisfied with what had been done under Clause 4.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved to substitute the word "shall" for "may," so as to make it mandatory on the Board of Education, if they found the facts as alleged by the appellants, to make an arrangement.

Amendment moved— To leave out the word ' may,' and insert the word ' shall.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I understand that the noble Marquess considers this to be consequential on the insertion of the word "shall" in the preceding clauses.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is the same order of ideas, but it is no t consequential in the Parliamentary sense.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

thought their Lordships had not a clear idea of what they were being asked to pledge themselves to. He felt inclined rather to wash his hands of the clause, but he would point out that a great deal of its natural force had gone in consequence of the Amendments that had been made in Clause 4. They were keeping alive unnecessarily matter which might perfectly well drop. The only part of Clause 5 which he thought really essential was sub-section (4). He wished to put in a word of caveat. Some noble Lords seemed to have in their minds that by giving this appeal to the Board of Education the Board would be entitled to give some facilities which were not the legal right of the managers and owners of the school. He desired to point out that the Board would not have power to give anything more than those legal rights.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved to omit the words— And, if they think fit, after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities. He said the Amendment now became purely consequential, and he would not trouble the Committee with any arguments upon it.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word ' school ' to the word ' by ' in line 15.' "—(Viscount Llandaff.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENEAGE

moved to omit the words— But if under any special circumstances of the case the Board think it expedient, they may, instead of making such an arrangement make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. He explained that he moved this Amendment with the object of obtaining information about the proposed State-aided schools. This was never explained in the House of Commons, the clause having been closured. He understood State-aided schools to be an alternative; which the Board of Education might set up instead of schools under Clause 4. He could not help thinking that there would be a very strong inducement to establish these schools, because, unless he was mistaken, they would be neither fish nor flesh nor anything else, but a little of everything. They would be elementary schools in one sense, but they would not in another. They were to receive grants, but were not to receive rates; and, therefore, there was an inducement to the Board of Education to set up these schools instead of giving the facilities under Clause 4. He was, however, not at all certain on the point, as the clause had never been explained, and he therefore invited the noble Earl the Lord President to give the Committee some information on the matter.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 18, to leave out from the word 'afforded ' to the word ' provided,' in line 21."—(Lord Heneage.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I think I might perhaps postpone for the moment saying anything about State-aided schools as such, but I shall be quite willing subsequently to give the information asked for. I am compelled to support this Amendment in the interests of common sense and decent drafting. It is perfectly obvious that, owing to the changes which have been made, it is necessary in this connection for these words to come out.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he had not been able to follow clearly the effect of the changes made by Lord Ashbourne's Amendment in the earlier part of the clause. But what he understood to be the effect of the present Amendment was practically the disappearance entirely from the Bill of State-aided schools in any form.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Not from the Bill. Sub-section (4) still leaves them. We have not reached that yet.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Do I understand rightly that the effect of the Amendment will be the disappearance of the second of the two alternatives offered to the Court of Appeal to whom this matter goes?

THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, that is so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1)— An arrangement made by order for the use of a schoolhouse under this provision shall not have effect for more than five years. He could not understand the object of this sub-section inasmuch as, under Clause 4, any arrangement made and any permission given could be withdrawn at anytime.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 25, to leave out from the word ' suitable ' to the end of line 28."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

It is obvious, of course, that this sub-section loses a considerable part of its importance by the alteration of "may" into "shall," because, if these schools are always to be taken over, it probably is not of very great importance how long each special arrangement lasts. We inserted this sub-section because we did not think it was right that, as these arrangements were always made against, so to speak, an objecting local authority, they should have effect for a term of more than five years.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that while the clause had passed out of the hands of noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House he did not think it ought to be assumed that the striking out of this sub-section was unimportant. If these words were struck out the local authority would be under a perpetual obligation to keep up these schools, even though the conditions completely altered and the population changed.

LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH

called the noble Lord's attention to subsection (2) of Clause 4, under which a permission given under that section might at any time be withdrawn.

LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEY

mentioned that in his own experience cases had arisen in which the School Board for London had accepted a great many transfers of voluntary schools which were structurally unsatisfactory and which, through changed conditions, were subsequently not required as elementary schools; but there was no power to retransfer them to the owners. If the words which Lord Clifford proposed to strike out were deleted the local education authority would be saddled with schools indefinitely, and would be under the obligation to keep them in repair. He would also point out that this Amendment, therefore, threw an additional charge on the rates.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

could not see why the noble Lord attached so much importance to sub-section (b) of this clause seeing that sub-section (2) of Clause 4 provided that— A permission given under this section may be at any time withdrawn by the local education authority, if, after causing a ballot to be taken and holding a public local inquiry with reference to the matter, they think that the conditions on the strength of which the permission was given no longer obtain. Surely if the permission was given on the strength of the building being structurally suited, and those conditions changed and the building was no longer structurally suited, they might then hold a public inquiry and withdraw the permission.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that several things might happen, and the conditions might so change as to remove any justification for maintaining the school under Clause 4, although the building might be structurally sound. His point was that there should be no obligation placed on the local authority to take over a school for an indefinite time and be saddled with it when they desired to get rid of it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to add the words— But shall be renewable, or fresh arrangements for the same purpose may be made in a similar manner. If His Majesty's Government would accept these words he would not detain their Lordships by giving his reasons for moving their insertion. He thought the reasons would be obvious.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 28, after the word ' years ' to insert the words ' but shall be renewable, or fresh arrangements for the same purpose may be made in a similar manner.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

Is the noble Earl certain that the words are necessary after the changes which have been made?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

could not say, but he was quite certain that they were necessary as the Bill originally stood. The arrangements were to last five years, but what was to happen at the end of that period the Bill did not say. In other cases where there was an arrangement of this sort the Bill did provide what was to happen. For instance, in Clause 1 there were these words— And may as occasion requires renew any such arrangement or make fresh arrangements for the purpose in a similar manner. Then, again, in Clause 9 the noble Earl would find a provision to the effect that— On the expiry of any such provision the Board of Education shall have the same powers for renewing the provision or making a fresh provision for the like purpose. As an arrangement had been made in these two cases it might lead to the argument, if no such words were inserted in the present clause, that Parliament had intended that at the end of five years nothing was to be done. Hs hoped the Committee would agree to the insertion of the words proposed.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It certainly struck me that the object with which the noble Earl moved his Amendment had already been met by the alterations made in Clause 5.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Will the noble Earl tell me what they were?

THE EARL OF CREWE

As the Bill was introduced an arrangement could only last for five years. At the end of five years the original conditions—the ballot and the inquiry—had to be repeated. It was only in the first arrangement that the particular kind of appeal, with its choice of State-aided school under Clause 5, came into operation; it would not have come into operation at the second attempt. But now, as I understand, the school always has to be taken over if the conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for the noble Earl to insert his words. It seems to me now that if you can only show that you have a majority of the children the school automatically goes on.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Then I ask, what is the use of retaining subsection (b), which says that the arrangement is only to go on for five years? You cannot have it both ways.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not want to have it both ways.

LORD STANMORE

said that whether the noble Earl's Amendment was strictly necessary or not, it certainly made the clause much clearer, and therefore, if the noble Earl went to a division, he would vote with him.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I have no desire to divide against the noble Earl if he wishes to insert the words. My point was that they are superfluous.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved the omission of sub-section (3) which ran— An appeal under this section shall not be entertained unless it is made before the first day of January, 1908. He thought the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would admit that this sub-section was now unsuitable. The clause now gave an appeal against malfeasance on the part of the local education authority in the course of the extended facilities. Therefore, it was obvious that the appeal must go beyond the first day of January, 1908.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Viscount is quite right. In remodelling the clause this is one of the limbs which have to come off.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he did not profess to follow the effect of the somewhat complicated verbal changes that had been made in the earlier part of this clause, but, though they were told the sub-section was now useless, he would like to know what it meant originally. It was an extremely technical and difficult matter to understand the Government's original intention. The arrangement between an education authority and the owners of a school was to be made for five years, and then followed the provision that an appeal should be made not later than 1st January, 1908. It seemed to him that those who got the extended facilities would simply be at the mercy of an unfriendly local authority at the end of five years.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It requires a powerful imagination to picture how the clause would look in its original form, but I can answer the right rev. Prelate by saying that his interpretation of what would have happened is no doubt the correct one. As originally intended, the scheme of the Government was to leave this matter to the option of the local authority altogether, but it was brought to our minds and impressed upon us that it would be reasonable to introduce the kind of appeal which we gave under Clause 5 in consideration of the state of feeling which exists about these matters at this moment. All these questions have been made matters of very cute controversy, and it seemed to us that in the limited time before 1st January, 1908, the fires of that controversy might not altogether have been extinguished, and that hardship might have resulted to those who desired these facilities if an option was left entirely to the local authority. But five years hence—I trust in a much shorter space of time—we are in hopes that this unfortunate condition of things will no longer exist, and we did not think it right to interfere with the complete option of the local authority so far as the continuance of the school after that period.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he now understood that it was in contemplation by the Government, as Clause 4 originally stood, that after five years it would be in the absolute power of the local authority to bring the arrangement to an end without reason assigned, and that against such a decision there could be no appeal. If that was the original intention of the clause their Lordships had certainly been quite right to make the change. He was quite sure the true position was not understood in the country. When they were told that Clause 4 safeguarded denominational schools, when they were told that special facilities could so readily be obtained, they were not told that all this might come to an end at the will of the local authority in five years. This was a point of supreme importance. He was thankful that he had elicited the explanation, and was sure it would be a revelation to the Committee and the country.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved to leave out sub-section (4) which ran— The parents of at least twenty children attending a transferred voluntary school, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by a local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Board, if satisfied, after considering the circumstances of the case, that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal, may make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school, and providing so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement made with respect to the transfer or use of the school-house and for any other matter for which pro -vision is required in connection with the order. He said that he personally, and many of those who thought with him, objected to this sub-section, but they could quite see that it might be amended and put into a form which would be less objectionable. The whole question of State-aided schools was one upon which they did not look with any great favour, and for that reason he moved the omission of the sub-section.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 35, 'to leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

This is the remaining sub-section which deals with the possibility of starting State-aided schools. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne, introduced and carried an Amendment to sub-section (1) of this clause providing that where the owners of the schoolhouse are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded they may appeal to the Board of Education. That would enable the Board of Education to enforce an order upon them. As this clause stands it allows the parents of twenty children who are aggrieved by the mode in which facilities are afforded to do something else, not to appeal for an order from the Board of Education, but they may appeal to have the school turned into a State-aided school.

LORD ASHBOURNE

The words are "may appeal;" nothing else.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think if the noble and learned Lord will read on he will see that the appeal applies only to the turning of the school into a State-aided school.

LORD ASHBOURNE

If it is found that the complaint is reasonable and the case has been made out, instead of saying that matters are to be put right you say, "We will turn you into a State-aided school."

THE EARL OF CREWE

The question which we have to consider is really whether it is desirable, as your Lordships have altered the Bill, for the State-aided school to remain. My noble friend opposite, Lord Heneage, asked what the State-aided school was. A short biography of it is given in the next subsection. It is a school instituted by the order of the Board of Education, it receives no rates but is able to receive grants in spite of its not being an elementary school in some respects, and it would not be under the management of the local authority. The position of the school would be, in effect, very much the position of a voluntary school before the Act of 1902—subject to this: my right hon. friend Mr. Birrell in another place, when asked if he would allow a school of this kind to come under what is known as one man management, said— No; arrangements would be made for its management somewhat on the lines of what is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in the Act of 1902. It becomes a question of course, whether, after what has been done in respect to the Bill, there is any substantial reason for retaining the State-aided school at all. I think if your Lordships were to see the clause as amended in print it would be regarded as a somewhat remarkable conclusion, whereas the owners might at any time apply to have the local authority forced into conducting the school in a particular way, the parents should have this singular appeal to turn the school into a special kind of school.

The friends of noble Lords opposite have made rather merry, I believe, over the State-aided schools. We were told that we are multiplying an indefinite number of varieties of schools, and getting further and further with every Amendment from a national system. I am absolutely prepared to defend the existence of these State-aided schools in our Bill as introduced, but I think it becomes a serious question for the Committee to consider whether, in the shape in which the Bill now stands after your Lordships' alterations, it is advisable to retain the section at all.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

pleaded on behalf of many denominational schools in the villages where the teachers had given the religious instruction with complete satisfaction. Unless something was done with sub-section (b) of Clause 4, unless some security was taken that Clause 4 would be really available, these schools would be turned into undenominational schools, and the teachers would not be able to give the teaching they had hitherto given. He urged, therefore, that this clause ought to be allowed to remain until it was seen in what final shape the Bill emerged, and until an opportunity was given on Report of reconsidering sub-section(b) of Clause 4.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said this clause was certainly one of the most remarkable in the Bill. If a local authority unduly limited the extended facilities an appeal might be made to the Board of Education, but the Board of Education on the appeal had no right to say that the facilities ought to be given, and might shunt the school off on half-pay by making it a State-aided school. That was a most extraordinary perversion of justice. Another difficulty was that, as far as he could see, these State-aided schools would have no manager. They would not be provided schools, nor would they be deemed to be provided schools. Consequently the local education authority would have no power to appoint managers. On the other hand, the noble Earl proposed in the schedule of the Bill to repeal the section of the Act of 19O2 which enabled foundation managers to be appointed, together with managers representing the local authorities. Consequently the existing managers would no longer have any locus standi, and he was at a loss to see how any managers at all could be obtained.

LORD HENEAGE

said there was not only the question of managers, but the question of teachers. He would like to know who was going to appoint the teachers in these State-aided schools. The local authority had no power to appoint them because they had no power whatever over the schools, and the managers would have no power because there would be no managers.

LORD AVEBURY

spoke of the importance of retaining the State-aided schools. The principal consideration before their Lordships was the question of religious teaching, but, at the same time, although economy might not be so important, it was a matter they could not afford altogether to ignore, particularly at a time when the rates were increasing so rapidly. He know cases in his own neighbourhood where voluntary schools had been formed, not with any view of theological teaching, but in order to avoid in some parishes the expensive arrangements necessary for the formation of school boards. In many cases those schools had worked with entire satisfaction, and he trusted on that account, and also in the interest of variety in education, that some State-aided schools might be preserved.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

thought the provisions in regard to the appeal wore grotesque. Instead of giving to the owners of the school, or the parents who appealed to the Board of Education the satisfaction they required, these provisions gave them something for which they did not ask—a State-aided school. That would be but a poor consolation to the parents or owners.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said he could not support the retention of State-aided schools on the ground put forward by Lord Avebury. After all, this Bill did not recognise either intellectual variety or the desire to avoid the machinery of the school board as a ground for parting off a school into this category; it recognised merely the ground that the school was one of a strictly denominational character. The object of the clause was to provide a safety valve and some means of relief to those persons who were very tenacious as to the character of their schools. It was a sort of solatium, an opportunity to people who were not happy under this national system to escape out of it. He instanced a school in Wapping where the clergy in charge, not satisfied with the Act of 1902, withdrew their school from any Parliamentary aid because they would not admit even a modified control by the ratepayers. That school was now a certified efficient school, the whole of its cost falling on the managers. The sub-section afforded a refuge, a sort of Zoar, for those who desired to withdraw from their citizenship, to stand apart from the nation, to live their own lives, and he thought that from that point of view it might be well to retain it in the, Bill. He believed the underlying motive in the minds of noble Lords who wished to strike out the subsection was that without this refuge for people who felt that the local authority were not treating them as they had expected there would be a stronger argument for exacting better terms from the State under the local authority.

LORD COURTNEY

said that, apart from the question of expediency, in the circumstances in which they were now placed it was impossible to retain this subsection. Let them just consider how they stood. They had given to the owners of the school a right to appeal to the Board of Education against what they conceived to be the improper action of the local authority, and in that case the Board of Education had no alternative but to force the local education authority. to give the extended facilities. There was no discretion whatever. But here they had the parents of the children appealing to the same authority, it might be on the same state of matters, and the Board of Education was to have an alternative plan of action. The two appeals might be made simultaneously; the Board of Education was bound to speak in one way in the case of one appeal, but it would have the option of speaking in either of two ways in the case of the other. Therefore the sub-section could not be retained.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said it might be but a poor consolation to the owners of the school or to the parents of the children attending it that as the result of their appeal to the Board of Education against the action of the local authority they should get nothing but State aid and be deprived of all assistance from the rates. But surely it was better than nothing at all. Even supposing those schools got nothing but State aid they would be in no worse position than they had been before the Act of 1902. It might be said that the subscriptions they received before the Act of 1902 had now ceased and that they would have nothing to hope for from private resources. But he did not think that difficulty would have to be faced in many cases, and certainly not in all. Recent events had shown that it was extremely difficult for the Board of Education to deal with unreasonable local authorities, and precisely the same conditions might arise under the Bill as amended. The sub-section would be a safety valve against unfair dealing by a recalcitrant local authority, and he hoped their Lordships would not reject it.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

said that to many of them it appeared that what was described by the noble Viscount as a safety valve was really little better than a trap. He thought anyone who had listened to the clear observations of the noble Viscount would feel that it would be to the interest of the local authority to be extremely nasty to the school in order to drive if off the rates, and, when the school so treated went to the Board of Education for redress, the Board was provided with a convenient way of shelving what would admittedly be a great difficulty in its path. He was not suggesting what might have been in the minds of the Government when the clause was placed in the Bill, but he thought they were in a very great danger in the future of being driven out into the arid plain in which they were before the Act of 1902, and of finding such schools treated as inferior schools. In reply to the observations of Lord Stanley of Alderley, he would remind the Committee that Roman Catholics had no wish to stand out of the national life or to avoid the duties of citizenship, but they were determined in regard to this Bill to demand their just rights.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

was very anxious to support the view taken by Lord St. Aldwyn. He for one had never understood that the security for denominational schools of a marked type against a hostile authority was only to last five years, and he held that this announcement created a new situation. But he was anxious on quite other grounds to maintain a place in our educational system for State-aided schools. He was certain that the time, if it had not yet come, was speedily coming when the idea of uniformity would give way to the idea of elasticity and variety in our educational system, and he should be exceedingly sorry if they were to lose what seemed to be an opportunity of obtaining a new type of elementary school. Such schools, he believed, were capable of development on most wholesome lines. In Scotland some 11 per cent, of the most efficient and most belauded elementary schools were State-aided schools, and Scotland in educational matters was far ahead of England. He hoped their Lordships would not shut the door on wholesome variety in our educational system. Of course, they must guard against such schools being inferior, and he was ready to acquiesce in the stiffest possible tests the education authority liked to lay down. He should be prepared to propose in a new clause the conditions under which the State-aided schools might take an honourable and an effective place in our system.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, for the reasons which the most rev. Primate has just given to the Committee, I should be sorry to see this Bill amended in such a way as to shut the door entirely in the face of the creation of these State-aided schools. The principle seems to me to be defensible, but I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that the manner in which it is applied in the Bill as it stands seems to me to be little short of outrageous. We have had no answers to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Llandaff and by the noble and learned Lord beside me. They showed the extraordinary manner in which this provision as to State-aided schools will operate. You will have the case of a school which has surmounted all the obstacles set up in its way under Clauses 2 and 4 of this Bill; you will have a school which has exhausted its rights of appeal and exhausted them successfully, which has satisfied the Court of Appeal that its case is a perfectly sound one. but which, nevertheless, has to be put off, not with the satisfaction of its demands, but with this little Zoar, as it has been described, of a State-aided school. That seems to me absolutely and entirely unjust. The terms seem to me to be terms which it would be impossible to impose upon reluctant parties, and I hope if this sub-section is to remain in the Bill your Lordships will amend it in such a way as to deprive it of some at all events of its injustice. There are Amendments upon the Paper which would have that effect.

If your Lordships will look at the Amendments which stand in the names of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and of Lord Llandaff, you will see that if they were added to, the clause their effect would be that the Board of Education when it had disposed of the appeal would, if it was satisfied, issue an order showing in what manner the extended facilities might be carried out.

I do not see any objection to adding, in the form of an option, words which would allow of an offer being made to the owners of the school the acceptance of which would put them in the position of being able, if they pleased, to content themselves with the position of a State-aided school. If these two mitigating conditions were made in the subsection, my objection to it would be largely diminished; but the clause as it stands seems to me one of the most in- iquitous suggestions it has ever been my fate to consider.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sorry the noble Marquess has complained that no reply had been made to the noble Lords who had spoken. I was merely waiting in order to make one reply to all the points raised. The noble Viscount on the Cross-Benches was horrified at the fact that this appeal under sub-section (4) merely related to the possibility of the school becoming a State-aided school, and that it did not involve the possibility of a mandate being issued to carry on the school in a particular way. The noble Viscount, I think, must see that that was part of our policy as a whole. The general structure of these clauses is perfectly well known to noble Lords. They know that we did avoid putting an original obligation on the local authority even to start these four-fifths schools.

The noble Lord opposite, Lord Heneage, asked me a question about the managers. If the noble Lord will look at line 14 on page 6, he will see that the Board of Education may impose on State-aided schools— Such other conditions as they prescribe as conditions for the payment of the grant. One of those conditions would naturally be the appointment of a properly-constituted body of managers; the arrangements would naturally be made in the Code, a particular chapter of which, if the Bill passed in this form, would be devoted to a description of what should be done in the case of State-aided schools. We do not propose to put these particular provisions in the Bill.

The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said this was a very small kind of concession to give, and that it really hardly amounted to an appeal at all. As my noble friend behind me (Lord Stanley of Alderley) said quite truly, it is intended as a solatium under terms of particular difficulty. When the noble Marquess who spoke last alluded with horror to the circumstances under which this particular concession might take place— namely, that schools would have fulfilled all the conditions required by the clause and all the rest of it—he was contemplating exactly the case which the noble Viscount contemplated might happen even under the Bill as amended by the noble Lord opposite.

The noble Duke and some other noble Lords opposite seemed to think that these State-aided schools were something in the nature of a Greek gift—that something unpleasant lay behind it. That would apply equally to the Bill of the Government and to the Bill of noble Lords opposite as I am obliged now to call it. The noble Duke seemed to think that they would be a temptation to local authorities to behave badly, but for myself I believe that with most local authorities the desire to keep control over the school will be a stronger operating motive than the desire to save the rates on that particular school. I do not believe that local authorities, as a rule, would desire to drive the schools out of their jurisdiction. I think they value their hold over them far too much to be influenced greatly by the few hundreds of pounds which might be saved to the rates.

The most rev. Primate adumbrated the possibility of a very considerable system of State-aided schools throughout the country, and I understood that he by no means desired to confine it to the schools contemplated by the Government which for one reason or another could not obtain these facilities. I think it is necessary in considering this matter to proceed very cautiously. It is quite true that a small number of State-aided schools might very reasonably be carried on and that a high standard might be attained in them without suffering any intolerable strain. But once you attempt to multiply them to any considerable extent you will be confronted with, I am afraid, very considerable clanger. If you contemplate a return to any extent to the system which prevailed before 1902, you must beware that you do not find yourselves in conditions which, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, made the Act of 1902 necessary. It is an undoubted fact that in the case of a good many voluntary schools before 1902 the Board of Education, in order to avoid inflicting a real hardship upon them and closing a good many, had to adopt a somewhat lower standard of general efficiency than they insisted on in the case of board schools.

I agree with the most rev. Primate that it is quite possible, if these schools are limited in number in the manner we co n-template, to insist on a high scale of efficiency, but if they become numerous I doubt whether that could be done. It must also be remembered that these schools will have to depend to a certain extent on private subscriptions, and it is obvious that the more you multiply them the less that money is likely to go round, because I do not think the amount of money available is at all likely to increase in proportion to the number of schools, and consequently you would run the risk of a number of them becoming starved. As to the question immediately before the Committee, whether or not the clause should be retained. I have a very open mind on the subject. If noble Lords opposite desire to leave it I shall raise no objection.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said he could not but regard these State-aided schools as a very considerable danger, and he should hold himself perfectly free to bring the matter up again. A considerable amount of the danger, had, he thought, been removed by an Amendment previously introduced, and other Amendments to be moved later might still further reduce it. In the circumstances he would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASHBOURNE

moved an Amendment with the object of enabling the Board of Education to make an order "how the said extended facilities should be carried out" as an alternative to allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. At present, in the event of the Board of Education deciding on appeal that the complaint was well founded, they had only power to say, "We will translate you into a State-aided school." To remedy that he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, which he hoped their Lordships would accept as reasonable.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 40, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'how the said extended facilities should be carried out, or.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord that his Amendment is a reasonable one. We differ from it; but it is only another step in the process of making these things mandatory and bringing them in the last resort before a Court of law.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that all he asked was that the Board of Education, in the exorcise of its judicial discretion, might be empowered to say how the remedy was to be effected. Surely that was not mandatory. As the clause at present stood they could only make an order for a State-aided school.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEY

said in this case also noble Lords seemed to suppose that the Board of Education would be able to order the local authority to do that which they had no legal right to do. That was not the case. If there wore no teachers of one denomination in the school, were the Board of Education to order the local authority to appoint those teachers? And supposing the teachers refused to give the religious teaching, were the Board of Education to be asked to make an order to substitute other teachers? What it came to was this, that they were driving a coach and six through all the protections in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said the Board would have power to order that the local authority should do that which they were required to do by law. The appellants would have to make out that the local authority were not doing that which they were by law required to do.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The point is not the fact of the affording of the extended facilities; it is the mode in which the extended facilities are afforded. It is conceivable that a disagreeable teacher may be appointed, or the children may be put into a dark room. The remedy could not be enforced by a Court of law.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said that in all such cases the Court would give a reasonable interpretation of that which was enacted. To take the example given by the noble Earl, if it were laid down by.statute that certain facilities should be given and the local authority thought proper to put the children in a dark room where they could not read, the Court could take action in such a matter. If facilities wore to be given they must be given in a reasonable and appropriate manner, and the Court could apply the remedy. The noble Lord opposite appeared to have forgotten that before compulsion could be brought to bear on the local authority the appellant must make out his case that they were not doing that which by law they were bound to do, namely, to give such facilities as were appropriate to the occasion.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

supported the Amendment. He said the Lord President of the Council had illustrated the profound difference between the point of view of the Government and the point of view of noble Lords opposite and of the man in the street who loved justice. They had the authority of noble and learned Lords opposite that there was no precedent in the statute law of this country for an appeal of the kind proposed in the Bill. The clause illustrated the contemptuous colouration of justice which the Government countenanced.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved an Amendment to provide that the Board of Education might make an order "if the owners of the schoolhouse consent." It appeared to him that this was essential to the justice of the case. He thought it possible that on Report it would be found most convenient to have one clause giving the owners of the school, if they thought fit, power to ask that the school should be turned into a State-aided school. That would meet the views of noble Lords who had spoken. At any rate, his Amendment stipulated that no school should be made a State-aided school without the consent of the owners.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 40, after the world 'may' to insert the words ' if the owners of the schoolhouse consent. '"—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the circumstances under which this appeal was originally placed in the Bill, as the noble Viscount is aware, were simply these. If a certain number of parents were aggrieved at the manner in which the facilities were afforded they could have the school handed over as a State-aided school. No doubt it may seem rather a strong measure to alter the character of the school in this way without the consent of the owners; but the noble Viscount must consider the reverse instance, where the owners might conceivably be indifferent to the manner in which the facilities were afforded, and the parents therefore would be left with their grievance.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said that after the addition which had just been made the parents would not be left with their grievance, as they would have the advantage of the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Moved, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

EARL CAWDOR

referred to the statement made by the Lord President in reply to the most rev. Primate in regard to sub-section (b) of the clause as it originally stood. If there was one thing that was paraded up and down the country by supporters of the Government in reference to denominational teaching it was the four-fifths provision under Clause 4. The country was told that under that provision Catholic schools would be safeguarded, and that every distinctly denominational school would continue its teaching, preserve its religious atmosphere, maintain its teachers, and go on as now. Such statements were freely made and no doubt soothed the anxiety of many minds with the belief that the rights of those schools would be secured. They now knew from the statement made that night what security was offered by the Government. In five years that security would be gone and the schools would be absolutely at the mercy of the local authorities. This was a strange awakening when they remembered the protestations of the Government. He called attention to this, and hoped it would be noted by the Committee and the country at large.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

reminded the Lord President of a technical point that arose upon the apparent contradiction between the grants to State-aided schools which were not public elementary schools, and the provision in the Act of 1870 that grants should only be made to public elementary schools.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the most rev. Primate is quite right in saying that I promised to deal with this matter when we reached this clause, and I only hope he did not think I passed it by too curtly on that occasion. It really is only a technical point. It is true that the clause in the Act of 1870 states that in order to obtain a grant a school must fulfil conditions which would not be fulfilled by these new schools, but, if the most rev. Primate will look at the last line but one of the clause, he will see that the Board of Education can treat these schools as public elementary schools for certain purposes, and for "any other purpose which may be prescribed." That is held to include the payment to them of a grant. It may seem surprising to the most rev. Primate, but that is the case. It is held that that can sufficiently entitle them to receive a grant. If the most rev. Primate is anxious to see the words altered, the same result could be achieved in another way. Instead of saying "notwithstanding anything in this Act," you could say "notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act;" but, as a matter of fact, I am informed that the other is sufficient.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

asked if no reply was to be made to his noble friend Earl Cawdor. Did the Government propose to accept in silence and without any explanation the statement in which his noble friend, following the most rev. Primate, had shown that the security for Clause 4 schools had only been intended to last five years? Was the country to understand that this was the permanent security offered? Perhaps the Leader of House would have something to say on the point? Might he ask some reconsideration of the question by the Government, and that the security of Clause 4 schools should not be limited to the security of a five-years lease.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I cannot, of course, resist the appeal of the noble Viscount opposite. I do not know that anything that was said by the noble Earl calls for any special explanation or reply, but in answer to the noble Viscount I say that undoubtedly His Majesty's Government will, as he asks us to do, carefully consider the whole question raised. I do desire, however, to point this out, that the indignation of noble Lords seems to me a little singular, as this fact has been staring them in the face ever since the Bill was printed. I said nothing to-day to spring this announcement on the Committee, and if noble Lords will look at sub-section (3) they will see it stated that an appeal under this section could not be entertained unless made before the 1st day of January, 1908. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that it could only be made on the first application.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he heard with satisfaction the undertaking given that the Government would reconsider the matter. On the Second Reading he stated his opinion that the facilities under Clause 4 would prove illusory, and the more they examined them the more he felt he was justified in making that statement. It was now proved that the concessions were not concessions at all, and that no reliance could be placed in the promises held out by Members of His Majesty's Government and accepted by the country. He asserted with confidence that the concessions in Clause 4 were made entirely for the Jews and the Roman Catholics, and were made, he thought, at the instigation of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. He therefore thought they were entitled to ask the noble Marquess not to leave the Committee in the dark as to the intention of the Government in regard to these facilities.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what fell from my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. My noble friend said that this question would be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, and so it shall be.

EARL CAWDOR

said it was not a question of what His Majesty's Government on reconsideration might do, but what their intention had been all along. The point was that the Government had held out all along the promise that the rights of the Clause 4 schools would be safe-guarded. From one end of the country to the other that had been declared, and only that night had they heard that the security was to last for five years only. It was the false issue put before the country and only cleared up now that he complained of.

On Question, Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved to omit the words— But nothing in this section shall be construed so as to apply the provisions of this Act allowing an appeal to the Board of Education in cases where a local education authority refuse to make an arrangement as respects the use of the school-house of an existing voluntary school. He explained that he moved this Amendment in order that the building of future schools should not be hampered. According to the view of His Majesty's Government, not only were existing schools to lose their security after five years, but future schools were to have no security at all. They were to be absolutely at the disposal of the local education authority, and the appeal which was originally limited to 1st January, 1908, for existing schools was not to arise at all in the case of future voluntary schools. These schools were to depend entirely on the local authority with no appeal from their decision. Inasmuch as the Committee had struck out sub-section (3) of the previous clause, it seemed to him to follow that they should strike out these words, which took away appeal from all future schools.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 27, to leave out from the word ' school ' to the end of the clause." —(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, this question of new schools is one which has no doubt excited a considerable amount of feeling, and it is obvious, I think, that noble Lords cannot be expected entirely, holding the views they do, to agree with the method in which we deal with them. It is no doubt perfectly true that we do not place any compulsion upon local authorities to take over these new schools. Of course, we do nothing whatever to prevent local authorities doing so, and we believe that, where there is a real demand, in very nearly all cases they will do so. They would be specially likely to do so in the particular cases in which the noble Viscount is interested, namely, those of the four-fifths schools, and I think it stands to reason that that must be so. Noble Lords will see that where a school is erected and obtaining a due proportion of children, if the local authority takes it over as a four-fifths school they escape the payment of rent, and, in other words, save the interest on the money which they would have to expend in building a school for themselves. That, of course, would not apply to schools coming under Clause 3.

Where, owing to the starting of large new works in a district, a great colony of labourers settles down, it is very likely that the Roman Catholic Church would desire to see a school there. If they built a school and the school was needed, and it was carried on, it appears to me there is every prospect, for the reason I have stated, that it would be taken over as a four-fifths school. But we do insist, and here we differ from the Amendments of the noble Lord and the right rev. Prelate, that the school must be a going concern before it is taken over. That would be a test in the first place of the absolute bona fides of the denomination, and would also show that the children were available for filling the school. We are not disposed to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities in this particular, or to place any compulsion upon them to take over new schools.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that the noble Viscount on the cross benches had moved to omit the words "but nothing" to the end of the clause, but had not indicated that he intended to move any words in their place. He presumed that the present Amendment was preliminary to the next two Amendments on the Paper, standing in the names respectively of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and the Bishop of Oxford.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I suggest that it would be advisable that the noble Lord and right rev. Prelate should make their observations on their Amendments at the present stage. They all refer to one subject.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

continuing, said the observation of the noble Earl that he could not agree to the proposal unless the school was what he called a going concern was a very plausible one. But nothing they were seeking to enact would make it necessary that public money should be expended unless the school turned out to be a fully efficient public elementary school and fully entitled to the grant. He therefore did not see that there was any great substance in the-noble Earl's objection. As to which form of words, those to be proposed by his noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh or those standing in the name of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, was the best that was another matter. Personally he was inclined to prefer the form of the Bishop of Oxford's Amendment. Both Amendments approximately sought to do the same thing and only differed in small details.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,

in accordance with the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council, then submitted his Amendment as follows— In page 6, line 27, to leave out from the word 'school' to the end of the clause and to insert: (2) The local education authority shall not refuse to take over and conduct as a public elementary school provided by them, any elementary school which the Board of Education may have certified as necessary on. the application of the owners of the school-house, and of the parents of not less than fifty children in an urban district, or of not less than thirty children in a rural district for whom the school is intended, and for whom no sufficient provision exists, having regard to the religious belief of the said parents. (3) The Board of Education shall determine as to the necessity of any proposed elementary school on the application of the persons proposing to provide the schoolhouse, and of the parents as aforesaid, and may provisionally certify any proposed school as necessary on-such conditions as they think fit to prescribe, and every such school shall be deemed to have been certified as necessary when, and as long as the prescribed conditions are complied with. (4) The Board of Education shall, before they certify or provisionally certify as necessary any school under this Motion give not less than three months notice to the local education authority concerned of their intention to determine the matter and shall hold a public local enquiry with reference thereto, if so desired by the local education authority, on the parents making application as aforesaid. (5) The children of parents, on whose application any school has been certified as necessary under this section, shall at all times have the prior right of admission to the school, and other scholars shall be admitted only so long as there are sufficient school places available for the children of such parents.''—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.) [The foregoing Amendment was substituted for that moved by Viscount Llandaff.]

He said it had been a matter of some wonder to him why the Bill contained no provision for future schools. After the discussion that evening it was quite clear that the intention of the Government was that existing schools should have a lease of life of five years, and then be left absolutely at the mercy of the local authority. That being so, it was natural that all new schools should be similarly left. But that was by no means what noble Lords on his side of the House would regard as meeting the justice of the case. They held that the local authority should not refuse to take over any elementary school which the Board of Education might have certified as necessary on the application of the owners of the schoolhouse, and of the parents of not loss than fifty children in an urban district, or of not less than thirty children in a rural district. He emphasized the need of distinction of this kind, for in rural districts schools were of necessity very much smaller. There were many schools at present maintained by local authorities which did not number more than thirty children. The words in his Amendment— And for whom no sufficient provision exists, having regard to the religious belief of the said parents, were taken from the Scottish Act. Upon the existence of a provision such as he asked for depended whether or not the school would be built. To put such a burden as that proposed in the clause upon the owners was perfectly unreasonable. He hoped the justice of his Amendment would secure its adoption by their Lordships.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD

said he had on the Paper an Amendment which aimed at the same object as the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, though his proposal took the form of a separate clause. The aim of both Amendments was to provide some procedure by which those who were anxious to provide fourth-clause, or extended facilities, schools should be able to make that provision on a sufficient assurance that the school would be taken over by the local authority. In other words,! those who wished to provide such a school should not be put to the extravagant and unreasonable trouble of making the school a going concern before they knew whether or not the one object they had in view in supplying the school was to be secured. One of the great harms done by the Bill was that it tended to discourage public spirit and public generosity in the matter of primary education. The way in which it dealt with schools provided for a particular purpose by generous patrons was not an encouragement to similar benefactions in the future. He did not despair of schools being provided in the future, notwithstanding the hard fate which was befalling those provided in the past. On his way to these debates he had stopped to open a voluntary school just built at a cost of £4,000, and during the course of the debates in their Lordships' House they had decided at Oxford to incur an expense of over £2,000 on a training college. That was the kind of spirit which he believed, in spite of all the discouragement which had been inflicted upon them, would continue in the future, for in England generosity aim public spirit were of hardy growth. He had heard it said that people would rebuild their houses on the slopes of a volcano very soon after an eruption had taken place, and he hoped that, in the same way, they might go on doing their best for voluntary schools even after the sweeping treatment of them which had been threatened in the Bill proposed by His Majesty's Government. He preferred his own clause to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, because its purpose was set out more simply and clearly, and because it disengaged itself from Clause 6 as it stood. He believed that if the Amendment were carried the provision of voluntary schools would not be arrested by the Bill.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

said he most earnestly desired to see as many efficient schools as possible established, provided only they were really required and would not prove an unnecessary burden on the ratepayers. But as he understood the object of the Amendment, it was not so much to facilitate the establishment of really good schools which were required, as to override the powers of the local education authority in this matter. He thought it was most unwise policy to go on piling up Amendments the underlying motive of which was mistrust of the local authorities. Surely the primary duty of the local education authority was to see to the efficiency of education within its area and to take care that the administration was as economical as possible consistent with efficiency. These Amendments restricted the power of the local authority and tended to make the whole system of education far more expensive to the public. He ventured to think they ought to keep this in view, and remember that the local authority was the proper body to determine whether or not in the interests of the public and of the children in its area a new school was required. Subject to that paramount consideration he was always in favour of the establishment of a new and efficient school. He felt, how-over, that it was of the greatest possible importance that they should cease pursuing a policy of mistrust of the local authorities. He believed that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there was no reason for that mistrust.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said the question of new schools was one of the most important that they could have before them. They could not conceal from themselves the fact that the population was growing in every part of the country. He thought the various denominations should be encouraged to build and properly equip their own schools, and then hand them over to the

proper authorities. Surely it was common sense that they should be enabled first to make arrangements with the local authority and then build their schools.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH, in supporting the Amendment, denied that they were mistrusting the local authority, if by that was meant the authority on the spot where the school would be built. What they mistrusted was the centralised power in the county, which was often negligent of the interests of small localities.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said it seemed to him that their Lordships were utterly disregarding the question of privilege. Here again they were distinctly proposing to put a charge on the rates by compelling the local authority to accept schools which were needed not for the general requirements of the district but only to meet the desires of a denominational group. It would be the duty of the Speaker of the House of Commons to call attention to this Amendment as imposing a charge upon the rates.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

intimated that he would withdraw the sub-section he proposed to insert in favour of the new clause standing in the name of the Bishop of Oxford.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 6."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, whether the clause stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 120.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Courtney of Penwith, L.	Monkswell, L.
	Davey, L.	Nunburnholme. L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Denman, L. [Teller.]	O'Hagan, L
Northampton, M.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kin-	Overtoun, L.
	cardine.)	Pirrie, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Fitzmaurice, L.	Rendel, L.
Craven, E.	Glanawe, L.	Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
	Grimthorpe, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
	Haversham, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Brassey, L.	Headley, L. S.	Tweedmouth, L.
Burghclere, L.	Hemphill, L.	Wandsworth, L.
Colebrooke, L.	Lyveden, L.	Weardale, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Plymouth, E.	Belper, L.
	Powis, E.	Blythswood, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Radnor, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Grafton, D.	Saint Germans, E.	Braye, L.
Leeds, D.	Shrewsbury, E.	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Marlborough, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Newcastle, D.	Verulam, E.	Clonbrock, L.
Northumberland, D.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Colchester, L.
Wellington, D.	Westmeath, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
		De Freyne, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Bridport, V.	De Mauley, L.
Bath, M.	Churchill, V. [Teller]	De Ros, L.
Bute, M.	Cross, V.	Digby, L.
Camden, M.	Falkland, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Hertford, M.	Falmouth, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Halifax, V.	Emly, L.
Salisbury, M.	Hill, V.	Estcourt, L.
Winchester, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-	Faber, L.
	more.)	Forester, L.
Abingdon, E.	Iveagh, V.	Herries, L.
Albemarle, E.	Llandaff, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Ashburnham, E.		Kenyon, L.
Bradford, E.	Bangor, L. Bp.	Knaresborough, L.
Camperdown, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Cathcart, E.	Birmingham, L. Bp.	Leith of Fyvie, L.
Cawdor, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Manners, L.
Clarendon, E.	London, L. Bp.	Masham, L.
Dartrey, E.	Norwich, L. Bp.	Mowbray, L
De La Warr, E.	Oxford, L. Bp.	Ormathwaite, L.
Denbigh, E.	St. Albans, L. Bp.	Rathmore, L.
Devon, E.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Ravensworth, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch	St. David's, L. Bp.	Seaton, L.
and Queensberry.)	Southwark, L. Bp.	Shute, L. (F. Barrington.)
Feversham, E.	Wakefield, L. Bp.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Gainsborough, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)		Stewart of Garlies, L.
Guildford, E.	Abinger, L.	(E. Galloway.)
Londesborough, E.	Ampthill, L.	Teynham, L.
Morton, E.	Ardilaun, L.	Waleran, L.
Mount Edgcumbe E.	Ashbourne, L.	Wenlock, L.
Nelson, E.	Atkinson, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Northesk, E.	Barrymore, L.	Wolverton, L.
Onslow, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD

then moved, Clause 6 having been deleted, the insertion of the new clause standing in his name.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause:—(1) If any persons consider that a new public elementary school with facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, is required in any district, they may give public notice of their intention to provide a school house for the proposed school. (2) When such notice has been given the Hoard of Education shall determine whether the proposed school is required, and in so doing, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of their children, and shall take into consideration any appeal made to them against the proposal by the local education authority, or any ten ratepayers in the district in which the school is claimed to be required, and shall hold a public inquiry under Section 73 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, with reference to the proposal if requested to do so by the appellants. (3) If the Board of Education determine that the proposed school is required, an arrangement under Section 2 of this Act shall be made in respect of the school house as soon as it is ready for occupation as though it were the school house of an exisiting voluntary school, and the provisions of this Act with respect to facilities (including extended facilities) shall apply to the school."—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)

Clause 7:—

*LORD AMPTHILL, in moving the omission of Clause 7, said that, as their Lordships had altered Clause 1 by inserting a provision to the effect that religious instruction was to form an essential and integral part of public elementary education, it was an inevitable and logical consequence that attendance during the hours of that religious instruction should be as compulsory as in the hours of secular instruction. He had given notice of his Motion for the omission of the clause in pursuance of a general scheme of Amendments which had not found acceptance with the Committee, and that was the reason he had not proposed any other clause in substitution. It was true that he voted against the Amendment of Clause 1; he did so, however, not because he in any way disapproved of the provision—on the contrary, it had his most cordial and hearty support—but because he considered it inappropriate in a clause which dealt with public control in the matter of finance. The omission of Clause 7 was inevitable in view of the alteration which had been made in the Bill. For his own part, he could see no reason whatever why attendance during the hours of religious instruction should not be compulsory, so long as the child was not compelled to listen to any instruction at variance with the persuasion or religious belief of its parents. The reasons which justified the State in undertaking the secular instruction of the young and compelling their attendance at school, so that the children might be brought up as good citizens, held good so far as religious, education generally was concerned, the only condition being that the religious instruction should be in accordance with the faith and creed of the parents. He therefore begged to move, leaving it to other noble Lords to propose safeguards for the conscience of parents, which he admitted to be necessary, and which he would himself have suggested has his Amendments proceeded on different lines.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 7." [Lord Ampthill.)

*LORD REAY

hoped the Government would not insist on retaining Clause 7. In another place there was a smaller majority for this clause than for any other, and several members of the Government voted against it. It would be within the recollection of noble Lords that the Board of Education under the late Government introduced a by-law very much to the same effect as this clause, though that by-law was merely permissive, the local authorities having the right to enforce it or not as they pleased. On the 31st July, 1903, † feeling bound to object to it, he addressed a Question to the noble Marquess, who was then at the head of the Board of Education, asking what had been the reasons for its introduction. The objections which made it imperative for him to oppose that by-law compelled him on the present occasion to declare himself against this proposed legislative enactment. The clause involved the reversal of the principle of the Act of 1870, which placed religious instruction in the regular programme of the school and made it an integral part of the time-table. Children could be withdrawn under the conscience clause from this instruction, but not from the school, and he might say incidentally that in London the withdrawals from religious instruction in the council schools were almost nil. He felt confident that the great majority of the teachers—who were seldom mentioned in these debates, although they were a very important factor—would object to any measure which discouraged parents from sending their children to school at the time the school began. Educationally, for the discipline of the school, it was most objectionable to create a situation in which there would be one set of children attending at nine o'clock, and another dropping in between nine and nine forty-five. Facilities should be granted to parents who wished to withdraw their children from religious instruction, but no encouragement ought to be given to them to keep the children away from school, not on account of religious scruples, but in order to earn something or otherwise make them late for school. Punctual attendance was an essential element in the good government of a school; it could not be too strongly insisted upon. By this clause the commencement of the school was virtually made to coincide with the commencement of secular instruction, whereas the religious instruction given at the beginning of the school meeting imparted to the school its tone. The clause would entirely alter the character of the school as contemplated by the Act of 1870. In that year, when an Amendment similar to this clause was proposed, it was objected to by Mr. Forster † See (4) Debates, exxvi., 1054. and rejected by the House of Commons. The present Bill would be much more popular in the country if this clause were omitted. The object of the Bill was to provide a national system of education. A national system without religious instruction on the basis of a common Christianity was, he believed, not possible in this country. For these reasons he hoped the Lord President of the Council would, as was done in another place, give full liberty to the supporters of the Government to vote on this clause in accordance with their convictions.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS

desired to endorse the appeal made by the noble Lord whose experience as Chairman of the London School Board gave his utterance on those matters great weight. He could confirm what had boon said by what happened under the school Board at Portsmouth while he was vicar of Portsea. The inspector of schools, finding that a great number of the children of the board schools were attending at different times up to 9.50, when the registers were marked, being kept back by their parents for no reason whatever except to run errands and for similar purposes, advised the school board to make a by-law or regulation requiring the registers to be marked at 9.15 instead of 9.50. Immediately, a very large number of children came in regularly at 9.15 and hardly any were withdrawn from the religious instruction. He was bound to say that that religious instruction was frequently very good, given by excellent teachers, and no conscientious objection was taken to it by the parents. That was, he thought, a testimony in favour of the appeal of the noble Lord, showing that, wholly irrespective of extended facilities or facilities for denominational instruction, it was absolutely inexpedient, on broad grounds, for the registers to be marked after the religious instruction had been given. And what kind of parents was it who were likely to withdraw their children from religious instruction by sending them late to school? It was just those parents whose children most needed that instruction. The careful parent would send his child at the proper time, but the children of careless or apathetic parents, or of parents with great bodily and physical needs who desired to make a little money advantage out of their labour, would be deprived of the religious in" struction of whatever kind it might be They had to think of those children) of the children of the careless as well as of those of the careful, and decide on broad lines what were the best regulations for ensuring some sort of good religious and moral teaching for the children of all classes. He could not imagine anything more likely to bring religious instruction into disrepute than the system embodied in Clause 7. Its supporters denied that there was any idea of giving a badge of inferiority. He accepted the intention, but it could not be taken as an intelligible argument to the man in the street. If there were two kinds of education, one of which the child must attend while the other he need not, there must attach to the latter a badge of inferiority; it was absolutely inevitable and could not be explained away. If it was said to be difficult to give religious instruction, and at the same time secular instruction to those children who were withdrawn, he would say solvitur ambulando; it was done in many schools at the present time, and no educationist of real experience would say it was a difficult task. For these reasons he hoped their Lordships would be able to induce the Government to withdraw the clause, or, failing in that, would vote against it.

HAUL RUSSELL

said the speech of the right rev. Prelate convinced him that the removal of this clause from the Bill was intended to be a surreptitious made of making religious instruction compulsory. The right rev. Prelate wanted to have no distinction between the two kinds of instruction, that which the children must attend and that which they need not. But there was an essential difference between the two; one was secular, which the State considered it had a right to impose upon its subjects, while the other was religious, which for some time they had considered, or at any rate said, they had no right to impose on the subjects of the State. The right rev. Prelate feared there would be a badge of inferiority placed on one kind of instruction as compared with the other if the children were not compelled to attend when religious instruction was given. He did not know that that was so, but if it was true, would not the same badge of inferiority be applied if a child went to school and, when the majority of children were receiving religious instruction, was withdrawn and given separate instruction in a separate classroom by a separate teacher? If such a child were compelled to attend school it was perfectly certain that he would be pointed at by the rest of the school, and called an atheist, an infidel, an unbeliever, or any other name of the sort which suggested itself to his companions. The right rev. Prelate had stated that when the new by-law was introduced at Portsmouth very few children were withdrawn from religious instruction. He (Earl Russell) did not wonder at it; it was precisely the result that he would have anticipated. It put upon these children and their parents a strain they did not like to undertake. Persecution in religious matters was only a matter of degree. It was now a long time since one set of people thought they had a right to send to the stake, to imprison, or to maltreat in any definite way those whose religious opinions did not agree with their own and those of the majority. But it was only a question of degree, and not a question of kind. If a child or a parent was exposed to animadversion or contempt in any way because the child was withdrawn from religious instruction, that was pro tanto an instance of religious persecution. The clause as it stood declared that— The parent of a child attending a public elementary school shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the school house, except during the times allotted in the time table exclusively to secular instruction. What right had the State to insist upon the child's attending anything but the secular instruction? Supposing there was in a school one Roman Catholic or Jewish or Unitarian child, or a child of secular parents—or even two or three such children—how was it possible for them to be withdrawn from the ordinary life of the school without their being pointed at and their position made very unpleasant? Under the clause as it-stood such children need not present themselves at the school-house while the instruction was being given, and they would not be there to be pointed at. But if the clause were withdrawn and attendance insisted on, it would be as though their Lordships said, "We think it right that everybody should attend church, but we recognise that there are some people whose consciences do not allow them to attend; we will therefore insist that during church hours they shall stand at the church door." The cases were exactly parallel. The right rev. Prelate—and, from his point of view, with perfect truth—had said that it was their duty to do what they thought best for these children. That was precisely the principle by which religious pressure and religious persecution had been justified in all ages. It had always been the intention of those who attempted to force their views on religious subjects upon other people to do what was best for those other people, but we had long since come to the conclusion that in these matters people had a right to do what they thought best for themselves. He hoped the Government would retain the clause, for without it there was no religious liberty for children or parents.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

said they all felt that children did not care to be made conspicuous, but what would be the position of the unhappy children who, if this clause were retained, would be compelled to attend school at an earlier hour than others for the purpose of undergoing religious instruction? If it was such an awkward thing to go against the popular current in the one case, why was it not equally awkward in the other, when the child's companions would be running errands or indulging themselves in play? If the noble Earl worked it out he would see that his argument cut both ways. As bishops of the Church of England it was their duty in a very special sense to look after the interests, not only of their own children, but of the children of England as a whole. If such a clause as this became law, they would be doing their best to leave a large proportion of the children of England to grow up something not far removed from little heathens. He fully agreed with Lord Reay as to the importance of all the children attending school at the same hour. In the opinion of all experienced people, not the least important part of the influence of the elementary school system was that it silently and surely impressed upon the children habits of regularity and punctuality, but this clause would undermine that influence to a perilous and mischievous degree. He agreed with Lord Reay also as to the importance of the school's beginning with the recognition of our duty towards God as the very basis of our whole educational system. He was one of those who honestly believed in the value of our common Christianity. It was easy to say sharp and smart things to the detriment of that common Christianity, but its value could not be gauged by what was heard on controversial platforms. Attaching, as he did, supreme importance to that common Christianity, he hoped, before this Bill passed or met any other fate, the Government would remove two causes which worked to its detriment. The common Christianity taught under the name of Cowper-Templeism was too vague, and many Churchmen would have their anxieties allayed if they were assured that it was possible for managers of transferred schools to stipulate for a careful syllabus as part of the arrangement for the transfer, as suggested by the Lord President of the Council on a previous occasion, or for it to be regulated more definitely by the standard of the Apostles' Creed. He urged the vital importance of doing all that could possibly be done to represent the common Christianity to the people of the country in its most favourable and trustworthy shape. Then, believing most earnestly in our common Christianity and the amount of unity there substantially was between Christians, recognising with gratitude that, although what should be the one body, was terribly rent and torn, the one spirit was in many ways continually triumphing over the rents in the one body, he urged the Government not to discredit that common Christianity by presenting it to Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and a considerable section of the country at large, as an inequitably favoured form of religion. He could not approach a question of this sort as a mere denominationalist. He accepted denominationalism as a definite way of working under present conditions and for certain ends, but he could never speak on the subject as a mere denominationalist. If the Church of England approached the question merely regarding her own children and her own schools she would be stamped with the stamp of a mere sect. The difference between the sect spirit and the Church or Catholic spirit was to his mind represented by St. Paul's words— Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. He would say in this connection, "Look not every true Church on her own things and her own people, but every true Church also on the things of others, on the children of the State, and of the country as a whole." He appealed to the Government to look at the matter from the point of view he had put forward. Those who clung to undenominational religious instruction most earnestly hoped that the Government would relieve that particular form of teaching from the odium which must rest upon it if it appeared before the country in the invidious light of an unjustly favoured and endowed child of the State, other views, representing earnest convictions, being treated inequitably in order that the supremacy of that particular type of Christian teaching might be maintained.

*LORD HENEAGE

desired to recall the attention of the Committee to the question immediately before it, namely, whether or not children should be obliged to attend school during the hours of religious instruction. If children were withdrawn there was a danger lest; they should be led to believe that the religious instruction was of secondary importance, a result much to be deprecated. But there were other strong reasons why children should be compelled to attend. If the option were allowed he did not believe they would attend. A mother would be inclined to keep a daughter at home to look after the younger children and help with the housework, while boys would play games on the way and probably prevent other boys from attending. The whole discipline of the school would be upset, and it would be impossible for even the very best teachers to restore that discipline during the remaining hours of the school day. It was absolutely necessary for the discipline of the school and for the sake of the children themselves that attendance should be compulsory at the beginning of the school, and that the register should be marked within the first quarter of an hour. He was aware that he was walking on somewhat delicate ground there, because under the late Government the registers were allowed to be marked at a later hour. He believed, however, that that was an exceedingly bad innovation, and that none would be more grateful than the teachers themselves if they went back to the old system of marking the registers immediately on the opening of school. However, under the clause it would be allowable for the children to attend at any time before the secular instruction commenced. In winter those children could not be kept outside in the rain or snow until the religious instruction was over, and it would be utterly impossible for any teaching to go on if children were dribbling in as they chose during the first half-hour. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see the necessity, not only in the interests of the children themselves, but in the interests of the teachers and of the discipline of the school, to allow the clause to be omitted.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

thought that, in view of the speeches of Lord Reay and Earl Russell, to neither of whom had the Government replied, the cry of the Leader of the House and of the Lord President of the Council must be "Save us from our friends." For the Anson by-law, to which reference had been made, he was prepared to take full responsibility. Considerable difficulty had arisen in regard to the education of children during the period set apart for religious instruction, and after careful consideration the Board of Education decided that it should be possible for local education authorities, at the request in writing of the parent, to allow the child to be withdrawn from the school during the giving of religious instruction, provided they were assured that religious instruction would be given to the child in another part of the district. He therefore repudiated the suggestion that under that by-law children were withdrawn and given no religious instruction whatever. As a matter of fact, in the case of 232 local authorities every child was required to attend the schoolhouse during the time of religious instruction, being allowed, under the Conscience Clause, if desired, to receive instruction in other subjects during that time; while in ninety-four cases the Anson by-law was put into operation, the authorities being assured that if children were withdrawn by their parents, they would be receiving religious instruction elsewhere.

In the course of these debates he had been determined not to speak on any Amendment unless convinced, not only that the Amendment was one he was justified in asking their Lordships to accept, but one which, if carried, would receive the support of the people of the country as a whole. Several Amendments had been passed, some important, many very important, but he believed there was none of greater importance than the one now under discussion. It simply proposed that attendance should be compulsory during the time of religious instruction. He could not imagine any proposal which would appeal more to the people of the country. In Clause 1 a provision had been inserted by which religious instruction of some sort or kind was to be given in all schools. He had read with considerable amusement the quotations from his speech in which he declared that there ought to be given to the children religious education of some sort, he did not care what. He did not withdraw that statement in the least. He was no bigot. He was a staunch supporter of denominational schools, and his friends in the north of England, if they were present, would admit that he had given practical demonstration of that in the district in which he lived. Personally he would like to see denominational education in every school throughout the country. But that was not possible, and if they could not have denominational education he desired that they should have religious education of some sort or kind. While he preferred denominational instruction to Cowper- Temple instruction, if he could not have the former he was in favour of having the latter, but let it be in compulsory school attendance hours. The supporters of denominational education were no bigots or narrow-minded partisans; they did not lay down one class of religion to be taught in all schools; all they contended for was that every child should have an opportunity, if its parents desired it, of having some religious teaching compulsorily given, and he believed that that was the feeling of the vast majority of the people of the country. To put religious instruction out of school hours would be to put it on the same level as extra lessons in music or dancing.

He did not think the Government could say much in defence of the clause. In the House of Commons this "leave it to you" Government adopted the "go as you please" principle in regard to it, and in a House of 550 the clause obtained a majority of only sixteen. He was glad that that division was taken, because the division lists showed in black and white who were in favour of allowing the children to be brought up, as far as the schools were concerned, as atheists, and those who desired them to be taught under a system of religious education. The arguments in favour of the omission of the clause were overwhelming. He could not see what good it could do a child not to be brought up in the fear of God. If it went to the country that the Government were in favour of such a proposition the people would admit at once that it was absolutely injurious not only to the child but to all classes of the community. To allow religion to cease to be a fundamental part of education would eventually mean the ruin of the system as a whole. He could not conceive how it was possible to argue that if compulsory attendance was good for secular education it was not equally good for religious education. Such a distinction must inevitably discredit religious instruction in the eyes of the people of the country. It meant that while a child was bound to be taught the multiplication table, it need not be taught the Lord's Prayer. Rounders, cricket, and even rifle-shooting, might now be engaged in dining the hours of compulsory attendance, and he was glad to see it, but was it right that such subjects should be placed in a position superior to that of the Lord's Prayer? Much as the people of the country approved of physical exercises they did not wish them to be superior to religious education, and if their opinion were asked to-morrow he believed they would agree that the omission of this clause was absolutely necessary.

THE EARL OF CKEWE

I had hoped that when we approached the consideration of this interesting clause I should for a time have some relief from purely Party controversy. This clause, as your Lordships know, was left an open question in the other House, because there were and are large and legitimate differences of opinion in regard to it. Those differences affected the Cabinet itself; they even invaded the circle of families, there being one case in which father and son, though on the same side of politics, voted in different lobbies on this question. Consequently I hoped that I might escape on this occasion the Party cut and thrust with which we have been so familiar, and which—though I have been treated with great consideration—after a series of nights may pall upon any man. But I am entirely undeceived by the speech of the noble Marquess who has just spoken. He has made a speech of a thoroughly partisan character. I would put this to the noble Marquess. Is it, from his point of view, altogether prudent to advertise, in the way he has been doing during the last few weeks, that his Party stands in need of capital? I do not at all dispute the fact, but I am doubtful whether from his own point of view it is advisable to advertise it so freely. We have had more examples than one of what I mean. The other day it was a question of the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland. The noble Marquess announced his intention of going down to the country and denouncing us as being utterly indifferent to the cause of temperance. We look forward whenever licensing comes before this House to addressing the noble Marquess as "the noble Lord with the blue ribbon"—not in the sense in which the term used to be applied to Lord North by the House of Commons, or might be applied to the noble Marquess himself, but in allusion to that humbler declaration which indicates the devotion of its wearer to the cause of total abstinence. On Clause 1 of this Bill the noble Marquess announced his intention of taking another tour, this time to convict us of utter indifference to the cause of religion. Now he comes forward and says he is anxious to know whether it is really true that His Majesty's Government are in favour of children being brought up as atheists. If I might offer a little friendly advice to the noble Marquess, I would suggest that, when he takes these excursions into the country and into the realms of imagination, as a pure matter of stage management his efforts ought to bear a little more air of spontaneity.

I come now to the clause, and I think I can show your Lordships that the noble Marquess has not been quite accurate in his description of one or two incidents in its previous history. It is important to remember that in this matter, in the famous phrase of Sir Robert Peel, there are three courses open for you to take. You may pass the clause as it stands, allowing all parents to keep their children away during the time of religious instruction; or you may do what is done at present, allow a system of local option; or you may adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord and insist on all children even-where attending at the schoolhouse. Since the Act of 1870, the position has been this. Clause 74 of the Act of 1870 said that every school board might make by-laws (1) requiring parents of all children of such age not less than five or more than thirteen to attend school, (2) determining the time during which children were so to attend school, provided that no such by-law should prevent the withdrawal of any child from any religious observance or instruction in religious objects; and the by-law which was practically universally adopted up to the year 1903 stated that the time during which any child should attend the school should be the whole time for which the school selected was open for the instruction of children of similar age. Therefore your Lordships will see that nominally, at any rate, attendance at the schoolhouse was compulsory during the time when religious teaching was being given. But as a matter of fact it is well known to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Marquess opposite, that scarcely any, if any, prosecutions of parents for not sending their children to school during the time of religious instruction were ever instituted. I do not think anybody has been able to produce an instance where a parent was prosecuted for not sending his child to school during that time. In the year 1903 was issued what the noble Marquess has alluded to as the Anson by-law. The Anson by-law runs as follows— The time during which every child shall attend school shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for the instruction of children of similar age, provided that where a parent has notified to the managers in writing his intention to withdraw his child from instruction in religious subjects such time shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for secular instruction only. There can be no question that the intention in the minds of the noble Marquess and Sir William Anson was that children should be withdrawn during the religious hour in order to obtain religious instruction elsewhere. The fact that a certain number of parents desired their children to attend services in Church instead of attending at the school was, unless I am mistaken, the origin of that by-law. But I think the noble Marquess rather overstated the case when he said it ensured that children were attending religious instruction elsewhere. All that need be done, and I am not sure that even that is done in some cases, is for the parent to write one letter to the managers saying that he wishes his child to be withdrawn from instruction in religious subjects. Although it is understood to be with a view to obtaining religious instruction elsewhere, no system of inspection is employed to see that the child does attend anywhere else, and there is no compulsion on him so to attend.

THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY

The question was left to the local education authorities to allow children to be withdrawn at the request of parents, they being assured that the children would receive religious instruction elsewhere. They had to satisfy themselves.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Even though the managers thought it necessary at any given moment to ask a parent whether he wished to withdraw his child in order that he might receive instruction elsewhere, there is no system by which it could be shown that the child really does attend and receive instruction. As a matter of fact, I have not the least doubt that a considerable number of children withdrawn under this by-law do not attend elsewhere. It is important to remember what by-laws are. They are not hints or orders issued from the Board of Education. They are simply issued to put in a convenient form what are understood to be the wishes of various local authorities, and there can be no question that if the Board of Education chose to agree and approve the action of a local authority there would be nothing to prevent a local authority submitting a by-law couched in the terms of Clause 7 which your Lordships are now engaged in debating.

The effect of this Amendment, unless you do something more, is simply to maintain the status quo with the Anson by-law in full swing. If that by-law is maintained and the option given to local authorities you will be imparting very different values in different districts to the facilities provided under the Bill. If one local authority make attendance compulsory, the facilities are obviously worth a great deal more in that district than in another district where the children are not compelled to attend at the schoolhouse. That is one difficulty which appears to me to be inherent in leaving matters as they are. As your Lordships are aware, a considerable amount of discussion has raged round the point whether or not these facilities ought to be given in school hours. You can either put them into the hours of compulsory attendance, or leave it as we have done in the Bill, but if you leave it a doubtful matter I am afraid you will place yourselves in a position of some difficulty. Under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, attendance during religious instruction does not count towards the Government grant. It would, of course, be a marked change if that provision were altered.

Several speeches of great interest have been delivered in the course of the debate, suggesting that the Government have the intention of inflicting something like a badge of inferiority upon religious teaching. We cannot remain silent under such a charge as that. It is not a question of a badge of inferiority; it is a question of the broad idea of liberty as applied to these matters. Earl Russell made a speech, very eloquent, as all his speeches are, but of a character not exceedingly popular in this House, in which there was one observation in regard to the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans for which in my judgment he had a certain amount of warrant; it was this. The right rev. Prelate—-and I have no doubt others sitting near him—do to a certain extent change their ground in speaking of this matter. We have all through heard much said, and very forcibly, about the rights of the parents to have their children taught what they please. But if you are going to press these parental rights, you are not in a position to say when you come to religious teaching, that where a parent is indifferent it is the duty of a certain number of good men to take the whole matter out of his hands, and teach his children for him. You cannot have it both ways. To that extent, although I am not by any means in entire agreement with the noble Earl on this question, I confess there seems to be much force in what he says.

Doubtful as I confess I am about this clause—because I do not pretend to have a strong opinion on it either way—there is one matter which does bias me in its favour, and that is its effect in making the conscience clause really operative. We have had a conscience clause for many years, but nobody can say that it has been very effective. It has been used extraordinarily seldom, partly because parents are in many cases curiously indifferent as to the particular kind of religious instruction which their children receive. I wish they were less indifferent. I am not what is called a strong denominationalist, but I confess I welcome a direct interest taken by parents in these matters, and it is I think singular to find with what curious apathy parents often regard the special character of the religious instruction given in the schools which their children attend. But there is another reason for the small use which has been made of the conscience clause— a reason which has often been impressed upon your Lordships, and forcibly stated elsewhere. There is no doubt that it is difficult for children to avail themselves of the conscience clause under present circumstances. You ask children to place themselves in an impossible position by standing out in favour of unpopular views among others of their own age and class. None of us who remember our own school days can forget how very difficult it was in any matter to battle against the stream of public opinion in the school. Consequently I have not the least doubt that there are many children whose parents, if they felt that they had a free choice in the matter, would desire them to be withdrawn from the special religious instruction, but who are allowed to attend it in order that they may be saved the chagrin and pain of having to declare themselves different from their fellows. These things do happen. There is the oft-quoted story— I do not vouch for its truth—of the foolish clergyman who, when children were being withdrawn, said, "Let the little heathens go into another room." I do not pay much attention to stories of that kind; I should be very glad to place that clergyman, so far as illustration is concerned, on the retired list, accompanied, however, by the atheistic teacher who flourishes his unbelief in the faces of the children. I dare say they both exist, but they are certainly neither of them types. But these things do happen, and I believe that this liberty to stay away would afford something like a real protection for children who are unable to protect themselves.

I may mention that from a point of view which is not exactly mine, I should have thought there might be a good many noble Lords and some right rev. Prelates in favour of the clause as it stands. We have been told that we are forcing a State religion on the schools and upon the children in the shape of teaching subject to the Cowper-Temple clause. I should have thought the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Halifax) and others would have felt some satisfaction in the fact that under this clause no child need go and receive Cowper-Temple teaching. Whether those who agree with the noble Viscount are impressed by that argument I cannot say, but probably we shall hear. We had an eloquent speech from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Chester, at whose intervention in the debate I was delighted, the more so in that I live under his pastoral charge; but he takes another view. He does not object to Cowper-Temple teaching; he is very glad that children should be obliged to be in the school while it is carried on; but there must be others, judging from what we have heard, who look upon that teaching as actively mischievous—not merely in- sufficient, but actually wrong. I cannot understand why they do not support this system by which the children can stay away from the school and attend church. I should have thought there were a considerable number of cases in which it would be desired that children should obtain special religious teaching in the church. I should have thought that might happen in the case of small numbers of Roman Catholics, for instance, because although we know how many Roman Catholic schools there are, and how they have been erected by the munificence of the rich and the noble self-denial of the poor, there must be some Roman Catholic children who are not within reach of a Catholic school, and I should have thought it would have been a distinct advantage for them to be withdrawn during the hour of religious instruction so that they might obtain elsewhere instruction according to the principles of their own religion. The possibility of avoiding the pernicious teaching called by the name of the late Lord Mount Temple can only be secured by some measure which makes it possible for children to stay away from school during religious instruction, because so far as the adoption of the Anson by-law is concerned, you are at the mercy of the local authority.

On the other hand, there is an argument which weighs very strongly with me, and very nearly counterbalances the arguments on the other side, and that is the argument of child labour. It is no doubt a very grave matter if you are forced to admit that children may run wild in the streets, or be put to tasks, either through the greed of selfish parents or in order to earn a few pence for themselves, at the hour when they might be attending school. That drives me very close to the line along which noble Lords opposite, and many on this side, are drawn up. But I do not think the proper way of preventing child labour is to put children into school to avoid it. If that evil exists it ought to be attacked directly at the source; the people who employ children ought to be severely punished, and extreme vigilance ought to be exercised in detecting particular cases. I do not like the idea of looking upon religious instruction merely as a sort of city of Zoar, as an escape from possible employment in the streets. Consequently I shall vote for the clause as it stands. I do not ask any noble Lord who differs from me on this side of the House, to whose regular support I am so much indebted, to follow me. This, we frankly and fully admit, is an open question; we are not the least ashamed of the fact; it was an open question in the other House, and we mean to leave it open in this.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

thought that, although there seemed to be an idea in some quarters that the bishops were taking an undue share in these debates, it would be admitted that the bishop of 3,500,000 of people was entitled to say a word on the question now before the Committee. The Lord President of the Council, whose fairness he desired to acknowledge, had made the best of a bad case, but it was very possible for noble Lords to underrate the extreme pressure of life in the slums. The difference that a shilling or even sixpence made in the weekly balance-sheet of some of these poor people was enormous; therefore, the opportunity afforded by the clause to make a few pence or farthings by the labour of their children was, even to well-meaning mothers, a great temptation. His second point was that the most injury would be done just to the children of the worst parents. Members of the Church were fighting in the slums to establish religion; by this clause their work would be undermined. The great majority of the people in the slums loved their children and did their best for them; by far the great majority desired that religious instruction should be given to their children; it was just the minority who would be favoured by the clause it was now sought to eliminate. The third point was the impression that would be made upon the child's mind. Even simple Bible teaching would contain the injunction "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness," but if the children were taught to regard religious instruction as a thing they might or might not attend as they pleased, the impression left on their minds would rather be, "Seek ye last the Kingdom of God," and the idea would be that religion was the one thing that did not much matter. Since Clause 1 had been amended it followed almost as a matter of course that this clause should be omitted. Having declared that some portion of every day was to be devoted to religious instruction, it was almost an inconsistency that Clause 7 should remain. A further point, and a most important one, was that the clause was driving people who did not want it into Cowper-Temple religion. Were they not in danger of forgetting that Roman Catholics or Churchmen could, under the conscience clause, withdraw their children from religious instrction? If they said that Cowper-Temple instruction was offensive to their consciences they could already take the children into the Church; this clause was not essential for that purpose. An Amendment had already been made to meet that case, because, at any rate to a certain extent, it was ensured that in the transferred schools every morning definite religious instruction might be given, so that those parish priests who might have felt a grievance before would not feel it now. It was true that no parent had been prosecuted for not sending his child to school during the time set apart for religious instruction, but it was one thing to have a by-law which the people knew nothing about and quite another thing to have stamped on the face of a Bill about which the whole country was talking that the children need not be sent. It would be known in every slum in London, where probably nobody ever heard of the Anson by-law. Then it was said that the conscience clause was ineffective. The only point in the noble Earl's speech which he thought rather unfair was the dragging in of the wretched clergymen and the little heathens. That kind of thing did not represent the parish priest in London.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I did not say it did.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

did not believe the conscience clause was anything like so ineffective as was sometimes made out. It was true that few availed themselves of it, but there was really no difficulty, and no stigma whatever attached to the child who might be withdrawn. The parents were being played both ways in this matter. The elimination of this clause was required on account of a small minority, not the majority, of parents. Some years ago, when something was said in their Lordships' House about the cruelty of the parents of East London to their children, the people of the East End felt the stigma, because they knew that the great majority of them were not cruel to their children. And so in this case, he believed, that in striking out this clause they would have the support of the great majority of the poor parents of London.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl opposite, speaking with that sincerity which always characterises his remarks, has told us that he feels considerable doubt as to this clause. Indeed he stated the case so judicially that up to the very last moment it was not easy to say upon which side of the fence he intended to come down. But we on this side of the House feel no doubt whatever on the matter. We are entirely opposed to the idea of putting anything like compulsion on the parents in respect of religious instruction. But this clause is not one which puts compulsion upon the parents; it is a clause which offers a distinct inducement to parents to withhold their children from this form of instruction. As the Bishop of London said truly, this is not a question of a departmental by-law; it is something writ large on the face of an Act of Parliament, and I think that whatever we write on the face of this Act of Parliament should be something very different from what is contained in Clause 7. So far as the children are concerned, this clause puts a premium upon unpunctuality and idleness. Further, it is calculated to do a great deal to undermine discipline in public elementary schools. Looking at it from the point of view of the parents, it seems to most of us that the clause offers a distinct inducement to selfish or greedy or perhaps miserably poor parents to withhold their children from school. Some of us may have no idea of the pressure to which these poor people are subject, or of the temptation it may be to them to keep their children away from school during the time of religious instruction in order that they may add a trifle to the scanty earnings of the family. Looking at it from the point of view of religious instruction, the clause puts that instruction in a position of distinct inferiority. As has been said, it suggests the idea that religious instruction may stand in a less honourable and less dignified position than instruction of other kinds. One word with regard to what fell from the noble Lord, Earl Russell. He dwelt eloquently upon the invidious position in which children might find themselves who attended the school during the time of religious instruction, but were given instruction of another kind. I would suggest to him that even if those children are withdrawn altogether from school during the time of religious instruction, they will still be treated differently from other children in the school, and if there is anything in the argument it will surely apply to the children who are exceptionally treated whether they stay at home or whether they go to school and are given secular instruction while the other children are receiving religious instruction. We have laid it down in the first clause that a portion of school hours in every school is to be set apart for religious instruction. It seems to me to follow logically upon that that during that time the children should be at school. If their parents desire that they should not receive religious instruction, the children can be withdrawn, or if it is desired that they should receive religious instruction elsewhere than at school, arrangements can be made with that object. Holding these views, I shall vote unhesitatingly against the clause, and I trust that in lieu of it there may be proposed to us the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, which seems to me to give effect adequately to the views which I have endeavoured to express.

On Question, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships

divided:—Contents. 31; Not-Contents, 143.

CONTENTS.
Crowe, K. (L. President.)	Castletown, L.	Hempthill, L.
	Colebrooke, L.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Northampton, M.	Coleridge, L.	Lyveden, L.
	Courtney of Penwith, L.	Pirrie, L.
	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and	Rendel, L.
Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]	Kincardine.)	Ribblesdale, L.
Carrington, E.	Eversley, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Craven, E.	Farrer, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]
Kimberley. E.	Fitzmaurice, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Russell, E.	Glantawe, L.	Wandsworth, L.
	Grimthorpe, L.	Weardale, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Headley, L.	Welby, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Shrewsbury, E.	Atkinson, L.
	Stamford, E.	Balfour, L.
Ripon. M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Vane, E. (V. Londonderry.)	Barnard, L.
	Verulam, E.	Barrymore, L.
	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Belhaven and Stenton, E.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Westmeath, E.	Belper, L.
Devonshire, L.		Blythswood, L.
Grafton, D.		Borthwick, L.
Leeds, D.	Bridport, V.	Brassey, L
Newcastle, D.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Brave, L.
Sutherland, D.	Colville, of Culross, V.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Wellington, D.	Cross, V.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
	Falkland, V.	Cheylesmore, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Falmouth, V.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Bath, M.	Goschen, V.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Halifax, V.
Camden, M.	Hill, V.	Clonbrock, L.
Hertford, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-	Colchester, L.
Lansdowne, M.	more.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.
Salisbury, M.	Iveagh, V.	De Freyne, L.
Winchester, M.	Llandaff, V.	De Mauley, L.
		Digby, L.
	St. Aldwyn, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Abingdon, E.		Ellenborough, L.
Albemarle, E.	Bangor, L. Bp.	Emly, L.
Ashburnham, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Estcourt, L.
Brownlow, E.	Birmingham, L. Bp.	Faber, L.
Cadogan, E.	Chester, L. Bp.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
Camperdown, E.	Chichester, L. Bp.	Forester, L.
Cathcart, E.	Hereford, L. Bp.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Cawdor, E.		Haversham, L.
	Lincoln, L. Bp.
Clarendon, E.	London, L. Bp.	Heneage, L.
Dartrey, E.	Norwich, L. Bp.	Hindlip, L.
Denbigh, E.	Oxford, L. Bp.	Hothfield, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch	Peterborough, L. Bp.	Howard of Glossop, L.
and Queensberry.)	Ripon, L. Bp.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Eldon, E.	St. Albans, L. Bp.	Kinnaird, L.
Feversham, E.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Knaresborough, L.
Gainsborough, E.	St. David's L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Graham E. (D. Montrose.)	Southwark, L. Bp.	Leigh, K.
Guilford, E.	Wakefield, L. Bp.	Leith of Fyvie, L.
Halsbury, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Manners, L.
Lathom, E.		Masham, L.
Londesborough, E.		Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Morton, E.	Abinger, L.	Mowbray, L.
Nelson, E.	Alington, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Onslow, E.	Alverstone, L.	Reay, L.
Plymouth, E.	Ampthill, L.	Robertson, L.
Powis, E.	Ardilaun, L.	Sanderson, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Ashbourne L.	Seaton, L.
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)	Stanmore, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)	Waleran, L.	Wolverton, L.
Stalbridge, L.	Wenlock, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L

House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.

House adjourned at Five Minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Mon- day next, a quarter-past Four o'clock.