HC Deb 23 April 1872 vol 210 cc1714-47

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the twenty-fifth Clause of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, said, he had no desire to assail that Act, his impression being that it was an excellent measure, conceived in an exceedingly good spirit, and calculated, with certain Amendments, to be a blessing to the country. It had, however, some defects, as was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in his speech at Greenwich; by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council; and, indeed, by the House itself, on the discussion of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). He did not intend to enter into a general discussion of the imperfections of the Act, but rather to confine himself to the 25th section, which he sought to have repealed. He believed that if the Bill were taken up by the Government it would not occupy the House of Commons more than a single night. Wherever that section had been brought into operation it produced acrimony and bitterness. It enacted to the effect that any school board, if they thought fit, might pay the school fees payable in any public elementary school by any child resident in their district whose parent, in their opinion, was unable to pay the same; but that no such payment should be made or refused on condition that the child should attend any public elementary school other than such as might be selected by the parent. The first objection to that section was that a local school board might or might not pay fees for any children educated within their district, and that there would be no uniformity throughout the country on that subject. The school board elected under the Act had no control whatever over the teaching which had been given in the elementary schools, their sole duty being to pay a proportion of the school fees of the children taught. This being so, it was but natural to ask how the clause got into the Bill. His own impression was that it was not intended by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) to form part of the Bill. Indeed, he said that he had never anticipated the action of this clause to be what it had proved to be. The objections to the clause remaining in the Bill were, to his thinking, overwhelmingly strong. The first objection was that it was opposed to the principle of the measure itself. The principle of the clause was, that the school boards might invoke the power and forces of the Civil Government to compel the ratepayers to pay for the maintenance and propagation of a religion in which they did not believe. That was a principle, which in his opinion nothing could justify. A further objection to the clause was that it was at variance with the general principle of the Act, inasmuch as in other portions of the Bill it was laid down that the State contributions for teaching should not be made in respect of any instruction in religious subjects, and that they should be granted for secular teaching only. In June, 1870, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government distinctly stated that the funds of the State should be applied to secular results only. Now he (Mr. Candlish) submitted that the 25th clause was in direct antagonism to the principle which he had then laid down. The 7th clause of the Act separated religious from secular education; and the 14th clause provided that no religious catechism or formulary which was distinctive of any particular denomination, should be taught in rated-aided schools. The 97th clause provided that no Parliamentary grant should be given in respect of any instruction in religious subjects. A further objection to the clause was a requisition set out before the House, to the effect that the parent should have the power to choose the religious instruction which his child should receive. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) must now be quite aware that he had no power to secure the condition which he desiderated. He knew that when there was but one school and two creeds, some of the parents could not have the religous instruction which they desired for their children. Another strong reason against the clause was the bitterness, the heartburning, and contention to which it gave rise throughout the country wherever it had been put into operation. He feared that those contentions and heart burnings would never be allayed so long as the clause was allowed to exist. In the borough of Sunderland, which he had the honour to represent, there had been much of the contention to which he referred. The school board issued a precept for £1,800 to be raised by an education rate, and of this sum £600 was to be used for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 25th clause of the Act. This proposal was resisted by the town council; an angry and acrimonious discussion followed. A public meeting was held, a memorial signed by 7,500—being an absolute majority of the ratepayers—was presented to the school board to forego the operation of the 25th clause. Great hostility and bitterness was the result. There was as present a temporary truce; but each party was lying in wait till November, when the question would influence the election in every municipal ward in the borough. And what had taken place in Sunderland was characteristic and typical of the troubles that had been excited in the great majority of the places in which the clause had come into operation. For these reasons, he asked leave to introduce this Bill. It had formed part of the Education Act inadvertently—at least, its ill consequences had never been anticipated. In Liverpool it had been said by a noble Lord of high position that the clause was essential to religious liberty, and that its opponents were hostile to religious teaching. It was, in his opinion, absolutely absurd to say that it was essential to religious liberty. ["Oh, oh!"] Did hon. Gentleman opposite mean to say that to compel a contribution for religious teaching against the will of the contributor was a measure in favour of religious liberty? If so, it was rather more than he could understand. To compel a parent to contribute to the education of another man's child in a religion of which he did not approve was a religious liberty which he, for one, would rather be without. To give an Englishman an opportunity of having his child taught religion according to his views was religious liberty; but it was completely opposed to that principle to force contributions from others who were opposed to such religious teaching. Was he to contribute for the purpose of teaching children a kind of Christianity opposed to his own? [An hon. MEMBER: It is a Government grant.] He was perfectly willing that grants should be made for secular purposes; but that did not touch the principle of religious liberty at all. It was clear to his mind that if they permitted this clause to continue to form part of the law, and insisted on a man contributing for religious teaching, they were depriving him of religious liberty. The question was not whether they should or not impart to the children a religious education, but who should impart it, and who should pay for it. Our Christianity was the common property of the nation, and the whole population of the realm would rejoice if religious teaching could be more copiously imparted to the children of the land; but would the Vice President of the Council of Education argue it was just to make a Jew pay for the religious teaching of a Christian? He would appeal to the experience of hon. Members, whether there was a single parent in this country who, if he wanted his child to receive religious teaching in his own tenets, could not obtain such instruction from the general Christianity and humanity of the country? He contended that this clause was not necessary to accomplish the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that, if the statements which had been made as to the acrimony and bitterness excited all over the country by this clause could be proved, the question was one that did not admit of delay, but one that must be dealt with immediately. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER intimated dissent.] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had said so—that if it could be shown that the clause was embroiling domestic circles and sowing the seeds of discord broad-cast, it ought to be dealt with at once. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] He submitted that he had proved that this was the case, and he therefore trusted that the House would not refuse him the opportunity of bringing in the Bill, inasmuch as the evils produced by the clause would be aggravated by further delay, and that the interval of another year could throw no fresh light either upon their character or the proper method of their cure.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the twenty-fifth Clause of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."—(Mr. Candlish.)


said, he should give a direct negative to the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill. The 25th clause was an integral part and parcel of the Education Act of 1870, and was indispensable to its proper working. The object of the vast majority of hon. Members and the public out-of-doors in approving of that Act was, that it should supplement existing educational deficiencies, and that it should not establish fresh schools where adequate ones were already in operation. It was perfectly understood that it would place on a footing of absolute equality the voluntary schools and those to be created by the school boards. The object of the hon. Member was, no doubt, different. He wanted to see the establishment of what he called a national system of education. Now, the Act did establish a system of public elementary schools, all of them secular ones. It was the strength and essence of the new system that no person should be compelled to have religious instruction imparted to his children if he disapproved of it. No doubt, a Conscience Clause could not be dispensed with; but, at the same time, the immense majority of the people of England had shown, in the most emphatic manner, that they wished the elements of religion to be imparted to their children. He believed that in every school board the principle had been admitted that the Bible, at least should be read, and in the vast majority that it should be suitably explained; in the metropolis he was under the impression that that principle had been admitted without successful, or even serious, opposition. The argument of the hon. Member, therefore, about the injustice done to the ratepayers by taking money out of their pockets for the teaching of religion was worth nothing, for it was clear that his views on the subject were wholly antagonistic to those of the great mass of his fellow-countrymen, and that the clause did no injury to their consciences. To be logical, the hon. Member ought to have objected to the reading and teaching of the Bible at all in the board schools. But it was not a question of principle with the hon. Member; it was one of objection to denominational schools, and that was the root of the whole matter. He would have religious education given everywhere in board schools to which all ratepayers contributed, and yet he opposed the payment of fees to denominational schools, thus straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. With regard to the way in which the Parliamentary grant must be made, the Act distinctly provided that the school should not necessarily be connected with any particular denomination, and no Cabinet Minister, whatever his position, was permitted, without first obtaining the assent of Parliament, to give a preference to one school over another, because schools of all creeds, or of none, were equally good in the eye of the law for giving an elementary education to the poor—they were equally protected by a common Conscience Clause, and examined by the same Inspectors. In this respect, therefore, the State, rightly or wrongly, repudiated the teaching of religion in the schools so aided. All it cared to do was, that something substantial should be given in the form of secular education in return for the contributions of the taxpayers. Rightly to understand the Act it was necessary to read Clauses 25, 26, and 17 together, for they were based on exactly the same principle as the 97th clause, which dealt with public grants paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and laid down the broad, intelligible principle, that all public elementary schools should be treated in exactly the same way, so far as grants from the Treasury were concerned. With reference to local grants, Clause 25 provided that they might pay the fees at any public elementary school in the district. Nothing was said about the denominational character of the school; so that it might be a secular one, where no religion whatever was taught, and where a parent, preferring a secular school, might send his child to be taught. It was likewise provided, in Clause 26, that in certain cases free schools might be established. Clause 17 provided that where the parents of a child attending a board school were extremely poor they might remit the school pence. After reading these clauses together the House would at once see that the hon. Member was flying in the very teeth of the Act of Parliament, by placing schools that were in the hands of voluntary managers in a worse position than the board schools. Were the hon. Member's Motion agreed to the Bill would be made lopsided. But there were higher grounds on which the question might be considered. For his part, he would like to see the principle of compulsion extended beyond its present limit. He was willing that the system of school boards should be extended; but on the principle only that the people of this country, and especially the representatives of the Nonconformists, must first get rid of the idea of these being religious schools, and that they must hereafter recognize them as secular schools, since parents who objected to religious teaching were protected by a Conscience Clause. Nine parents out of ten who could afford to pay for their children's education sent them by preference to a school of their own creed; but if this clause were expunged from the Act the poor would have only one sort of school to which to send their children. They would be treated worse than criminals, for our gaols were now provided with ministers according to the creeds of the prisoners. The Protestant ratepayers of the West Riding of Yorkshire were required to contribute towards the support of the Roman Catholic chaplains attending Wakefield Gaol; why, then, should not they contribute towards sending Roman Catholic vagrant children to a school of their own denomination? And since the same Government Inspector examined schools of all denominations, why should not a poor person be permitted to choose a Roman Catholic school for his child if it were certified as efficient? To forbid him to do so was irreligious intolerance. Hon. Members opposite spoke as if they really represented the people of England; but were they aware that not a single school board had prohibited the teaching of religion? The result of these school board elections showed a strong determination that religion should form part and parcel of the education given in elementary schools to those children whose parents did not object to such teaching. A similar testimony was borne by the Parliamentary elections of Plymouth, Tamworth, Dover, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. How had this new-born zeal of the Nonconformists arisen in reference to this question? Ever since the passing of Denison's Act pauper children had been paid for out of the rates at public elementary schools—schools that were unprotected by a Conscience Clause. What had all that new-born zeal been about, while that principle had been applied for the last 10 or 12 years? It was no new principle to which they had now woke up. The hon. Member for Sunderland was endeavouring to compel every parish, although it might have an excellent school within its area, to which no one objected, to set up union schools, and instead of sending a few poor children to be educated with the rest of the parochial children, send them to pauper schools. Under ordinary circumstances he should not oppose the introduction of this Bill, for he would prefer to have taken the decision on the second reading; but the hon. Member for Sunderland had gone very near the wind in contravening the clause in this House. Substantially the question had been decided already. This was really not the first reading of the Bill. It was the old question over again. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) on the 5th March brought forward Resolutions—"That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Elementary Education Act were defective, and its working unsatisfactory, and that it allowed school boards to pay fees out of rates levied upon the community, to denominational schools, over which the ratepayers had no control." It was moved as an Amendment that "the time which had elapsed since the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and the progress which had been made in the arrangements under it, were not such as to enable this House to enter with advantage upon a review of its provisions." In point of fact, they had had the clause debated on this Motion by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The question was fully discussed; and by a majority of 355 to 94, or about 3½ to 1, the principle of this clause was affirmed. What, he should like to know, was the use of having Rules if a question which had been thoroughly thrashed out at the commencement of a Session might be again revived a few weeks afterwards? Although, technically, the hon. Member for Sunderland was justified in bringing forward this question, yet, substantially, he was not, and, therefore, he thought it right to say "No" to the introduction of the Bill.


regretted that the hon. Members for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had made up their minds to disturb the Education Act of 1870. That Act was a compromise—a compromise, however, in a good sense, because it recognized the forces of the country, because it gave fair play to those forces, and because, on the whole, it did no injustice. He would remind the hon. Gentlemen to whom he alluded that if they attempted to take bricks out of a structure built with so much care, there were other hon. Members in the House who objected to, and would endeavour to alter, other portions of the measure. While he agreed with much that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he did not share the desire that school boards should become universal. He had no desire to see the existing machinery disturbed in cases where the work of education was by its means being completely and satisfactorily carried forward. It was probable that in many cases a school board, when elected, would begin to levy taxation and to impose regulations which would render the cause of education unpopular where it had previously been popular. He attached little weight to the argument that if education was to be compulsory the appointment of school boards must be compulsory also, because he believed other bodies could be appointed who would pass by-laws sufficiently authoritative to enforce the compulsory attendance of children at school. The hon. Member for Sunderland objected to the clause that it gave too wide a discretion to the school boards as far as the payment of school fees was concerned; but this, if a valid objection, applied equally to the whole Act. Next, the hon. Member for Sunderland objected that the parents being ratepayers had no control over the school to the support of which they were compelled to contribute; but this objection had little weight in face of the fact that the Government, representing the whole country, had control over all schools partly maintained by the State, whether they were or were not managed by school boards. The next objection of the hon. Gentleman was one of those high and ethereal ones that were difficult to deal with in Parliament. The hon. Member contended that in all matters appertaining to religion legislation was excluded. In answer to this he contended that, apart from any question of Church establishment or anything of that kind, there must always exist a connection between religion and legislation in any civilized country. It was only by means of legislation that religious bodies could hold their places of worship or schools, or could possess endowments. Therefore, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, when pressed to an issue vanished altogether, or became inapplicable to the question the House was now called upon to discuss. With regard to the objection that the clause was at variance with the spirit of the Education Act, he could only say that it was strange no hon. Member made the discovery in the course of the long debates which preceded the passing of the Act. The hon. Member for Sunderland seemed to be labouring under the impression that because, in order to avoid pressing upon the consciences of any body of persons, the Act contained no direct expression in favour of religious teaching, therefore religious teaching was forbidden. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was of opinion, when he introduced and passed the Act, that the people might be safely trusted with the religious teaching of the rising generation, and that the religious teaching of the country would be better secured by leaving it to the votes of the ratepayers when electing school boards, than by enforcing it under the terms of an Act of Parliament. Such had been the feeling of the country generally, and in London the decision at three recent school board elections had been emphatically in favour of religious teaching. Each election for a vacancy in the School Board had shown the increasing desire of the people that Christian instruction should be given. Another of the hon. Member's objections was that there was no district in England where the faith of all was taught. It must be admitted that schools teaching the faith of all were not equally accessible to all. But his reply to the hon. Member was that, apart from the broad distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and the Jew from both, there was a wide substratum of common opinion, and that the children of the artizan class in the schools to which they were sent were able to receive, and did receive from teachers of different denominations, instruction in religious matters which was not in contradiction to the faith of the parents. And it might be taken as an undoubted fact that Protestant children were sent to schools belonging to different denominations without injury to the feelings of the parents, and without any risk, he was almost going to say, that the child would be detached from the denomination to which the parents belonged, and that to a great degree removed the objection of the hon. Member who ventured to urge it. He was surprised to hear it objected to the clause in question that when it was brought into operation there was contention. They lived in a free country, and he was unwilling to admit that any principle was bad because its enunciation or its carrying out in practice caused contention and dispute. If there had been contentions in Chancery and disputes at municipal elections, owing to the religious part of the question, his answer was that if the law was in that state that such controversies could prevail, it should be changed, so as to give school boards the power of direct rating. The sanitary laws were almost inoperative, because those whose duty it was to carry them out had no power of direct rating. A remedy for this defect formed part of the Government Bill for the reform of those laws. Hon. Members who raised objections to religious education being paid for out of the rates must know that for many years past they had been contributing towards Roman Catholic education in Ireland. There could be no doubt that the national system in Ireland was to a large extent a Roman Catholic system, and it was inexplicable to him that those who had concurred in such a system should suddenly find a grievance in the fact that under the English Act education might be given in religious matters to which some of the ratepayers objected. Reference had been made to the circumstance that the Jews might be called upon to contribute towards the education of Christians in Christianity, and the latter to contribute towards the education of the Jew in Jewish dogmas; but he ventured to say they must not legislate for extreme oases. There was an old saying among lawyers that "hard cases make bad laws," and if in matters of education Parliament was to be governed solely by a sense of abhorrence of all hard cases its legislation would not be good for much. He believed that it was the desire of many working men that their children should be educated in religion in the week-day schools, and he was unwilling to deprive them of it. Education in religion in Sunday schools alone would not satisfy the desires of many parents. It would be a great injustice and a great hardship to tell them that they might send their children to Sunday schools to receive instruction in religious matters, but that they should not have religious teaching imparted to their children in the week-day schools. In many cases parents who were entitled to the privilege of having their children educated in rate-aided schools were themselves ratepayers, and it would not be fair to deprive them not only of their inherent right in the matter, but to prevent them from securing in many instances a fair share of the money they had paid towards the rates for the purposes of public education. Living in a civilized community, hon. Members must not weigh these matters too nicely. Society involved a contract, and a contract involved, in rough-and-ready language, the principle of "give and take." He could not understand how any Government could be carried on, if everything were to be swept away to which every person might for the moment take exception. He confessed that he had heard with some surprise the tenderness of conscience which had suddenly arisen, and he would ask, what had these gentlemen of tender conscience been doing for years past for the people in the matter of education; and he should not be far from the truth in saying that the religion of those who were now so conscientious had been during the anxious period when the friends of religious education had been constructing their schools a religion of contemplation, moderation, and theory alone. It was an undoubted fact that the amount levied by rates in aid of schools under Clause 25 had been most limited, because the great sacrifice which the working man made in sending his child to school was not the school-pence, but the wages which the child if not at school would be able to earn. He was convinced that the real objection to sending children to school had not arisen from the weekly pay, but from the inability of the parents to sacrifice the wages which the child was able to earn. He maintained, moreover, that unless they gave the parent a choice of the school to which he would send his child, it would be impossible to carry out the principle of compulsory attendance. They could not in reason or justice oblige the Roman Catholic to send his child to a school-board school which was either secular or Protestant, neither could they impose on their Protestant fellow-citizens a harder yoke than they placed on the Roman Catholic. They would, therefore, be driven back to the 25th clause, which gave liberty of choice alike to Roman Catholic and Protestant. Freedom in a matter of that magnitude and sanctity was the right of the English parent—a right which they had not given, and which they could not not in reason and justice take away. With respect to the question of compulsion a gradual feeling was arising amongst the managers in favour of that principle. The compulsory powers, however, had not yet been largely exercised, and until they were exercised it was impossible to say how much resistance they could encounter on the part of the parents. It was said that controversy and even acrimony had arisen under the operation of that clause; but let it not be supposed that controversy would cease if religion were excluded from the schools. On the contrary, they would have far greater strife and unprecedented agitation. The history of England, in its various vicissitudes, had been deeply affected by religious sentiment, and if they had a purely secular system it would be assailed by a jealousy ever active, by a suspicion which never slept, and by an opposition which would bide its time in order to efface and destroy. If they wished for peace and contentment, they must, as practical men, carry out conscientiously and fully, in the letter and in the spirit, the Education Act of 1870.


said, that as hon. Gentlemen who had opposed that Motion had alleged as a reason for doing so that the subject had been already discussed this Session, he should have thought they would have spoken more briefly upon it on the present occasion, and he should also have supposed that after the statement which his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) considered it necessary to make in asking leave to introduce his short Bill, it would have been better to have given leave without any further discussion. It was not his intention to answer the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen; but he would content himself with making an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, and giving reasons why he thought he should not at any rate object to the introduction of that Bill. On the 5th of March, when the debate occurred on the question of education, his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) told the House he was not adverse from some modification of the 25th clause of the Act, but thought it better, on the whole, to allow the subject to rest for the present, and he undertook to bring it forward next Session. It would be advisable, however, for his right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision and deal with the matter at once, because the grievance produced by the operation of the 25th clause was one which was widely and very keenly felt. In Birmingham the school board, who did not represent the majority of the people of the borough, determined to pay the school fees, and issued their precept to the town council to pay them, which the latter declined to obey, and it was only after considerable trouble that the dispute had been deferred for a time. If this clause should be modified or repealed at once no further difficulty would arise in Birmingham; but if the matter should be left over until the next Session difficulties would again arise, the grievance would increase, and every one would admit that Birmingham knew how to make the most of a grievance. He had been assured by an eminent Nonconformist that the grievance was increasing in intensity, and spreading throughout the country; and surely it was unwise on the part of the Government to allow it to do so for a whole year. When the Education Act was passed in 1870, they were distinctly told by the Prime Minister that one condition of granting 50 per cent additional every year to the inspected schools was that the connection between the school boards and the denominational or voluntary schools was to be entirely severed. But by the 25th clause that tie was not severed, and it was because they wished to see it severed that they now asked that the clause should be repealed. He would particularly impress upon the Government that this was an evil of great magnitude, which was being widely felt, and with increasing intensity in the country. It was being felt, too, by those people who had been hitherto the staunchest supporters of the Government; who, when the Government from time to time found itself placed in difficult and perilous circumstances, refused to desert it; and who, with an affection which had long existed, and which they did not wish to see diminished, still clung to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was their hope, and they did not wish that anything should be done which should have the effect of increasing the present irritation, and widening that breach which unfortunately this clause to a great extent had been instrumental in producing. The grievance could be easily removed, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would not tell them that they would not even allow the Bill to be introduced and read a first time.


said, he should be glad if the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) would show his usual courtesy to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and would permit his Bill to be brought in and read a first time. He was satisfied that it was the feeling of both sides of the House that to no hon. Member was courtesy more due than to the hon. Member for Sunderland. While saying that, however, and while sincerely deprecating any attempt being made by taking a vote of the House on the subject, to prevent the hon. Member for Sunderland from bringing in his Bill, the Government would be misleading the House and the country if, in the event of a division being taken, they did not vote against the introduction of the measure. He thought that there was something in the objection—that it was an unusual course to bring on this Motion so soon after the Education Bill had been passed. The subject of the 25th clause formed a prominent part of the question raised a short time back by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who, together with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), urged arguments of great ability in fa- vour of their views; but the House decided by a large majority against an alteration of that clause or other parts of the Bill during the present year. That conclusion was come to by the House on the ground that the time which had elapsed since the passing of the Act and the progress of the arrangements made under it were not such as enabled the House to enter with advantage on a review of the provisions of the Act. He thought he might almost conclude his remarks by this reference to that decision; but he felt it due to the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Birmingham to make some allusion to their statements. He was obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland for the kind manner in which he had referred to him, and it was matter of regret to him that some of his Friends, with whom he agreed on other matters, did not agree with him on the subject of the 25th clause. It was, however, a misfortune that must happen to every public man who did what he thought right; and, however hardly some of his Friends might think of him, he did not think that they would less respect him if he did what he thought right. His hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to think that in the six weeks that had elapsed since the previous Motion, the Government should have reconsidered its decision, and have induced the House to do so too. He, however, failed to see that reasoning. Undoubtedly, there were some parts of the country where there was opposition to this clause, and he believed in no place so much as in Sunderland, from local causes, which he believed would gradually disappear. He could not but admit that the school board of Sunderland had, as far as he, judging from a distance, could see, worked this clause in a somewhat extravagant manner; but he had great confidence that the good sense which the hon. Member for Birmingham told them was healing divisions in that town, would in Sunderland also have great effect. The hon. Member said this 25th clause was an excrescence, but the House came to a different decision only six weeks ago; and he would ask the hon. Members to consider the position in which they would be placed by a simple repeal of the clause in question. A very great work was being undertaken by the school boards throughout the country, and they were setting to work not merely to provide the necessary school accommodation, but also to get—and, indeed, to force—children to attend. If they took away from these school boards the power of paying the school fees for poor parents at the present schools, they would, in reality, take away from them the power of enforcing compulsory attendance. Take London, for instance. He admired the gallantry with which the School Board of London was dealing with the educational deficiency. They were incurring very large expenses in giving the necessary accommodation, and they also showed the immense deficiency of attendance in existing schools. There were some 100,000 at least of children uneducated, and they were trying to get them into the schools. If the 25th clause were repealed, how were these children to be got to school? The board schools did not at present exist in London, nor in many of the boroughs of the kingdom. No doubt there were school boards in almost every borough; but there were as yet no board schools in existence to meet the necessities of the case, and still less were they placed in the metropolis and in other large towns, in such situations as to be convenient to the parents. If they set to work to compel children to be sent to schools, they must be ready to meet all reasonable objections. It was not an easy thing to interfere in a man's social life, and insist upon what he should do with regard to his children. If they compelled a poor man to send his child to school they must pay the fee, or in some way get it paid. They could not send a man to prison if he were too poor to pay the fee. It was not a question merely of the conscientious objection of the parents, though it could not be denied that such persons should have their conscientious objections respected. They would also have to contend with reasonable, or even unreasonable, preferences. If a man were to go to prison for not sending his child to school, he would say—"Let me send him to the school that I prefer, and not to a board school a mile off." If a parent should say—"I have a conscientious objection to send him to the board school; I prefer his going to another particular school," how could they step forward and say—"You shall not send him there, you shall send him to the board school." He contended that simply to repeal the clause, and leave the school boards in that position, would be taking from them the power of compulsion which on both sides of the House was acknowledged to be necessary. His hon. Friend said there was ill-feeling throughout the country; but his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) opinion was that there was not now so much feeling about the matter as there formerly was, though he could not deny that he did get letters and extracts from newspapers every other morning, which were very often more forcible than complimentary. He found, notwithstanding all this discussion, that the work was being done. Allusion had been made to Stockport, which would be said to be his pet case. In one respect it was, for Stockport was doing its work in such a way as to be held out as an example to other boards. Only that morning he had received the Report as to the second half-year of compulsion at Stockport. The average attendance had been increased from February to September of last year by 1,020 children, or 26 per cent, and up to the 25th of last month the average was increased by 36 per cent, the number of children in attendance being 1,434. They pretty freely used compulsory powers. They had threatened compulsion throughout the town to those parents whom they thought it necessary to inform of their duties. There were during the last half-year 47 children for whom they were paying fees; there were rather more now, because he believed that they had got into the deeper stratum and were reaching the pariah class, and there were now 57 children who were paid for. In the first half-year they paid £2 18s. 8d., and in the last half-year £7 15s. 11d. If that school board had not had the power to compel parents to send their children to school, and to take from them all reasonable excuse by paying their fees and giving the choice of schools, they would not have produced this result. He got similar Reports throughout the country, and he had not the slightest doubt that if the 25th clause were abolished he should present to the House next year a much less bill for education than he otherwise would. They were now only beginning to get the results of the Act in the increased attendance. In Stockport the number of children receiving some kind of education had not simply very much increased, but the transfer of children from inefficient to efficient schools had been arranged. The same state of things was observable throughout the country, and it would, of course, result in increasing the grants of next year. He gathered from the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) that he would replace the clause in the Act by some other provision. Of course, it was a strong temptation to any Government to accede to the request of influential and active supporters; but there was a greater temptation in the thought that, by getting rid of a certain enactment, he could remove the displeasure of political Friends with whom he had been long personally associated; but he felt that in the interests of education any attempt to modify this clause in the present year would be premature. At the end of the year they would have found out what schools boards would be established, and they would have experience of compulsion in large towns, and even in villages and agricultural parishes; and they would then with greater advantage be able generally to consider the question of attendance and compulsion. He did not, however, wish to mislead his hon. Friend. It was not in his power to pledge the Government to bring forward a measure of general compulsion next year. He could not say—if they happened to be a Government next year—what might be the prominent subjects; he could only say that if he held the same position as that which he now occupied, he should next year think it his duty, as at present informed, to press very eagerly upon his Colleagues and his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government his claim to have the general question of compulsion considered. They would also have to take into account the power of the school boards with respect to the payment of fees; but with their present information they could not devise any good modification, if modification were desirable. He should not be honest if he did not repeat what he stated six weeks ago, that whatever modification might be proposed, he should feel it his duty to adhere to the principle that the parent should have his choice of the school where there were public elementary schools amongst which choice could be made. He knew he might he told that his regard of the parents' conscience was geographical, as there were places in the country where there was only one school; but he should reply that they believed it to be absolutely necessary that the parent, if possible, should give secular education to his children. That was their object. Where there was more than one school giving secular education the parent should have power to choose; but of course where there was only one school choice was impossible, and they must be content with giving the fullest protection by enabling the parent to withdraw his children from religious instruction of which he disapproved. There were one or two other circumstances with regard to the clause which would admit of discussion upon a full consideration of the question. Experience, he thought, showed that in some places the school boards attempted to act too extravagantly. The question was, whether it was necessary to guard against the extravagance which arose from good motives, or whether it would be better to trust to the general economical feeling of the ratepayers in the matter? The desire of the Government was to meet the conscientious objections advanced by his hon. Friend if they could do so consistently with the regard which was due to the conscientious objections of the parents. But they had had no reason to expect the conscientious objection. His hon. Friend thought he had stated that they were entirely mistaken as to the probable action of the clause; but what he had said was that they did not anticipate the objections to the clause, because what they were doing with the 25th clause was what had been done for years with regard to Denison's Act. They could not expect a strong conscientious objection to pay school fees for a Roman Catholic child in a Church school from those who would be willing to send such a child to a school-board school, to receive an education of which a Roman Catholic might disapprove, and for which he might be taxed. It was not for him to point out what might seem to be inconsistencies in his hon. Friend's opinions, and he had been too much accustomed to associate with those who had strong feelings on matters of conscience not to respect them, whether he agreed with them or not. He could only state that, with due regard to what they con- ceived to be the rights of the parent, the Government would do what they could to meet these objections.


said, that the right hon. Gentleman had answered his own objections to a division on this Motion, proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins); and he was sure the hon. Member would not have taken this step but for the extraordinary character of the Bill itself, which renewed a subject on which the House had had an opportunity of forming a deliberate opinion only six weeks ago. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the assurance he had given that the Government would adhere to their policy of respecting the religious rights of parents, however poor and humble. As to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) he felt indebted to him for his great candour. The hon. Gentleman, in effect, said—"We Nonconformists give you on the Treasury Bench notice that you exist—not 'for the benefit of the Liberal party,'" for that party includes Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, nor even "for the benefit of Nonconformists," for they number among them a great many earnest religious men who respect the rights of conscience; but—"You exist for us, a select Committtee of political Nonconformists, sitting somewhere in Birmingham—Birmingham, which knows so well how to make itself disagreeable—and if you do not act as our small political clique tells you, you will soon know the reason why." That was the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, written short, free and clear. He did not agree in the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish); but that hon. Gentleman had at any rate not put forward the red rag of political agitation. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) recklessly declared that agitation against this clause was increasing; but proofs could be given directly to the contrary. Look at the West Riding. A Conservative candidate favourable to the 25th clause had been returned there against a gentleman who opposed it, though on his committee appeared the name of the Vice President of the Council, as the opponent of his own principle. They were all sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman there; but they knew he could not help it. Bon gré, malgré, there he was; but, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's support, the Liberal candidate, a man of great local eminence, was beaten by the Member who raised the flag of religious liberty. But London also contradicted the assertion. In Marylebone, a well-known clergyman had been returned as a member of the School Board over a candidate opposed to the 25th clause by a majority of two or three to one; and in Westminster a noble Lord (Viscount Mahon), a Member of that House, and a confessed adherent of the Tory party, stood upon the principle of religious liberty against a representative man of the party of narrow intolerance, and this distinguished patriot and philanthropist was beaten by five to one. Yet, in the face of these facts, the hon. Member for Birmingham had the assurance to say that the agitation was increasing, and woe to the Government if they did not heed it. With regard to the grievance in itself, he would ask whether either the hon. Member for Birmingham or the hon. Member for Sunderland had applied the simple arithmetical test of inquiring whether the school fees paid under this clause were greater in value than the secular instruction received? If it were not so, the complaint simply evaporated. The hon. Member for Birmingham proposed that the education of destitute children should be paid for out of the Parliamentary grant. But would not the grant be squeezed out of the pockets of taxpayers, just as the rate was squeezed out of the pockets of ratepayers? If it was unholy money in the one case, how did it become sanctified in the other, being in either case equally the money of the people themselves, strained through a public department? As to the equity and the charity of the contest, the people whom these hard-mouthed agitators sought to make shuttlecocks of were those members of our poor and dependent population who were audacious enough to have a conscience and a fixed religious belief of their own. These were the people whose children they sought to drive to schools of which the parents conscientiously disapproved. He could not but feel that if there were anything in the world that deserved to be called bigotry, it was to be found here. They might talk about the bigotry of the Pope, and might appeal to his assumption of Infallibility; but for true bigotry and true contempt of logic, com- mend him to the political secularists, spouting on a platform in rebuke of a Liberal Government. The common sense and good feeling of England were against these agitators, who were uniting all classes against them upon a question which had been settled, and ought to be settled, by the Education Act, and he would recommend the hon. Member for Sunderland to confine himself in future to those economical subjects of which he was a master, for the more he agitated the grievance of this 25th clause the more unpopular would that agitation become.


said, he had not any intention of taking part in this debate, but for the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member reminded one very strongly of a certain Athenian weaver, celebrated by Shakespeare, named Bottom. Like him, the hon. Member aspired to play every part. He played Pyramus in the true 'Ercles vein. He could lisp and love like Thisbe; and he could "roar as gently as a sucking dove." There was only one part of his performance which would not correspond with that of Bottom the Weaver; for there was not a single Member in this House who would cry out, "Let him roar again." The hon. Member had addressed to a certain section of the Liberal party a lecture which, perhaps, for solemnity and buncombe, had never been exceeded in that House. They had had quite a forgetfulness, if he might say so, of the point which was under the consideration of the House, in order that the vials of the hon. Gentleman's wrath might be poured out upon those agitators, those bigoted, polemical Dissenters, whose narrow minds could comprehend no great principle, whose intellectual power was not even up to the mark of appreciating the eloquence of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. And now a few words as to the general point under consideration. He would admit that he did not think it was absolutely necessary or proper that this subject should again be brought under the consideration of the House. He would not have counselled that it should be done; but as it had been done, that was a sufficient reason why they should deal with the subject reasonably. Now, the true reason why there was so much excitement upon this part of the Act was not because the 25th clause was the worst clause in it. It was simply because it was just that point at which two systems came into antagonism. It was the first point of contact, and it was that which brought out all the difference of sentiment and feeling between one side of the House and the other. He did not believe that this Act, over which there had been a great deal of glorification before it had done much, would be found to work out all the results that had been expected from it. It was a misfortune that this religious question should have been thrown into the educational movement, and should have become a controverted matter. The whole question might have been arranged differently, so as to satisfy the reasonable desires of all the Members of the House and of the people of the country. But since that had not been done he, for one, must protest against the constant aspersions which were thrown on those who took the same views as himself, that they were in the smallest degree insensible to the value of religious education. The question between the two parties was not whether religious education should be given, but simply who was to give it—whether it should be given by a mechanical schoolmaster. ["No, no!"] He said "a mechanical schoolmaster" simply because the State as such, and the ratepayers as such, could not estimate the religious character of the schoolmaster. The difference between the two sides, then, was, who should give this religious education? He and those who agreed with him said it was men and women who had so much religion in their hearts as to induce them to look after the religious interests of these poor children. But as long as this religious education was given by means of a schoolmaster they, in fact, threw a blind on the eyes of society, and pretended to be doing that which it was impossible that they could do, because they had not the right people by whom to do it. He, for one, believed that if there were not some blind spread over their eyes the clergy of the Church of England, among their other works of benevolence and mercy, would delight in taking the religious part of the education of their people under their own control, and so would the Dissenters. It was not fair, therefore, to ascribe to those who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Bir- mingham (Mr. Dixon) as mere bigotry that which prang up in their minds from honest religious principle. He did not want to argue the general case now; but he must enter this protest against the spirit of the speech which had last been delivered. It was a speech which was founded on nothing that was true in their general character, for the history of the Dissenters had shown that they devoted themselves heart and soul to the promotion of religion.


quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in thinking that it was not wise to keep up this religious controversy in connection with the education of the poor. What was the grievance which the Education League at Birmingham now alleged. It was simply that the religious denominations had done so much more than they had in the cause of popular education that they felt jealous and dissatisfied. The League had agitated long to obtain power in connection with this great national question; but since they had succeeded in getting what they wanted by the Act of 1870, and in securing for themselves a platform in the shape of a school board, what had they done for the advancement of education? Absolutely nothing. The school board was created, and they failed in attempting to place themselves in a majority upon it; the Church, and even the Roman Catholics, stood above them on the popular poll—and they had done nothing since but agitate against those religious denominations which had done so much from the first to set on foot and to promote popular education in the country. For more than 40 years the religious denominations, having first initiated, had carried on with vigour, self-sacrifice, and success the great work of national education, and the only grievance that these gentlemen had against them arose from a feeling of jealousy that they had done so much. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dixon) had said that the Government, when they, by the Act of 1870, proposed to increase the Treasury grant for schools 50 per cent, intended to create a severance between the denominations and the school boards. But the object of the Government was precisely the reverse, and the increase of the grant was given in just recognition of what the denominations had already done. The League, however, would prefer to see poor people taken to prison for not sending their children to secular schools, to allowing them to send them to be taught by any religious denominations. It was very doubtful, however, whether compulsory education ever could be generally established in this country, particularly in the rural districts. The people of this country, at all events, never would consent that parents should be taken to prison for not sending their children to school, if the system were set on foot by first wilfully sacrificing the existing denominational schools. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) in the speech just delivered, in which he balanced the difficulties on both sides, held out a hope to the Gentlemen who proposed the repeal of this clause that if they gave him time he would consider the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to postpone the difficulty by asking for time, and intimating that probably next year he would settle this point with them. But this was not a question between this year and next. The supporters of religious education had made up their minds permanently on the subject. They would not give in to this proposal merely to gratify the jealous feeling of those who, under pretence of a zeal for education not yet practically manifested, were placing themselves in opposition to the men who for 40 years had done so much by voluntary efforts for popular education. The intention of the Act of 1870 was not to supplant the schools which had been established with so much energy and zeal; but to supplement the educational deficiencies which might still exist in the country.


said, he should vote for the introduction of this Bill for reasons altogether different from those enunciated by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and those who supported him. He was very sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope), which certainly contributed very little to the healing process which the Vice President of the Council said was going on all over the country, and which was absolutely necessary if the children of the poor were to be educated—that being, after all, the question in which they were mainly interested. He had always been an advocate of education for the sake of education itself, without any reference to the interests of any particular religious denomination. He believed that without a system of compulsory education very little education would be given to the children of the poor, and to accomplish that it was absolutely necessary to pay the school fees of the children of indigent parents. From a Return which he had lately obtained from the President of the Poor Law Board, it appeared that on the 1st of July, 1871, the number of in-door pauper children was 47,247, and the number of out-door 294,371; making a total of 341,618 pauper children in the country, and unless there were some means of paying the fees of such children it would be quite impossible to enforce compulsion. In Ashton and Stockport the money required had been supplied through the voluntary efforts of Churchmen and Nonconformists. He would point to the example of Germany in this matter, where they avoided the scandalous extravagance with which they were threatened in this country. He appealed to the Vice President of the Council whether, with the present attitude of Nonconformists towards the Act, it would be possible to maintain the 25th clause? They had town councils refusing precepts to school boards; they had ratepayers going to prison rather than pay what was demanded; they had school boards treating the Act as nugatory; and, after all, it was education that suffered. It might be said that Nonconformists had no right to give themselves those conscientious airs. While he himself felt no scruple in paying school rates to enable poor parents to send their children to any school they pleased, he thought they ought to respect the consciences of one-half of the people of this country, who were doing so much good. If the 25th clause of the Elementary Education Act were repealed, something must be substituted for it. They could not compel children to go to school, and at the same time rely on voluntary subscriptions as a means of paying their school fees. Why should not the provisions of the Act with reference to the education of children employed in factories be extended to agriculture, and every department of labour, and let Denison's Act be made compulsory, and be applied to the 350,000 pauper children in this country? He would appeal to hon. Members opposite not to make that a party question. Much having been conceded on the one side, let something be conceded on the other; and he hoped the House would allow that Bill to be introduced, and the Government would be able to devise some machinery which would give relief to the consciences of honest and independent Nonconformists, who desired to promote education as much as any section of the community. He trusted the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) would not be so discourteous as to prevent that Bill from being introduced.


said, neither his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) nor he desired to prevent the Bill from going to a second reading; but they protested against having a second discussion on the same question. As to the denunciations against the Government on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and others, he had heard them so much lately that he thought they must be all derived from a common source. The case reminded him of a story which he had met with. It was related by the late Tom Hood that a lady and her maid having gone to Holland in a violent storm, it produced those effects which storms did produce on passengers generally and on ladies' maids in particular, and that the lady's maid, in describing her feelings afterwards, said—"Next to Christianity the greatest comfort I had was in giving Missis warning, which I did every time between the attacks." He, therefore, hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite, having relieved their feelings by giving Government warning, would settle down, and keep quiet.


would have appealed to the hon. Member for Boston not to put the House to the trouble of a division, had he not known that there could be no greater waste of the time of the House than so doing. If, however, the hon. Member should take that course, he would have to vote with him. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that if they were to have the pauper children of the country educated, they must put the compulsory clauses in force, and enable the parent to choose the school to which his children should be sent. The 25th clause secured that object; but it did so in a bad manner. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had said there was no objection to Parliamentary grants to denominational schools, because those grants all went to pay for the secular part of education. Might not a similar arrangement be made with respect to the payment of school fees? He calculated that the annual cost of the education of each child was about 30s., and it would relieve the consciences of all if 15s. of that were paid out of the general taxation, and 10s. out of the rates; these two paying for the secular education of the children, leaving the other 5s., the cost of his religious education, to be provided by voluntary subscription. The managers could not expect to retain the management of schools unless they subscribed to them, and it might be understood that their subscriptions covered the cost of the religious instruction. He thought educational grants were given much too lavishly. Money given in that way pauperized both parents and children, and it was well worthy of consideration whether the question of determining who ought to receive assistance should not be removed from the school boards and placed under the Boards of Guardians, who, through their relieving officers, knew the circumstances of the parties, and could say whether assistance should be given or not.


said, he had hoped that after the decision of the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) this question would not have been again brought forward this Session. As he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he had to express his regret that owing to the continued agitation on this subject, the school boards, not only that of the metropolis, but those of the country generally, were not permitted to carry their work to a practical solution in regard to the religious difficulty. As a member of the London School Board, he would appeal to its representative in that House (Mr. Reed), whether it was not the fact that, face to face as they were, Churchmen and Dissenters, with the practical question of education, they could not find means for accommodating their differences, and for bringing in the masses of children who required education, without needing any assistance from the House of Commons to settle these questions? He had been sorry to hear the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), the representative of orthodox Dissenters, apply to schoolmasters the term "mechanical," and argue that ministers of religion only were qualified to give religious instruction. ["No, no!"] He should be glad to be corrected if he was misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman; but he certainly understood him and his supporters to object to religious teaching by schoolmasters and mistresses. The great majority of the country disapproved such a limitation of their duty, and a great part of the education of children consisted in instruction in the knowledge of right and wrong, instruction which could only be based on the Scripture. As far as school boards were concerned, be did not attach much importance to the 25th clause; but if 340,000 pauper children had in some way to be educated at the public cost, nothing could be gained by transferring the battle from the education to the poor rate. The same conscientious objections would obviously be urged against the action of the Guardians as against that of the school board. School boards should be permitted to carry out their work as far as they could. They would gain increased experience, both of the children and of the ratepayers, and he believed that by moderation, common sense, and good feeling, they would be able to smooth down the difficulty which had been excited by an injudicious expenditure in certain districts. If in a year or two legislation became necessary, the question could be dealt with with greater information and with more moderation than it could at present. He earnestly entreated the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) not to press his Motion to a division. It would only involve them in greater difficulties, without in any way contributing to a solution of them.


explained. Perhaps it was an unfortunate description he had given of the schoolmaster as being mechanical. He used that word simply as the first that came near the idea in his own mind; but he begged to express his sincere regret that he had used it, because he was afraid it might give pain to a class whom he most highly respected.


concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), that it was unfair to charge upon the teachers of this kingdom that they were not impressed and instigated in the discharge of their duties by the highest sentiments of religion and morality. He did not think a Bill ought to be introduced for depriving the schools of the advantage of all religious instruction; but he did concur in the absolute necessity for repealing the 25th clause, so that the rates should be relieved from what must be a great and increasing charge.


expressed a hope that no division would be taken on this question. It would be injurious to the interests of education and of the Education Act, which they had all so much at heart.

Question put:—

The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 316: Majority 201.

Anderson, G. Gilpin, C.
Armitstead, G. Goldsmid, Sir F.
Aytoun, R. S. Goldsmid, J.
Baker, R. B. W. Gourley, E. T.
Bazley, Sir T. Graham, W.
Beaumont, Capt. F. Harcourt, W. G. G. V. V.
Beaumont, H. F. Harris, J. D.
Blennerhassett, R. (Kry.) Herbert, hon. A. E. W.
Brand, H. R. Hoare, Sir H. A.
Brewer, Dr. Hodgson, K. D.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Holland, S.
Brinckman, Captain Holms, J.
Brocklehurst, W. C. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Brogden, A. Howard, J.
Brown, A. H. Illingworth, A.
Buckley, N. Kensington, Lord
Cadogan, hon. F. W. Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Carnegie, hon. C. Lawrence, W.
Carter, R. M. Lawson, Sir W.
Chadwick, D. Lea, T.
Cholmeley, Captain Leatham, E. A.
Clay, J. Leeman, G.
Clifford, C. C. Locke, J.
Cowper-Temple, right hon. W. Lubbock, Sir J.
Macfie, R. A.
Craufurd, E. H. J. M'Arthur, W.
Crawford, R. W. M'Clure, T.
Dalglish, R. M'Laren, D.
Davies, R. Melly, G.
Dickinson, S. S. Miall, E.
Dilke, Sir C. W. Mitchell, T. A.
Dillwyn, L. L. Morgan, G. Osborne
Dodds, J. Morrison, W.
Edwards, H. Mundella, A. J.
Ewing, U. E. Crum- Muntz, P. H.
Fawcett, H. Norwood, C. M.
Finnie, W. Palmer, J. H.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Parry, L. Jones-
Fordyce, W. D. Pease, J. W.
Forster, C. Philips, R. N.
Plimsoll, S. Stevenson, J. C.
Potter, E. Stuart, Colonel
Potter, T. B. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Price, W. E. Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-
Price, W. P.
Reed, C. Trevelyan, G. O.
Richard, H. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Richards, E. M. Vivian, H. H.
Rothschild, Brn. M. A. de Wedderburn, Sir D.
Russell, H. Weguelin, T. M.
Russell, Sir W. West, H. W.
Salomons, Sir D. White, J.
Samuelson, H. B. Whitwell, J.
Sartoris, E. J. Williams, W.
Seymour, A. Wingfield, Sir C.
Shaw, R. Young, A. W.
Sheridan, H. B.
Sherriff, A. C. TELLERS.
Simon, Mr. Serjeant Candlish, J.
Smith, E. Dixon, G.
Stapleton, J.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.
Adam, W. P. Bruce, Sir H. H.
Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C. Bryan, G. L.
Akroyd, E. Buller, Sir E. M.
Amcotts, Colonel W. C. Bury, Viscount
Amory, J. H. Butler-Johnstone, H. A.
Amphlett, R. P. Butt, I.
Annesley, hon. Col. H. Buxton, Sir R. J.
Anson, hon. A. H. A. Callan, P.
Arbuthnot, Major G. Cameron, D.
Arkwright, A. P. Cardwell, rt. hon. E.
Arkwright, R. Cartwright, F.
Assheton, R. Cave, rt. hon. S.
Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S. Cavendish, Lord F. C.
Bagge, Sir W. Cavendish, Lord G.
Bagwell, J. Cawley, C. E.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.
Ball, rt. hon. J. T. Chaplin, H.
Barnett, H. Charley, W. T.
Barrington, Viscount Child, Sir S.
Barry, A. H. S. Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Barttelot, Colonel Clowes, S. W.
Bates, E. Cochrane, A. D. W. R. B.
Bateson, Sir T. Cogan, rt. hon. W. H. F.
Beach, Sir M. Hicks- Cole, Col. hon. H. A.
Beaumont, S. A. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bective, Earl of Coleridge, Sir J. D.
Bentinck, G. C. Corbett, Colonel
Bentinck, G. W. P. Corrigan, Sir D.
Benyon, R. Corry, rt. hon. H. T. L.
Beresford, Lt.-Col. M. Cowper-Temple, right hon. W.
Bingham, Lord
Birley, H. Crichton, Viscount
Blennerhassett, Sir R. Croft, Sir H. G. D.
Bolckow, H. W. F. Cross, R. A.
Booth, Sir R. G. Dalrymple, C.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Dalrymple, D.
Bowmont, Marquess of Dalway, M. R.
Bowring, E. A. Damer, Capt. Dawson-
Brady, J. D'Arcy, M. P.
Brassey, H. A. Davenport, W. Bromley-
Brassey, T. Dawson, Colonel R. P.
Bright, R. Dease, E.
Bristowe, S. B. Delahunty, J.
Broadley, W. H. H. Denison, C. B.
Brooks, W. C. Denman, hon. G.
Browne, G. E. Dent, J. D.
Bruce, Lord C. Dickson, Major A. G.
Dimsdale, R. Herbert, H. A.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Herbert, rt. hon. Gen. Sir P.
Dodson, J. G.
Downing, M'C. Hermon, E.
Dowse, rt. hon. R. Heron, D. C.
Duff, R. W. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Hill, A. S.
Du Pre, C. G. Hogg, J. M.
Dyke, W. H. Holford, J. P. G.
Dyott, Colonel R. Holt, J. M.
Eaton, H. W. Hope, A. J. B. B.
Egerton, hon. A. F. Hornby, E. K.
Egerton, Capt. hon. F. Hoskyns, C. Wren-
Egerton, Sir P. G. Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.
Egerton, hon. W. Hurst, R. H.
Elcho, Lord Jackson, R. W.
Elliot, G. Jardine, R.
Enfield, Viscount Johnstone, Sir H.
Ennis, J. J. Jones, J.
Esmonde, Sir J. Kavanagh, A. MacM.
Fellowes, E. Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.
Fielden, J. Kennaway, J. H.
Figgins, J. Keown, W.
FitzGerald, right hon. Lord O. A. Kingscote, Colonel
Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H.
Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.
Fletcher, I. Knightley, Sir R.
Floyer, J. Knox, hon. Colonel S.
Foljambe, F. J. S. Laird, J.
Forester, rt. hon. Gen. Legh, W. J.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Fortescue, rt. hon. C. P. Leslie, J.
Fowler, R. N. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Galway, Viscount Lindsay, hon. Col. C.
Garlies, Lord Lindsay, Colonel R. L.
Gavin, Major Lloyd, Sir T. D.
Gilpin, Colonel Lopes, H. C.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Lopes, Sir M.
Gladstone, W. H. Lowther, J.
Glyn, hon. G. G. Lowther, W.
Goldney, G. MacEvoy, E.
Gore, W. R. O. Mackintosh, E. W.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. M'Combie, W.
Gower, hon. E. F. L. M'Lagan, P.
Graves, S. R. Maguire, J. F.
Gray, Lieut.-Colonel Mahon, Viscount
Gray, Sir J. Malcolm, J. W.
Greaves, E. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Greene, E. Manners, Lord G. J.
Gregory, G. B. March, Earl of
Greville-Nugent, hon. G. F. Matthews, H.
Mellor, T. W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Meyrick, T.
Grieve, J. J. Miller, J.
Grosvenor, hon. N. Milles, hon. G. W.
Grosvenor, Capt. R. W. Mills, C. H.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Monckton, hon. G.
Guest, A. E. Monk, C. J.
Guest, M. J. Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Hamilton, J. G. C. Montgomery, Sir G. G.
Hanbury, R. W. Morgan, C. O.
Hanmer, Sir J. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Hardcastle, J. A. Muncaster, Lord
Hardy, rt. hon. G. Neville-Grenville, R.
Hardy, J. S. Newport, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of Nicholson, W.
Hay, Sir J. C. D. Noel, hon. G. J.
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E. North, Colonel
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.
Henley, Lord O'Brien, Sir P.
Henry, J. S. O'Conor, D. M.
Henry, M. O'Conor Don, The
O'Donoghue, The Smyth, P. J.
O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M. Somerset, Lord H. R. C.
Stanley, hon. F.
Onslow, G. Starkie, J. P. C.
O'Reilly-Dease, M. Steere, L.
O'Reilly, M. W. Storks, rt. hn. Sir H. K.
Osborne, R. Straight, D.
Paget, R. H. Sturt, H. G.
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. Sykes, C.
Palmer, Sir R. Synan, E. J.
Parker, C. S. Talbot, J. G.
Peel, A. W. Taylor, rt. hon. Col.
Pelham, Lord Thynne, Lord H. F.
Pell, A. Tipping, W.
Pemberton, E. L. Torrens, R. R.
Pim, J. Turner, C.
Playfair, L. Turnor, E.
Plunket, hon. D. R. Vandeleur, Colonel
Powell, W. Verney, Sir H.
Raikes, H. C. Vivian, A. P.
Read, C. S. Walker, Major G. G.
Ridley, M. W. Walpole, hon. F.
Round, J. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Royston, Viscount Walsh, hon. A.
Russell, A. Walter, J.
St. Aubyn, J. Waterhouse, S.
St. Lawrence, Viscount Waters, G.
Salt, T. Watney, J.
Samuda, J. D'A. Wells, E.
Samuelson, B. Wells, W.
Sclater-Booth, G. Wethered, T. O.
Scourfield, J. H. White, hon. Colonel C.
Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J. Whitwell, J.
Winn, R.
Shaw, W. Wise, H. C.
Sherlock, D. Wynn, C. W. W.
Shirley, S. E. Yarmouth, Earl of
Simonds, W. B. Yorke, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir J. G. T. Young, G.
Smith, A.
Smith, F. C. TELLERS.
Smith, R. Collins, T.
Smith, S. G. Powell, F. S.
Smith, W. H.