HC Deb 03 August 1876 vol 231 cc469-96

Application of the Act to Scotland. In the application of this Act to Scotland, the following provision shall have effect:—The words 'so much of section ninety-seven of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as enacts,' shall be construed as if the words were, 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and the Parliamentary grants made under the same, by minutes of the Scotch Education Department in force for the time as enact,' and that Clause 47 as thus varied and interpreted shall apply to Scotland.

Clause 47 contained three provisions to which he wished to call attention. One was with reference to the grant of 17s. 6d., which applied to England, and not to Scotland; another was that in a small parish of 300 people, a grant of £10 might be made in addition to the grant for school fees; and the third was that in still smaller parishes where there were only 200 people, there should be a grant of £15 in addition to that earned by the children. Neither of these provisions were to apply to Scotland. Well, he need not tell the House that in Scotland there were a large number of parishes which were very thinly populated, and he thought that, taking into consideration the relative position of the two countries, if there was an advantage to be given to one country or to the other it should be given to Scotland in preference to England. The noble Lord opposite the Vice President of the Council had undertaken that the change he (MR. M'Laren) was now proposing should be effected by means of an alteration in the Privy Council Minutes, and had stated that as the measure would not come into operation before March, there was plenty of time to make the alteration in question. This would be sufficient with regard to the grant of 17s. 6d., but he very much doubted whether any Minute could provide for the other two special grants. If it could be done with reference to Scotland, it could be done with reference to England, and as an enactment was required for the latter, he did not see why there should not be an enactment for the former. All experience showed that Scotch legislation was pushed back to the last days of the Session, promise after promise had been made by the Government, and yet there had not been a single Scotch measure of any importance passed, nor was there likely to be one. Assuming for the sake of argument that all that was necessary to be done in the interests of Scotland in the matter of this Bill could be done next Session by Minute or Act of Parliament, he still thought that it should be all done this Session by adopting his clause.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the proposal was a very reasonable one, and the Government had great pleasure in accepting it. Scotland had a right to be placed in the same position—mutatis mutandis—as England.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. BOORD

moved the following new clause:— (No prosecutions to be undertaken except with the authority of at least two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee.) No legal proceedings for non-attendance, or irregular attendance at school, shall be com- menced in a court of summary jurisdiction, by any person appointed to carry out the compulsory bye-laws of a School Board or Local Authority, except by the direction of not less than two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee, who shall have previously investigated the circumstances under which it is proposed to take such action. He said that its sole object was to provide that due care should be exercised in dealing with defaulting parents under the stringent powers conferred by the Education Acts. The clause was in perfect harmony with the intention of the Act of 1870, and of the Bill at present before the House. It was also in accord with the professed policy of the London School Board, but unfortunately that policy, as expressed in a resolution passed in June, 1872, had not been acted upon. He wished again to disclaim any prejudice or opposition to school boards; as such, they had done good work, and he contended that, by the passing of this clause, their hands would be strengthened, and they would be enabled to recover some of the popularity they had notoriously lost in many places owing to the manner in which the compulsory bye-laws were enforced. He would remind the House that compulsion was new to Englishmen and opposed to their national instincts, besides which it was an interference with parental responsibility and the liberty of the subject; therefore, there was the more reason why, when justified by State necessity, it should be applied with moderation and discretion. It should also be borne in mind that recent educational legislation had completely inverted the traditions of our law in one important particular. Contrary to all precedent and practice in other matters, the person accused of a breach of the bye-laws of a school board was required to prove his innocence, an innovation that should be surrounded with safeguards to prevent injustice being done. Relying on the support he had already received, and feeling confident of the beneficial effect the clause would have, he begged now to propose it for the acceptance of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, it was impossible to shut his eyes to the fact that the feeling of the Committee had been in favour of some such instruction. After much consideration the Government had determined to accept the clause with an Amendment. It would be necessary to insert the word "or" before "School Attendance Committee," and then let the clause stop there. He must decline to make it a condition that the members should themselves investigate the circumstances.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not think the clause necessary, because it represented the usual practice of the school boards. There had certainly been no dereliction of duty on the part of the London School Board, the members of which had, at a great sacrifice of time, personally examined into the circumstances before prosecutions were instituted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

proposed the following new Clause:— The managers of any school which is in receipt of an annual grant from the Education Department shall once in each year prepare an account in a form to be approved by the Education Department, showing in detail the income of such school from all sources, whether from Parliamentary grant, free schools, endowment, or voluntary subscription, and its expenditure, whether on salaries, school books, maintenance, or other miscellaneous expenditure; and such account, certified by two of the managers of the school, shall be kept in the school building, and shall be open to inspection by the parent of any child attending such school.

Clause (Statement of income of schools in receipt of an annual grant,)—(MR. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he could not accept the clause. There was not now any reason for the public inspection of the school accounts that did not exist in 1870, when no provision of the kind was made. The accounts were sent up to the Department, and could, he imagined, be obtained in any special case, where information as to a particular school was desired, by any hon. Member who moved for them.

MR. M'LAREN

stated that the people in some rural places would look upon the money received by the school as a mine of wealth, and if they did not see how it was spent, all sorts of unfavourable rumours would be circulated. If they had a sheet of paper exhibited in the school in which all the accounts were entered, it would prevent these stories from getting abroad in the majority of cases, and where they did get abroad, it would be a most effectual means of putting them down.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 82: Majority 15.

MR. CLARE READ

moved an Amendment in Clause 5, to provide that a child at the age of 9 years might be employed at any suitable work if it had made 250 school attendances in each of the four previous years, and the same number of attendances since it had reached the age of 9, or if it had received a certificate fixed by Standard IV. of the Code of 1876. The hon. Member contended that the Amendment was much more needed now than when the Bill was first introduced, because the Government had since accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish), the effect of which was that a child over 10 years could work as a half-timer, however ignorant it might be. Strong boys and girls of 9½ years of age were very useful in agriculture during the summer months. The Amendment now proposed was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 25, after the word "years," to insert the words "unless the child, being of the age of nine years, had made two hundred and fifty school attendances in each of the four previous years, and, since it reached the age of nine years, made two hundred and fifty school attendances, or had received a certificate fixed by Standard Four of the Code of one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six."—(MR. Clare Read.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding was accepted by the Government in deference to the marked feeling expressed on both sides of the House. The acceptance of that Amendment to which he had not concealed his personal dislike, as he feared it would seriously weaken the operation of the Pass system, and interfere with the effect of indirect compulsion, had, he confessed, somewhat complicated the position of the matter; but, on the other hand, the provision of the Bill was stringent that where a parent habitually neglected the education of his child, the stern arm of the law was to interfere, and the child was required to attend school a certain number of days. If local authorities did their duty no child would reach the age of 10 without having had a good deal of school attendance. Considerable concessions had already been made to his agricultural friends in regard to opportunities for children engaging in husbandry, and the Government felt they must adhere to the rule they had laid down—namely, that no child should go to work under the age of 10.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he would not press the Amendment in the absence of so many agricultural Members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Viscount Sandon, Amendment made in Clause 5, page 2, line 5, after "child," by inserting "being of the age of 10 years or upwards."

Other Amendments made.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,

in Clause 8, page 3, line 29, relating to children living on board canal boats, and who, from that circumstance, did not come within the comprehension of the Bill, requiring the attendance of children at the board schools, moved, after the word "attend," to insert, "but this excuse shall not be held to apply in the case of children living on board canal boats." The school boards had, the noble Lord observed, taken deep interest in those poor children, and he thought some provision ought to be made to secure their being educated.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, after the word "attend," to insert the words "but this excuse shall not be held to apply in the case of children living on board canal boats."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not think the Amendment would do any harm, and hoped it would be adopted.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, no one was more anxious than himself to meet the case of the poor canal children, but he thought the Amendment would, at this moment, do harm instead of good as the noble Lord desired, as the question was involved in such great difficulty. It would be almost impossible for the canal people to comply with its provisions, and therefore only useless irritation about education would be caused. How were they, living on board a canal boat, to attend a day school? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had promised to deal with the matter next year, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. A. MILLS

said, there were other classes of children with whom it was more difficult to deal, and in whose favour it was desirable that something should be done—he meant the children living on the shores of the river.

MR. CLARE READ

said, there were children living in barges upon navigable rivers as well as canals, for whose education something should be done.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was a question whether these children should be allowed to travel in canal boats at all, the cabins often being as overcrowded as the worst houses in London. As the Government were considering the whole question, which would have to be dealt with on sanitary grounds, he trusted the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

MR. WHITWELL

supported the view that the education of the classes of children referred to ought to be provided for.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, there was another class of children that ought not to be neglected—he meant the gipsy children.

MR. PELL

said, the children of the best class of boatmen resided on shore, and they would come under the Act. The children of the worst class lived on board and were exempt from the operation of the law.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

, in consideration of these assurances, consented to withdrawn his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

, on Clause 13, moved to make the distance from school which should be an excuse for absence three miles instead of two.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 20, to leave out the word "two," in order to insert the word "three,"—(Lord Frederick Cavendish,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

moved an Amendment in the 14th Clause, to the effect that if the parent of any child resident in the district of a school board should be unable to pay any part of its fees at a public elementary school, and the school board fail to make regulations under Clauses 25 and 74 of the Act of 1870 for the payment of them, the Guardians, if satisfied of the parent's inability to pay, should pay the same, in accordance with the provisions of the section. The noble Lord said that his Amendment was directed towards an obvious injustice to poor parents, which he hoped the Government would remedy by adopting his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 17, after the word "pay," to insert the words "If the parent of any child who is resident in the district of a School Board is unable, by reason of poverty, to pay the fees of such child at a public elementary school, or any part of such fee, and if the School Board fails to make regulations, under Clauses twenty-five and seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 for the payment of the same, it shall be the duty of the guardians, if satisfied of such inability, to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of this section."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the clause would interfere with the 25th clause of the Education Act of 1870, and as that clause had worked well, he would advise that it be let alone.

VISCOUNT SANDON

admitted that the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath had put his finger on a real grievance. There could be no doubt that Parliament did not intend that a parent should be obliged to send his child to a board school, if he objected to such school, simply because he was poor; and it was to be hoped cases of such injustice would not long exist. Perfect freedom to the parent as to the choice of school for his child was undoubtedly the intention of the Act of 1870, and it was only in cases where there was only one school available that Parliament had agreed to compel the parent to use a school which he did not like; and then only in the case where there was the Conscience Clause. Certainly poverty was never intended to be allowed to be held as a reason why the conscientious feelings of a parent were to be disregarded. He did not believe, however, that there were many cases in which it operated, or a very strong feeling would be manifested against it; neither could he think that Parliament intended that any school board should take upon itself only to remit fees and not to pay them. As the Amendment, however, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) would re-open the whole question of the famous 25th clause, he (Viscount Sandon) hoped it would not be pressed on this occasion. If it should be, he must oppose it.

MR. MELDON

complained that the Irish Members were being sacrificed by the noble Lord's acquiescence in a suggestion from the Opposition, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision, and take steps to remedy an admitted grievance. Notwithstanding great pressure, and especially with regard to the division that night, the Irish Roman Catholic Members had supported the Government in all the debates upon the Bill; and their wishes, which were in favour of the Amendment, ought to be consulted. He was glad the subject of education was now in the hands of the present Government, and that the late Government would never have the power to influence it again in that House; for whenever they attempted to secularize education there would be 60, or 70, or 80 Irish votes given against them.

MR. BIRLEY

declared that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.

MR. CLARE READ

supported the Amendment, because in all questions of poverty the Guardians rather than the school boards were the best authorities for the payment of the fees.

MR. SULLIVAN

hoped the Government would see its way to deal with this admitted blot on the Education Bill. He would remind the noble Lord that the Irish Liberal Members had supported the Government in the manly stand which they had made for Christian education, not because they were enamoured of their general policy, but because they were a party of principle rather than a party of expediency. The poor Irish in the large cities and manufacturing districts of England were exactly the class most oppressed by the present state of things, and he urged the Vice President to accept the Amendment and take away the reproach.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

repeated his opinion that the House would do well to let the 25th clause alone

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

trusted that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, having recognized that the Amendment was clearly equitable, would withdraw his objection to it. He should vote in its favour. After the noble Lord's candid confession that there was a grievance here, he could not see how hon. Members on the Conservative side could avoid voting with his hon. Friend opposite (MR. Sullivan)

MR. STEVENSON

opposed the Amendment

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD

, having admired the careful way in which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had piloted that Bill through shoals and quicksands, would be disposed to acquiesce in any decision of his; but the present case, he knew from personal experience, was so much one of justice, and intended to remedy what was a real blot in the law, that he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment

MR. ROWLEY HILL

, speaking from his own experience as a member of a school board, maintained that the blot which the Amendment was intended to correct was not a real, but only an imaginary one. He believed that these poor children would be received into denominational schools even without the adoption of the Amendment

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had acknowledged that the demand made by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath was, in its principle, founded on justice, although he doubted whether the practical working of the clause was such as to render it necessary or advisable that they should deal with the difficulty. Some hon. Gentlemen said that no difficulty had actually arisen, while others said that it had. On that point the affirmative evidence on the one side could not be rebutted by the negative evidence on the other; and it would be only fair and reasonable, therefore, that some provision should be made to meet it, and, under the circumstances, the Government would accept the Amendment, though they believed that there would not be many cases in which it would be really required to apply it.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

regretted extremely the statement just made. The acceptance of the Amendment simply meant making the 25th clause compulsory. Under that clause only some £3,000 or £4,000 a-year went to denominational schools in some favoured districts. Yet at the last Election nothing caused more excitement than that clause. As if the Bill did not trench closely enough on questions which went home to the hearts and consciences of the people, the Government seemed determined, to excite them further by making the clause compulsory. He could only express his extreme regret that the Government should have accepted the clause, which he believed would excite more religious strife than any other that had been proposed

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

denied that the opponents of that Amendment were the only persons who had hearts and consciences, and urged that board schools were not intended to supplant but only to supplement denominational schools. The Amendment of the noble Lord had hit a blot in the Act of 1870, without in the least departing from the principle of the 25th clause of that Act

MR. J. COWEN

said, the Amendment was the legitimate outcome of the 25th clause, and those who were in favour of that clause could not do otherwise than support the Amendment. From his point of view both the clause and the Amendment were equally objectionable. The consciences of parents had been referred to, but it should be borne in mind that many ratepayers had a conscientious objection to their money being applied to denominational education. The Education Act of 1870 was the means of dividing the Liberal Party and weakening them so that they were now not only a minority, but a disunited and disorganized minority. Hon. Members opposite, instead of speaking hardly of the Act of 1870, ought to con- gratulate themselves that it had been passed. "Once bit, twice shy." The Dissenters were bit by that Act, and they had been shy ever since.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

supported the Amendment, expressing his satisfaction that it had been accepted by the Government

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he did not think the House ought to be called upon to divide upon an Amendment, the acceptance of which came upon them by surprise. It was true that the Act of 1870 weakened the Liberal Party, but he congratulated the Party that the Government were taking such strong steps to re-unite them. A clause had been already introduced into the Bill which practically involved what the Nonconformists hated very much—a scheme of concurrent endowment; and now this Amendment would weaken school boards by allowing Boards of Guardians in one respect to override them. This would rouse more bitter feeling in the country than the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell)

MR. FAWCETT

wished to protest in the strongest possible language against the Government. Not apparently warned by the time already wasted, they repeated their tactics up to the very last. An ominous summons from the Treasury Whip had brought up the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that what some hours before was a theoretical difficulty was a practical difficulty, and to accept the Amendment making the 25th clause compulsory. In order to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Question in these new circumstances, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate

MR. DILLWYN

seconded the Motion

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Fawcett.)

SIR WALTER BARTTELOT

said, he was surprised at the proposal just made for the Adjournment of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Lyon Playfair) had taunted the Government with doing their best to reunite the Liberal Party. After the speech just made by an hon. Member (MR. O'Shaughnessy) the House would see upon the division whether the unanimity spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman existed among the Liberal Party. He appealed to the House to support the clause on the ground of the poor parent. Parliament was now forcing education on the people, and, if there were efficient schools in a parish where a school board existed, parents had a right to say to what school their children should go in all cases.

MR. W.E. FORSTER

thought his hon. Friend (MR. Fawcett) perfectly right in moving the Adjournment of the Debate. This was a most important clause, and no one could have expected that it would be taken up and adopted by the Government. He knew 50 or 60 hon. Members who would have been in their places if they had supposed the Government would accept the clause. He warned the Government of the difficulties which the proposal would bring in its train. The Opposition never could have expected that in this last stage of the Bill such a clause would be entertained. He was entirely opposed to the Guardians being put in over the school board

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the clause had been put upon the Paper, and it was for the House and not for the Government to determine whether it should be added to the Bill. If the 50 or 60 Members alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) were not in their places to oppose a clause of which due Notice had been given it was their fault, and there was no reason why its consideration should be postponed. He represented a neighbouring constituency (the Tower Hamlets) to that of the hon. Member for Hackney (MR. Fawcett), and he could say the clause would be received with great pleasure by his constituents. He trusted the Government would persevere in their course, and he should give them his hearty support

MR. DILLWYN

understood that the Amendment had only been placed on the Paper on the previous evening; but, in any case, there was a great difference between a Notice being on the Paper and its being accepted by the Government. He complained of that sudden sudden change of front on the part of the Government, and hoped the House would sit as long as it was necessary to enable the country to form an opinion on the question

MR. NEWDEGATE

I ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council whether Boards of Guardians are to have the option of paying these fees? ["No, no!"] Then I must say that I think it exceedingly objectionable that they should not; because it would be in the power of any parent to render Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school which he might choose. I hope my hon. Friend below me is right, but I will take the case of a parish without a board school, but with a public elementary school to which the Board of Guardians may object. You cannot say to that authority—"If you do not like the school, erect another," for you have not given the Board of Guardians the power to do that. You say to them—"You shall pay to the school that exists, although you object to that school." Then I say that to make this compulsory is contrary to the whole principle of the Act, which renders the authority of the district responsible for the teaching for which it has to pay. The alterations in the terms of the code of this Bill appears to render it perfectly improper to make this payment obligatory without option on the part of the Guardians. That is a change which I hope has escaped the attention of the Government, and I for one shall certainly not vote for rendering Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school in their district whether they choose it or not.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) had hit the nail on the head. It would seem from the policy which the Government had pursued with respect to the measure that they were determined to have a new Education Bill every night. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not learned wisdom from experience. It took him a week to carry the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and perhaps that was worth while, because he thereby obtained the alliance of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the hon. Member. But the noble Lord had other allies in the Roman Catholic Members of that House, so well represented by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Robert Montagu), who had proposed a clause which might be described as an exaggeration of the old 25th clause. The old 25th clause gave an optional power to school boards to subscribe the fees payable by parents who sent their children to denominational schools; but it was now proposed to make it compulsory on them to do so. This was a complete overthrow of the Act of 1870 as far as regarded the 25th clause, and it was a complete change of the Bill of the Government, which did not interfere with that clause. The Amendment of the noble Lord only appeared on the Paper that morning, and within 12 hours afterwards it was adopted by the Government. It was a fresh attack on school boards, it was fatal to their authority, and intended to be destructive to those very school boards which the Vice President of the Council had eulogized. Heeded not complain of the course which the Catholic Members had taken; but he was surprised that his noble Friend, who was to a certain extent the representative of the Orangemen of Liverpool, should have entered into alliance with them on this matter. The whole theory of the Catholic Church was that education ought to be entirely in the hands of the priesthood. ["No, no!"] He was sorry if he had misrepresented the views of Catholics on that subject; but all he could say was, that the view of those who sat on the Liberal side was entirely the opposite; and one of the reasons why they desired to see the extension of school boards in this country was because school boards were essentially representative of the laity, and wherever they existed the authority of the laity to control the education of the people was effectually secured. He complained of the re-opening of that large question at the eleventh hour without any practical Notice to that House, and without any notice whatever to the country, and thought they would be only exercising their proper and legitimate functions in securing for the country ample time to consider the proposed change.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

observed that he had given Notice of his Amendment as soon as he had discovered the blot in the Bill, which he desired to remove. In moving it he did so on the broad ground of justice, and he had simply declared that they had no right to compel the poor people to send their children to schools for which they were unable to pay the fees, unless they secured in some way that the fees should be paid for them. There was only one Party which had been consistent throughout on this question, and that was the Irish Party. He thought, however, that if the Government had changed their opinions on the question it was owing to what they saw was the feeling of the House.

MR. PELL

said, the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) showed that they had not fully examined the proposals contained in the Bill. The principle of the clause under discussion, so far from being a new one, was contained in the 14th clause of the measure, and was also embodied in a Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in 1873—a Bill entitling Boards of Guardians to pay the school fees for out-door paupers, who also were privileged to select the schools to which their children should be sent.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that if there had been any change of front on this question, it had been effected by the occupants of the front Opposition bench above the Gangway, whose right to taunt Her Majesty's Government with changing their front he begged emphatically to deny. On the question of shortness of Notice, he would remind the House that a deputation waited yesterday on the Leader of the Opposition, and that as the result of such deputation a formidable Notice of Motion appeared on the Paper that morning, side by side with that of the noble Lord's the Vice President of the Council's, which the House was then considering. That formidable Amendment was in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition; but those of the disunited Liberal Party who had counselled its adoption had no right to place themselves in antagonism to the Amendment of his noble Friend. He challenged the Leader of the Opposition to raise the question at issue on the broad platform of public approval. The hon. Member for Newcastle (MR. Cowen), one of the most advanced Radicals in the House, and one who knew the feeling of the country far better than the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), had said that anyone who would vote for the 25th clause would vote for the Amendment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) complained that the clause would leave an option in the hands of the Guardians; but it was only an option to decide upon a question of poverty, and on such a subject he should think Boards of Guardians were likely to be the best judges. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had very skilfully raised a false issue by saying that the question raised by the clause of the noble Lord was one between the laity, pure and simple, and those who wished for clerical domination in educational matters. He could only say that the Roman Catholic laity had no desire for clerical domination. They only wished to have it known that, in their opinion, an education divorced from moral ideas and conscientious principles—reverence for God and His teachings—might make skilful infidels, but would never make good citizens. It was by meddling with education in a way that touched the consciences of Irish Members that hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench were forced out of office, and it was a little short sighted of them now to pursue a similar policy in an aggravated form. They were the most inconsistent politicians in the world. In one breath they called for the demolition of the State Church, and in the next they sought to cram down the throats of the people a new State religion in the schools. As the Adjournment was moved for the purpose of an out-door agitation, he warned the Liberal Party, who were not united upon this and other questions, and who were glad in their turn to receive concessions from the Government, that if they went to the country upon this issue, the Government would stand before the country as saying that, while poverty had many hardships, it should not at all events have this additional aggravation—that while a poor man, as long as he could pay, was able to send his children to school in which his conscience was respected, his children should not, when he was no longer able to pay, be forced into a school from which his conscience rebelled.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, that the Scotch Act contained a clause enabling poor parents to apply to the Parochial Board, who, thereupon, paid the cost of the schooling. This clause was on all fours with the Amendment of the noble Lord, and it was a clause proposed by the late Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 192: Majority 101.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it could hardly be doubted that Her Majesty's Government would have refused to accept the Amendment had it been proposed by any other hon. Member, but it was impossible to forget the ties of almost intimate personal friendship which bound them to the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath. That circumstance had doubtless induced the Government to accept the Amendment with such haste. There was no reason whatever why the Amendment should not have been moved in Committee on the Bill, and as he objected to an Amendment of such a character being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, he begged to move that the House should now adjourn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

I rise to ask a question. Having come into the House after the discussion of the clause had proceeded to some extent, I put a question to hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, to which I have received no answer. I trust the House will now allow me to explain the reason of the vote which I have just given. As the clause stands the Guardians are compelled, if the parent is poor, and is resident in a district where there is not a school board, to pay the fees to any denominational school in the district to which the parent may choose to send his child; and the Amendment which is now proposed would render it compulsory on the Guardians, in a district where there is a school board and a board school, to pay the school fees for the child whose parent is poor, to whatever school the parent chooses to send his child, although the education of that child might be provided for in a board school. We are placed in this difficulty. Unfortunately, the House rejected the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford (MR. Hall) the other night, which would have insured religious education in board schools for every child whose parent demanded it. The House has failed to provide religious education in the board schools. It is quite true that in the great majority of board schools religious education is given; and I regret that there should be any exceptions to the rule; still, in the board schools generally religious education is given. Now, I hold that that ought to be compulsory at the option of the parent, and I voted that it should be, but the Government rejected the proposal. What is the effect? Why, that the Roman Catholic Members rise to tell you that all the board schools are in principle secular. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who rejected the proposal that board schools should be compelled to give religious education when the parent demands it. That was a great mistake on the part of the Government and the House. It places the House in this position—that it has established secular without religious education, and the Roman Catholic Members take advantage of this. Of course they do. They represent the principle which is held by the Heads of their Church, that no religious education ought to be given except by the priesthood. ["No, no!"] That is the declaration of your own Episcopate. Well, we object to that principle; but, unfortunately, the House has failed to enforce the alternative—the alternative being that the parent should have a right to claim religious education in any public elementary school, maintained by public funds. The position of the Conservative Party is weak, because the principle of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford was rejected; but what is the position of the Government? Because, having opposed that clause, and placed themselves in a difficulty by opposing it, as they have given the Roman Catholic Members an opportunity of declaring all the board schools and union schools secular in principle, they are now proceeding on the principle of concurrent endowment. That is inevitable from their rejecting all religious education demanded by a parent in a board or other public elementary school. The other night I urged upon the Government the precedent set by the late Lord Derby in the year 1835, who, in instituting the national system of education in Ireland, provided for the religious education of the children as a part of the system. At the instance of Cardinal Cullen, when he first appeared as a Bishop in Ireland, in opposition to the decision of the late Archbishop Murray, that system has been abrogated in Ireland; but the power of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England is not yet what it is in Ireland, and if the Government had but acted in conjunction with their supporters when the hon. Member for Oxford proposed that religious education should be given in the public elementary schools to all children whose parents demand it, they would not have been placed in the position in which they now are, and in which they have placed their whole Party. Of course, as an independent Member myself, I do not feel bound to vote against my convictions. I desire to promote religious education, and I contend that it is the duty of the State to provide religious education for every child whose parent demands it in a public institution. That is an intelligible principle: but I am sorry to see that the principle on which the Government are proceeding is this—they have adopted the doctrine of religious indifference in the sense of religious equality with respect to all the religions, the provision for which they are now about to enforce upon Boards of Guardians, and upon all school boards. I think this is a lamentable result; but it is the result of their having resisted their own supporters, when we asked the House to declare that the public authority should provide religious education for the children, whenever demanded by the parents, as was the case originally in Ireland. The position of the Government is, in my estimation, a false position, and I felt compelled in consequence to vote against them.

MR. GREENE

believed there was now no course before the Government except that of approving of the Amendment of the noble Lord. Had they gone to a division in opposing the clause they would have been beaten by their own Supporters. For his own part—although he always looked with suspicion upon a Motion proposed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu)—still on this occasion his prejudices had been overcome, and he had therefore voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. Although he so disliked Roman Catholicism, he would rather see a child educated in a Catholic school than in a secular one.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 195: Majority 104.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR CHARLES FORSTER

said, that as it was impossible to finish the debate that night he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.

MR. FARLEY LEITH seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Sir Charles Forster.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped the Government would consent to the Motion. ["No, no!"] The only result in not doing so would be that they would be engaged some considerable time that night in debating it, and which would not lead to a speedy or an amicable decision of that long education debate. There was not the slightest idea the question would have been brought before the House. It had been sprung upon them suddenly; and there was a minority sufficiently large to insist on more time for consideration. The proper course for the Government to take if they did anything in the direction intimated by the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath would have been rather to have repealed the 25th clause altogether, than to modify it by a proposal which would throw the whole working of the Act into confusion, besides taking from the ratepayers an option which they at present had, and doing that in a manner the most contemptuous and insulting. The clause was working tolerably well, and there was no reason why at the end of the Session it should have been re-opened.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought it was a great pity that they should be wasting all these hours, but at the same time he did not know what was to be gained by adjournment. As they had a full House, and the matter had been fully discussed, he thought they had better decide the question. It was not a new question; it had been before the country for many years, and the whole of the consequences involved had been made the subject of anxious consideration, and of argument both within and without the House. He could not consent to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that an hour and a-half ago the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council declared that he could not accept the Amendment; but a quarter of an hour later the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place and accepted it. He complained that the decision of the Government had been sprung upon them unexpectedly. He, however, exonerated the noble Lord from any double dealing in the matter. The Amendment had been pressed upon him against his own convictions. He (MR. Mundella) contended that it would thrust the greatest possible indignity upon the school boards, for it involved the reversion of an important principle affecting their position, inasmuch as it would put the Board of Guardians over their heads. He believed it was the firm determination of hon. Members who had voted in the minority not to allow the question to be decided until the country had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. If the Government were going to deal in the politics of surprise, they would be surprised to find that they would not finish the Bill that Session.

MR. PELL

said, the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath merely extended to the child of a poor man the same privilege as was given to the child of a pauper—namely, that in school-board districts the Board of Guardians should have power to send his child to school, though it left to the parent the choice of the school. He saw no reason why the clause should not be agreed to.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I believe that Roman Catholic Members speak their own sentiments, but they do not speak the sentiments of those by whom, their Church is governed. I am protesting against the State countenancing the principle of concurrent religious endowment. That is what I protest against. In December last a meeting was held at which MR. Lilley, the secretary of a Roman Catholic institution established to form a connection between the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country and Roman Catholic institutions abroad with respect to education, described the difference between the position of France and England, and he said this— In France our course is simple, because the people do not see anything different between pure secularism and the Roman Catholic Church. The case in England is different. The people here are divided into various sects; but they are strictly and essentially a religious people. In England we have to contend with heresy. In France we have to contend with indifference. In France the course is simple, but in England the principle of religion is implanted deep in the hearts of the people; but that feeling is not represented by the Government, who would, however, find a solution to this difficulty in accepting the principle of compelling the the board school and every public elementary school to give religious education whenever demanded by a parent, otherwise they will give to the Roman Catholic hierarchy the advantage of being able to denounce every board school and every union school as a secular establishment adverse to religion. They need no other position in order to produce in this country that which MR. Lilley declared the Ultra-montanes desired—Roman Catholicism on one side, and absolute religious indifference on the other. That is the position from which they look forward to success, and hope to achieve it; and the reason, assigned by themselves, why they have not become dominant in England, is the religious feeling of its people who now demand from this House the satisfaction of that feeling.

DR. WARD,

speaking as a Roman Catholic, said he would prefer to send his children to a Church school with a Conscience Clause rather than to a secular school

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

did not wish, after the divisions which had been taken, to press the Adjournment; but as there was this peculiarity in the matter, that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) at first opposed the clause, it would be well that both the House and the Government should have further time for consideration

CAPTAIN NOLAN

denied that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council at first disapproved the clause; on the contrary, the noble Lord said it was an excellent one, but in the absence of his Colleagues at the time from the Treasury Bench he hesitated to accept it

MR. HOPWOOD

was somewhat astonished that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not corrected, if an erroneous impression existed, the statement made to the effect that he had accepted the clause of the noble Lord

MR. BIRLEY

denied that any such undertaking had been given. What the noble Lord said was that the Amendment hit a blot in the Bill which called for some remedy, but he hesitated to accept the clause, as he doubted the propriety of inserting it in the Bill

VISCOUNT SANDON

observed that what took place was this—He said that the Government could not do otherwise than acknowledge that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had hit a blot in the Bill, but that there was every reason to suppose that the school boards would become more and more aware that they had not exercised their functions quite justly in the matter; that public opinion, when the matter was understood, would insist that parents should be dealt with justly in the matter, and that children should not be forced into board schools when the parents were too poor to send them to denominational schools. But he said that at that late period of the Session, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford, there was not sufficient cause to justify him in opening the question. There followed, however, a remarkable exhibition of feeling on both sides of the House.—a strong feeling for which the Government was not prepared; and that made it desirable that the Government should reconsider the matter.

MR. MELDON

said, after the statement of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council positive evidence was given of the necessity of legislation in order to cure existing defects. He trusted hon. Gentlemen who thought they constituted the Liberal Party would be satisfied with the proof they had given of unification, and with having brought down the right hon. Member for Bradford as a repentant sinner.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 179: Majority 97.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was quite impossible the debate should be closed that night. The clause had been accepted by the Government suddenly and without Notice, and no opportunity had been given for proposing Amendments. He begged, therefore, to move the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Mundella.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

supported the proposal for Adjournment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 170: Majority 93.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Osborne Morgan.)

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

expressed a hope that hon. Members would answer the arguments in favour of the Amendment, instead of resorting to the Forms of the House to defeat it. When the Irish Members did so to preserve the benefits of the Constitution for their country they were very much condemned for the course they pursued

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

was afraid the temper of the House was such as to render any appeal to hon. Members opposite perfectly useless. As there were Strangers in the Galleries he did not think that was an occasion on which the House appeared in the best light. But, on the other hand, he did not admit that the blame could fairly be attached to the Opposition benches. He contended that the Government were seeking to force upon the House an important Amendment, brought forward without Notice, that it formed no part of the original Bill, nor was it alluded to in Committee, and it was but reasonable that time should be allowed to consider it and see whether it could not be amended so as to make it less objectionable than it was in its present shape

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed, that the House was considering not a clause, but an Amendment—an addition to the 14th clause. The point was not a new one; it had been under consideration for years. The 14th clause provided for the payment of the fees of poor children in districts where there was no school board, and the Amendment extended that provision to school board districts, and the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 did not meet the case, as the option to pay the fees there provided was in many cases not given effect to. At the first blush the Government did not feel inclined to accept the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), but since that time cogent reasons had been stated in support of the clause, and the Government felt bound to accept it. The principle in- volved in the clause had been so long discussed that he thought there could be no difficulty in arriving at a decision on the question. If the proposal for Adjournment was agreed to the House would re-assemble at 2 o'clock for the further consideration of the Bill with no additional information on which to found a decision.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

hoped further time would be given for further consideration of the clause before the House was called upon to come to a conclusion concerning it.

After further short debate—

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 160: Majority 88.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Blake.)

The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 156: Majority 88.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MONK

protested against the Government springing a mine on the House, and moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(MR. Monk.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

proposed to move an Amendment on the clause to give the Government an opportunity, in a division, of asserting their view upon the subject as regarded the principle at issue, and with the object of deferring the consideration of further Amendments.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that if it was to be distinctly understood that the present decision was to be final as regarded the principle, so far, then, there could be no objection to giving a few hours' delay for further consideration with regard to Amendments; but if the whole question was to be re-opened when the House met again, why, better fight it out at once.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the Government were willing to consent to some delay upon the terms suggested, on the distinct understanding that the division on the proposed Amendment was to be regarded as equivalent to a division on the second reading of the clause.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

, on the part of other hon. Members, declined to be bound by the proposed arrangement, on the ground that it would involve the surrender of all that they had been contending for.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 153: Majority 89.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BRISTOWE

, pointing to the lateness of the hour—a quarter to 3 o'clock—moved the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Bristowe.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON thought the Government were scarcely meeting the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

considered that the Government had shown every disposition to meet the Opposition fairly.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 148: Majority 85.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Serjeant Simon.)

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 144: Majority 83.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "who is," in order to insert the words "not being,"—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'who is' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 140: Majority 83.

Question again proposed, "That the words 'who is' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir George Balfour.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

House adjourned at half after Four o'clock in the morning.