HC Deb 17 December 1902 vol 116 cc1515-77

Lords Amendment further considered.

Lords' Amendment— In page 5, line 8, after 'authority,' insert 'shall as regards its character be.'

The next Amendment read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

(3.0) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

This is the main question about which many of us have complained of the action of my hon. and gallant friend and the Government, and I think it is necessary to say some final word about the controversy which has so long engaged the attention of this House. It would have been competent, of course, to any hon. Memher of this House to have moved an Amendment which would have raised expressly the main issues about which we have been contending, namely, the issue whether an incumbent ought or ought not to be deprived by the managers of the right I he now enjoys in the majority of cases under the trust deeds, of himself providing and undertaking the religious teaching in a Church school. I do not myself move such an Amendment, because it does not seem to me to serve any good purpose to press the House to a division upon a subject upon which it has so often declared its opinion, but as the question now is whether we should finally agree with the Lords Amendment which apparently—we do not know what interpretation will be put upon it—destroys the right of the incumbent to teach in a school except with the consent of the managers, it is necessary to say a few words of final protest against the course which has been taken. Our objection to that course is, first of all, that the rights of incumbents existing under trust deeds are just as important and just as deserving of respect as any other of the rights arising under these deeds, and, therefore, in so far as denominational education deserves respect at all, it is respect out of deference to a i right which is precisely the same, and neither more nor less sacred than the right of the incumbent which is disregarded. In my view there is no reason for giving Church teaching in any Church school that cannot be urged for allowing the incumbent to supervise the teaching. The rights are exactly parallel, and the distinction now drawn most unjust and indefensible. That is my first objection to the Clause.

My second is that, if not in express words, in substance and reality there is an unmistakable censure and condemnation passed upon the work of those who, in my view, do not deserve censure but rather the gratitude of the community. This censure, in effect, is not minimised because veiled by the language of panegyric and eulogium used in both Houses. What is in effect conveyed is that the clergy are not to be trusted save under lay control to do what it is their express duty to do, namely, the teaching of religion, and put it in whatever phase you please: this is a real censure and an undeserved censure which ought, and will be, deeply resented. But here 1 must be concise, or I shall be trespassing upon another Amendment. In reference to matters of doctrine I do not think that the restriction of the rights of the Bishop is anything but another insult to the wisdom and integrity of the Episcopal Bench, not made any better by the manner in which it was conveyed in another place. I do not suppose it ever happened before that the Episcopate of the Anglican Church has been invited to give an assurance, and when that assurance was given has been told that it is altogether inadequate, implying that at the worst they were deliberate liars, and at the best boasters who made promises that they could not any out.

*MR. SPEAKER

The noble Lord seems to be entering on a very wide discussion of a very narrow Amendment. 1 was under the impression that this was a drafting Amendment.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I think that the character of the religious instruction raises the question to which I am solely addressing myself. The words of the Amendment "shall as regards its character" limit the operation of the trust deed to the character of the religious instruction. It does not allow the trust deed to operate in respect of the person who is to supervise the teaching. I intend to make my observations relevant to that Amendment, and if 1have trespassed it is unintentionally.

*MR. SPEAKER

The noble Lord is right, and if he keeps to those lines he will be in order.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I do not intend to go beyond the lines of that argument. My third objection is that I think a wrong is done in overthrowing the rights of the incumbents not only to the clergy and the bishops, but also to the members of the Church of England. Neither the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Life as to the State relationship, nor that of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister as to the family relationship with these schools, can be sustained for a moment. The schools do not bear any relationship to the family. The parents are neither formally nor informally represented on the board of management. There is not the slightest ground for thinking that they will reflect in any real degree the opinion of the parents. The clergyman himself is most in touch with the ideas of the parents as to the education of their children. Although I am aware that the Government do not hold that view, I believe this argument can only be defended on the hypothesis that this is a Church school, and that the lay members had a right to supersede the incumbent in his theological views. That sets up a principle to which all those who are sincerely attached to the constitution of the Church of England are unalterably opposed, and 1 very much regret that in this Bill step should have been taken to raise in this Clause issues of the most farreaching importance, the raising of which cannot but alienate very much indeed members of the Church one from another and a large number of the members of the Church from the Government and those whom they hold responsible for introducing this provision in the Bill.

Next I regret very much that a standard, not of orthodoxy, not of right teaching, not of wisdom, but of popularity, should have been erected for clergymen of the Church of England. The clergyman is to be deprived of his right under the trust deed, not because he teaches what is not the doctrine of the Church of England—very likely as many will give what is not right teaching in the future as in the past, for the Bill gives no security that they shall not—but because they are not popular, and not popular with the upper and middle class among their parishioners; perhaps because they have quarrelled with a had landlord about the condition of his cottages, or with a trader who carries on business by dishonest methods, or a publican whose house is ill-managed, or a farmer who grinds down his labourers. I dare say some religious pretext in such cases may not be found wanting to drive a clergyman away from his schools. Such is the standard of ministerial duty that will be set up. Before all things they must be popular, not with the poor, but with those who are rich and well to do. To set up such a standard is in a very real sense to do wrong to the Church of England and to lower the standard of public duty among the ministers of that Church. My right hon. friend in a speech recently delivered made an appeal to those who have to work the Bill to carry it out loyally and with a real disposition to make it work. I hope and believe the appeal will be responded to; but I am sure it will not be responded to in regard to this particular provision. The general character of the Bill is, no doubt, of such a kind that those who wish well to denominational schools will endeavour to the best of their ability to make it work, but if there are to be found anywhere managers who are so disloyal to the character of the Church of England as to endeavour to supersede the clergyman without any authority from or approval of the Bishop, I am quite sure that every means that can be taken will be taken to resist them. If there is any ambiguity in the trust deed the matter will be carried to litigation. In any case there is always the pressure of public opinion to give or withhold financial support, and my right hon. friend and the Government may be quite sure that no considerations of peace or tranquility will stand in the way of those who feel that they are maintaining a great and important principle by resisting the character of this Amendment.

I believe that the Government have done a most unwise thing in allowing this Amendment of the Bill. The real grievance might have been dealt with more easily and efficaciously by other means. They have chosen a course which is offensive to the religious sentiment of a large portion of the Church of England, very offensive to the clergy, very offensive to the Bishops. I trust that in the contest that may perhaps arise out of this Amendment they will maintain their efforts, not in disregard of the supreme interest of the religious education of the schools, but being sure that that religious character of the Church of England and the maintenance of its principles are the fundamental conditions under which alone that religious education can be properly carried out in this country—I hope they will charitably but manfully, and without cessation, maintain their efforts until they have succeeded in inducing Parliament to relinquish a policy which in an evil hour they undertook, and of which 1 am persuaded that the longer it is persisted in the more certain it will be found to be one of those blunders into which States are hurried when they offend the religious sentiment of a part of the community.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I feel that my noble friend who has just sat down has spoken out of the fulness of his heart upon a subject on which he feels very strongly, and in a cause in which he is conscientiously prepared to sacrifice many public interests; and one owes much sympathy to any one who addresses this House, and, through the House the country, as an advocate of a cause which, after all the discussion, in this House and in another place, must be regarded as an unpopular cause. Anybody who, I say, advocates principles which are unpopular principles, out of a deep religious conviction deserves, and will obtain, the sympathy of all who hear him. But having paid that tribute to my noble friend's motives, I confess that, after hearing him again on this subject, the feelings of regret with which I have heard him on frequent occasions during these debates have not been in any way diminished or alleviated. I do not pretend to understand exactly the line of argument on which my noble friend relies. He has mixed up in the speech to which Ave have just listened two sets of considerations which appear to me to lie utterly diverse, and which I do not think will run as a well-matched pair for the controversial purposes for which my noble friend desires to use them. He partly relies on the theological argument and partly on the legal argument. In other words, he partly relies on his view of the position in the Church of England a clergyman necessarily occupies in the parish where he officiates; and partly he derives his argument from the fact that, in his view, certain trust deeds are violated or affected by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. These really are quite separate arguments; and the practical answer is evident when you remember that in a large number of schools, and in a large number of Church of England schools, the clergyman has no special rights whatever under trust deeds. Very well; is the doctrine of the Church of England violated in the case of these schools which have no trust deeds? If it is we have not heard of it before. My noble friend has never protested that sacred inviolate ecclesiastical doctrines are being tampered with when the clergyman, by trust deed, is not given special rights in these schools in regard to religious education. If that be so, I think my noble friend is very ill advised to rely on what I have described as the legal argument in defence of his position. The legal argument is merely incidental. My noble friend complained that the Government have tampered with trust deeds, and I do not deny that the Bill does affect the trust deeds of voluntary schools, and I do not believe that any Hill dealing with elementary education which admitted voluntary schools to any share in public money could avoid making alterations in their trust deeds. The change in the position of schools is so great, is so fundamental, that some alteration is necessary unless these schools are to be entirely left outside the scope of your legislation. But supposing it were a crime to touch these trust deeds, who incited the Government to commit that crime? Why, the two Houses of Convocation. I shall have a word to say about the Resolution passed by the two Houses of Convocation directly. My noble friend may perhaps differ from my contention, but he will not differ from what I now urge upon the attention of the House. Surely he cannot differ from me because all I am stating is that the Committee of the two Houses of Convocation deliberately suggested that legislation should be brought in which would add to the existing managers two from outside.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said trust deeds were broken in consequence of the arrangements for secular education; but why, mi his right hon. friend's principle, should he not go the whole length of the Opposition and say that denominational instruction should be put under popular control? There was only one rational line of division between religious and secular instruction, and that he thought the Government had taken, but it was inconsistent with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not dealing with the theological problem. I am dealing now entirely with the legal branch of the argument. Am I to understand that you may violate a trust-deed in regard to secular property, and that you may not violate it in dealing with religious instruction?

LORD HUGH CECIL

said in consideration of the use of public money there was interference with secular instruction.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not a question of altering trust deeds. My noble friend is trying to run together two quite different lines of argument. It seems to me that he has no case whatever on the legal aspect, and I leave the legal branch of his argument and come to that to which, I think, he attaches far more importance and on which he places more reliance. He has attacked something I said in a previous speech in which I said an elementary school had more analogy to the family than it had to the service and work carried on in the ecclesiastical edifice, be it the church or the chapel in a parish. My noble friend disputes that proposition. He has pointed out with perfect truth that the analogy is not in any sense complete, and that it would be absurd to say that a child in school is precisely in the same position as the child in the family, but I do distinctly reiterate the argument I used, which was to this effect, that in the education given in an elementary school you do for the children of the poorer classes that which in regard to the children of the richer classes is, if not invariably, commonly done in the domestic circle by the parents themselves, or by persons engaged for the purpose. It seems to me perfectly clear that when you are dealing with the children of the poor, and providing them with the education their parents have not the time or money which their richer neighbours can afford, that when you compel them to send their children to an elementary school and say to them you propose that not only shall the children obtain secular education, but also that religious instruction, which, if the children were educated under easier circumstances at home the parents would give them—then I say the analogy is extremely close. Though it is perfectly true you cannot describe any part of the elementary school system as giving a co plete representation of the parental care of the children, surely it is absurd to say that since there is this distinction between the school and the family as a necessary consequence you must regard the clergyman as having the sole authority in that instruction.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said the whole conception of the school was that it should be conducted on the principles of the denomination, and if those principles were abandoned, then there was really no answer to the opposition.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then the school is not conducted in accordance with the principles of the denomination unless the clergyman has control!

LORD HUGH CECIL

Not in the Church of England.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

lam referring to Church of England schools, but I cannot go the length to which my noble friend goes. I agree that the natural leader of religious thought should be the clergyman, the natural guide in education should be the clergyman; but that there is this inalienable right upon which nobody should trespass — that there is this fundamental right and responsibility— there I cannot go with my noble friend. I have never put this matter on criticism of the clergy, but I quite agree, and it is impossible to deny, that a great deal of the controversy has arisen in large sections of the community from the fact that certain of the clergy have shown themselves utterly unfitted to carry out this duty that my noble friend says devolves upon them. I do not say there are many cases, but that there are some, my noble friend, of course, could not think of denying for a moment. There was a case mentioned the other day by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which I think was accepted as authentic in its main details. I am sure my noble friend will not deny that there have been certain cases where clergymen have shown themselves quite unfit to conduct the education as the sole authority. But I am disposed to go further and ask my noble friend how far he means to press his contention. So far as I understand it, it is that he thinks that the clergymen should be in precisely the same position during the hours of religious instruction in the school as he is in during the service in the parish church. If that is the position he thinks clergymen ought to occupy, then I say 'clergymen as a whole have deliberately abandoned it. A clergyman in a parish; church does much more than superintend the instruction or service carried on. He: does the work himself. He very rightly regards himself as the person, and the one person only, directly commissioned to carry out and direct the offices of religion. But what does ho do in the school? In a very large number of parishes he delegates the whole work of religious instruction to laymen. I think that in most cases he acts rightly in so doing, not because laymen are more qualified to teach religion to children, but because the schoolmaster is more qualified to teach religion to children in large numbers; a schoolmaster is an expert; he is accustomed to keep discipline; he knows the individual children, and their scholastic idiosyncrasies; he is trained to instil knowledge into young minds; he is an expert, and does the educational work better than the man who is not an expert. I believe that it is for the interests of religious teaching that this work is in a large measure done by laymen, but if the position of the clergymen in the school is to be similar and on all fours with his position in the parish church, then I say he has not the slightest right to delegate the duty to laymen, and 1 should like to know on what theological ground my noble friend would justify it.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said the position was not entirely on all fours, but the same principle was involved.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We get far from a divine mission when the mission is carried out by the casual layman. My noble friend has not been content throughout all these controversies to merely express with great ability and eloquence his own opinions, which I know are largely shared by many persons outside; but be has attacked the Government with great severity on every occasion he has spoken where I say the Government are not open to his criticisms. We have never concealed the view we took on this question from the beginning. This is not a surprise policy started in the later stages of this Bill; this policy of what is called the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was the policy of the Bill from the beginning, and 1 believe it was the policy of the two Houses of Convocation when the passed the famous Resolution in favour of having some additional re presentation on the boards of management. I will call my noble friend's attention, and the attention of all who hear me, and of all who do me the honour to read me, to the terms of the Resolution, which run as follows— That the government of every school, and especially the appointment and the dismissal of the teachers, be left in the hands of the present committee of management, with the addition of certain members appointed by or under rules made by the local authority, such additional members not to exceed one-third of the whole number. I really want to know whether, when the two Houses of Convocation passed that Resolution, they intended the world and the Legislature to believe that when they talked of the government of the school being handed over to a body thus composed, it really meant that the government of the school in certain particulars should be handed over to the body thus composed, but that in so important and controverted a subject as the religious education of the children, it was not to be handed over to that body at all, but should be retained exclusively, at all events in certain schools, in the hands of one single individual.

LORD HUGH CECIL

What was then before the public and before Convocation was the question of the public authority as against managerial authority. No one's mind was directed to the incumbent's authority as against the managerial authority. That did not arise at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Am I really to believe that when the two Houses of Convocation were considering the form of government they wanted to see adopted in Church schools they forgot all about the religious teaching? It may be so. I am not attacking Convocation. I am defending the Government, and all I say is that the defence of the Government is complete. My noble friend's explanation of the conduct of Convocation may also be complete. All I say is that we, being poor, fallible laymen, should not be blamed for interpreting their words in their plain and obvious signification, and as carrying with them the inference and conclusion that when they said the government of the school was to be given to a body of a certain kind they meant exactly what they said. That is the first point I have got to make in defence of the Government—a thing which I should not have undertaken if my noble friend had not, not for the first time, made this vehement attack upon them. May I remind the House of the last thing I should ever wish to remind them of—my own old speeches? As the Minister in charge of the Bill, I have had to speak on it on many occasions both in this House and out of it—occasions of great publicity, occasions on which what I said was fully reported both in Hansard and in the Press. I explicitly stated, for example, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the principle of the measure as regards the management of the schools was the abolition of one man management. J stated that in perfectly plain terms.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I do not deny that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then my noble friend has relieved me from the wearisome task of reading extracts from my speeches. He admits, then, that on the Second Reading, and on other occasions quite early in the discussions on the Bill, made it clear that that was the principle of the measure.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I admit you said it. My point is that you did not make it perfectly clear.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then I am afraid I must read one or two extracts, although I do not want to bore the House. This is what I said, for instance, to the deputation of Nonconformists that waited upon me soon after the Bill was read a second time— No doubt what are known as voluntary schools will retain a denominational majority on the board of managers, and the board of managers will select the teachers, subject, in every case, to the approval of the local authority, and deal with religious instruction. And then I went on to say— It has been constantly stated as an objection that the schools are often under the simple management of the parson of the parish. Please observe that ' one man-managed' education will no longer exist after this Hill is passed, and lay members of the community will then be in an immense majority, not merely on the education authority, but on the local boards of management. Henceforth what the management do, will be done in public, and when I remember that, even under the existing system, the number of children withdrawn by their parents from religious instruction is almost infinitesimal, I think 1 may fairly claim from every impartial investigator of the subject that, so far as the parents are concerned, the Bill leaves little to be desired.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I did not mean to complain of my right lion, friend. All I meant to say was that he was certainly not so understood.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then I will read another sentence. It is a speech I made in this House on July 21. The House was in Committee on what was then Clause 7, the whole object of which was to give a denominational majority on the board of management. In the early stages of the discussions upon that famous Clause I said this— Under the plan of the Government the whole of the six managers were equally concerned in the selection of the teachers and the regulation of the religious curriculum. The religious education will be under the control, not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a board of six. My noble friend says I did not make it clear. I may lack lucidity of expression on many occasions; but on this occasion I surely did, if only by accident, blunder into a phrase which was absolutely precise and unmistakable, and which I do not think even a theologian can explain away. And all that time, while I was making these speeches, and while, it is not too much to say, the fate of this Bill was hanging in the balance, was I criticised on the subject by the leaders of ecclesiastical opinion in the country I never received a single word of complaint or criticism from any public authority; nothing was stated on any public platform, nothing, as far as I remember, was ever written to me, until Clause 7 was through. Well, really, whoever else may be blamed, it is not the Government. Because what was Clause 7, the Clause on which we fought for three weeks If I may remind the House, if it needs reminding, that Clause was a Clause to give a denominational majority on the boards of management of the voluntary schools. Is it to be supposed that this House would ever have thought of passing Clause 7 if they had known that that Clause was to be interpreted as meaning, not that the board of management thus constituted was to have the control of religious teaching in the school, but that it was only to have the control in those particular cases where the trust deeds did not otherwise provide? If I had got up and made the announcement that that was the policy of the Government, or if my noble friend had said that he understood the Clause in that way, or if he had said then that by taking the course we had done we had alienated Church opinion, what would have happened to Clause 7? Would this House have looked at it? I had difficulty enough in passing it as it was, and the difficulty was not confined to Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I had difficulty with those who are among my most constant and loyal friends on this side of the House. What would those difficulties have been if I had told the House that Clause 7, which it was thought, on the face of it, was giving too much to the denominational majority, had an occult, secret, and recondite meaning which, when revealed, showed that not merely was there to be a denominational majority upon these boards of management, but that there was to be a denominational absolutism given into the hands of one individual in the case of every school which had trust deeds of a particular kind? If I had said that, we should not have been discussing the Lords Amendments to this Bill to-day, and my noble friend would have been contemplating Church principles in the abstract without having to consider their relation to a Bill, which I think he must admit has done as much as the friends of the Church could possibly hope for to render denominational teaching a practical possibility in the public elementary schools of this country.

My noble friend says that no considerations of peace will induce him and his friends to desist from agitation against this Clause when the Bill is passed. From what I know of my noble friend I am sure he is not making a boast which he will not absolutely fulfil. I do not believe that any consideration of peace will restrain him, but I must frankly say that I think him ill-advised. No man has a greater authority than my noble friend amongst a most important, devoted and able section of the clergy of this country. They look up to him, they follow him, especially in matters in which politics and religion are both concerned. They regard him, and I think they rightly regard him, as the ablest exponent of their views. I think my noble friend ought to remember that, if he has thus gained and earned great power, he has with it taken upon himself a great responsibility. And as he has with great frankness told the House and the country what he thinks of the Government, I am bound honestly to tell him that he cannot do a worse service—I will not say to the Government and to the Party to which he be longs, because, rightly, he looks upon these considerations as inferior and subservient to those considerations which have a higher origin. I think he is doing much more than hat. He is doing a great disservice to the cause of that religious education of which he is so enthusiastic an advocate, and I believe he is driving deeper the wedge, which, unhappily, is separating certain classes of ecclesiastical opinion from the great body of religious lay opinion in this country, and in which I, at all events, see the greatest danger looming in the future to the cause of religion as a whole, and more especially to the cause, the welfare and the prosperity of the Church of England.

(3.45.) SIR WILLIAM HABCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has rendered a great service, first of all in stating the views he entertains, and secondly, in eliciting from the head of the Government the speech we have just heard. The view which the noble Lord has put forward is that the care of religion and the determination of the doctrines of the Church rest with the clergy and the Bishops. That is a fundamental contradiction of the principles of the established Protestant Church of England. It is true we were told the other day by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth that the doctrine of the Church of Rome was that religion belonged to the clergy and ultimately to the Bishops. Yes, Sir, and that is exactly the distinction between the Church of Rome and the Protestant Church of England. The Protestant Church of England does repudiate the supremacy of the clergy and the Bishops in the doctrine and practice of the Church. That rests with the laity and with the lay tribunal. The lay tribunal can equally call in question and deprive any clergyman or any Bishop from a violation of the doctrine of the Protestant Church as interpreted by the tribunal who represents the Crown and the laity in this country. I know very well that a section of the clergy who repudiate the name of Protestant have for their dearest object the getting rid of that lay tribunal which by the law of the Established Church has the final power to determine its doctrine and its practice. And if there is in those trust deeds, of which we do not know the contents, any pretension that the Bishop should have the final right of determining the doctrines of the Church of England, it is in absolute conflict with the doctrine of the Established Church. The important point is, what is to be the position of those trust deeds? I am very glad to understand both from the noble Lord and the First Lord of the Treasury that this Amendment is to be understood as overruling altogether those trust deeds, except on the particular point which is reserved in this Clause. That is the main point, upon which we should have a very clear understanding, because in this Amendment and in the Bill we have the reservation of the trust deeds on one point alone, and that is upon the reservation of the appeal to the Bishop. I say that the pretension of the Bishop of determining the doctrine of the Church is a pretension which cannot be sustained for a single moment. You have got half a dozen Bishops laying down different doctrines and pursuing different practices, and every layman has the right to appeal against the decision of the Bishops on a point of doctrine to the lay tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Lord of the Treasury has said, very truly, and there is a great difference between the position of the clergyman in the church and the clergyman in the school, because as regards the school the children are compelled to go there, and no man is compelled to go to the church, and can remain away if he does not approve of its doctrines.

The First Lord of the Treasury has put forward in very clear and definite terms what is the real meaning and intent of this Clause. It is to do away with the practice, if it had been a practice, of the clergyman claiming any monopoly or exclusive right of religious teaching in the school, and to keep the control of religious teaching to the managers. It is of the essence of the Bill that the majority of the managers should be laymen, but I do not know why they should not manage to put on four managers who are clergymen. I do not know if that has occurred to the noble Lord as a proceeding which might be adopted. What I understand is that those managers may be regarded as persons who represent the lay opinion of that particular community as against the pretensions of the clergyman to impose upon them a form of teaching which is repugnant to their feelings and conviction. The First Lord of the Treasury referred to the case of the clergyman who tried to compel the schoolmaster to teach that the doctrine of the Church of England is that there were seven sacraments. I know it is the fashion to say that instances of this kind are rare. They are not rare. Anyone who reads the documents of the Church Union will know they are not rare. The author of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment read a passage from a speech by the Bishop of Liverpool which would show that they are not rare at all. The Bishop of Liverpool complained of the clergy, and said he did not know what to do. He said "he had got a number of these people to deal with, and he did not know how to deal with them. He declined to be present at their services, to preach in their pulpits, to confirm in their churches, and to license any of the assistant clergy." That is to say, a Bishops only resource is to boycott the disloyal clergymen. The noble Lord referred to the impatient explanation of the Duke of Devonshire in another place, and said, "You have got the power, why don't you use it?" That is the question. An extraordinary statement was made by the Bishop of Liverpool, that "if deprivation were substituted for imprisonment, it would be manifestly my duty to take the severer course." This is most extraordinary ignorance of ecclesiastical law on the part of the Bishop of Liverpool, for everybody knows that the penalty under the Church Discipline Act is not imprisonment, but deprivation. Why have the Bishops not taken that course? Why have these clergy not been deprived by the Bishops? Because some of the Bishops from sympathy, but more of them from fear, shrank from doing the duty which is imposed upon them by their oath of consecration. Because they had not restrained these practices, and had allowed them to go on and alienate from the Church the respect and affection of the laity of this country. It is mainly in consequence of the conduct of the Bishops in not enforcing the true doctrines and teaching of the Church of England that the conditions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred have arisen. But now I understand that the object of the Government is to assert the right of the laity in the denominational schools to control the religious teaching. With the single exception of the appeal in point of doctrine to the Bishop, which is not and cannot be final—for no Bishop has the right finally to determine the doctrine of the Established Church—all matters which refer to religious teaching are, by the words of this Section, to belong to the managers. I am very glad it should be clearly understood that that is to be the controlling Clause which overrides any trust deeds existing now, or which may hereafter be made, because I am told that there is an active agency now engaged in manufacturing trust deeds. Suppose you have schools in connection with which no trust deed has existed hitherto, and there is a trust deed drawn up and a Clause put in that the religious teaching shall be under the control of the parson and nobody else. I understand that the Clause we are now considering will overrule that, and that no declaration in a trust deed giving exclusive power to the clergyman, with or without the Bishop, to conduct the religious education in the school shall stand against the words of the statute that the control of religious education shall belong to the lay managers. It is necessary that that should be clearly understood; and I state the case in these distinct terms in order that if there is any doubt it may be set right. If that is so, it is, of course, an absolute and decisive condemnation on the part of the Government and the House of Commons of the claim put forward by the noble Lord that religious education in the school is the monopoly of the clergy, Bishops, or ecclesiastics. This Bill is not meant, to borrow a phrase used by the right hon. Gentle man at the head of the Government, to represent the opinion of a clerical clique. That is a graphic expression and a very true one, and if that is so, a great service has been done by the noble Lord in bringing the matter clearly forward, and by the right hon. Gentleman in the conclusive reply he has made to that contention.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said he was very anxious to say a few words upon this Amendment, because he saw that among the various hard words that had been applied to him by authorities of the Church was one by the Dean of Chester that he was a "mob orator." That was rather hard on the conferences which he had often been invited to address. He would venture to say a word or two by way of an impartial reply to the speech made by his noble friend the Member for Greenwich who had attacked his Amendment so severely. He was afraid the noble Lord had been beguiled by the strength of his opinions into identifying himself with possible action which he would have only too good cause to regret. The noble Lord had taken exception to this Clause on the ground that it conveyed a censure on the clergy. He denied that the Clause conveyed a censure on the clergy as a whole, though it did upon some who had undoubtedly misconducted themselves. But the censure conveyed against those clergy was the same as would be conveyed by the Bishops themselves. The only difference was that this censure was expressed by the laity instead of by the Bishops. There was no censure on the clergy as a whole.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said this Clause did not distinguish between one clergyman and another.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

thought that that distinction would be quickly made by the operation of this Clause. The noble Lord had spoken of this Clause as being an insult to the Bishops, but he did not know that it could be so considered. On the contrary, he thought that, so far from being an insult to the Bishops, it would fortify their position, enabling them better to restrain their exuberant clergy, and to assert more strongly than they had hitherto been able to do their authority. The noble Lord had spoken of its alienating the Church. He took the exactly opposite view. Instead of breaking up the Church, he held—and he claimed to voice a far greater number of clergy than the noble Lord in saying this—that it would promote more active sympathy, cooperation, and unity between them and the laity. The exclusion of an incumbent from his school was a power very rarely used, but if it were it would only show that the incumbent was not a man of ordinary commonsense. He regretted extremely the threat with which his noble friend concluded his speech.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said be used no threat. All he said was that in a case where the Clause was enforced in such a way as to exclude a clergyman without the consent of the Bishops, it would be the duty of the Church to resist it.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said the threat of the noble Lord would, if acted upon, be an unfortunate thing for those who associated themselves with him. He warned those who might take up a position of opposition to the working of the Act that they would be opening the sluice-gates of a great flood of public opinion, which would not only overwhelm them individually in their own parishes but would wash away the very foundations of the Church itself. It was his deliberate opinion that in a large number of rural parishes this Clause would retain, or win back where it was lost, the confidence of parents in the teaching of the only school which was available for their children, whether these parents were Anglicans or Nonconformists; and if, as the result of that confidence, the children attended school in larger numbers, the Clause would have done a good deal for the common cause of education. They were not trying to set up little colleges for the encouragement of theological disputants, or training schools for the discussion of abstract points of theological philosophy. They merely desired to ensure that in this country there should be that simple effectual religious teaching which would fortify and safeguard the children against the difficulties and dangers of after life. The close association of the laity with the clergy could work only in the direction of making the religious instruction more in consonance with that which the great bulk of the people desired—a result that would be for the good of the children, and, therefore, for the welfare of the nation. As he had followed the controversy that had raged around this subject, he had become more and more assured that the Amendment was one which could be accepted in the certain hope that it would work well for all those to whom it was intended to apply.

MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire bad once more attacked the High Church Party, and had brought forward as a reason for excluding the Bishops from their proper sphere the dictum of the Bishop of Liverpool. But that particular Prelate represented only a very small portion of the Church of England, and he alone of all the Bishops had endeavoured to bring into disrepute the authority of the Episcopate and the clergy of the Church. If the Bishop or the priest of the parish was good enough to preach on Sunday, to lay down doctrine to a well-educated congregation, to visit those in trouble or distress, and to give comfort and consolation in the hour of sickness and death, surely he was good enough to teach the young in the schools. There was hardly a Member of the House but had been glad to welcome the advice and consolation of the clergy in houses of need, and were they, the grief having passed away, to forget the comfort brought to them by those they now sought to ignore? If so, gratitude had left the members of every section of religion, and ho did not care to belong to such a religion. Every priest, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican, endeavoured to endear himself to his congregation; and was he to be excluded from the school simply because one or two members of his congregation differed from him on points of doctrine? He earnestly hoped that all Members of the House who had ever received any good whatsoever from their Church would go into the Lobby in support of what the Bishops had done.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL

(Wigan) thought that, being Vice-Chairman of the House of Laymen of the Province of York, he might speak as the representative of a considerable body of lay opinion. Though not directly authorised to speak on behalf of the House of Laymen, he should not have been elected to the position of vice-chairman had his opinion not concurred with the predominant feeling of the members. The great majority of Church-going and Church-loving laymen did not share the apprehensions of alarm expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He believed that the effect of the Clause would be highly beneficial to the Church, as it would tend to increase lay co-operation, and the consequent harmonious concert between clergy and laity would result in the increased strength arising from mutual confidence. He might mention that, according to the phraseology of the trust deeds of the National Society, the authority given to the clergy was that of superintendence. The word "teaching" did not occur, and judging from the old discussions with reference to the trust deed he thought there was some good reason for the omission of the word. Much was heard in these days of the desire to increase lay power in the Church of England, and he could not express too strongly his deep regret that this, the first effort to give by legislation new power to laymen, should be resisted by a large section of the clerical party. That opposition was a bad omen and excited great alarm. He hoped the House would support the Clause, as he was certain that it would work for good, promote peace, and secure strength.

*(4.30.) Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, Last Toxteth)

said he wished to address a question to the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire pointed out very clearly to this House the constitutional position of the Church of England, and what Churchmen were concerned with was not the Roman Catholic Church or the Wesleyan body, but they were deeply concerned for the national Church. He wished to ask whether under this Section there would be any appeal from the bishop in each diocese in respect of what was and what was not a reference under the trust deed.

*MR. SPEAKER

That point hardly arises under this Amendment. It has nothing to do with the control of the bishop.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he could only say on this Amendment that he, thought that they must all rejoice that although, somewhat tardily, the intrinsic rights of the laity had been vindicated in this House, the position taken up by the Prime Minister having certainly been a surprise to a great many. The acceptance of that now famous institution the Konyon-Slaney Clause would give to all who had the best interests of the Church of England at heart the most lively satisfaction. He did not desire to pursue this subject further on the present Amendment, which covered a much wider ground than he had anticipated, and he would reserve the other remarks he had to make for the Amendment dealing with the Bishop's appeal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 10, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 5, line 10, after 'managers,' insert 'provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.'

The next Amendment read a second time.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked whether he would be in order in proposing, as a consequential Amendment, in consequence of the alteration made by the House of Lords, after the word "shall" in line 10, to insert the words "subject to."

*MR. SPEAKER

The only thing that is material to look at now is the Lords' Amendment. On consideration of the Lords' Amendments no Amendment can be moved to the Bill itself unless it be a purely consequential Amendment upon an Amendment of the Lords.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that with great deference he submitted that it had not been unusual when a very large and wide change had been made in a Clause to enable it to be amended.

*MR. SPEAKER

Not only is it unusual, but it is unprecedented to allow it to he done unless it can be done as consequential upon the Lords' Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out that the Lords' Amendment had resulted in the striking out of the words "the tenour of." Those were the enabling words of the provision, and, therefore, he submitted that that enabled him to engraft an Amendment thereon.

*MR. SPEAKER

That is merely a drafting Amendment.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he wished to ask the Attorney General, in reference to a trust deed such as was contemplated by the sub-Section, whether there would be any appeal from the decision of the Bishop so long as he was acting in a bonâ fide character?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness, Burghs

No, Sir; there will be no appeal, unless it is given in the trust deed. If the trust deed refers it to the Bishop, his decision will be final; if it provides for a further appeal, of course it will be different.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

thought it was best to have the position put clearly before the House, so far as the general character of the trust deeds was concerned, and the position of the various ecclesiastical authorities. The Amendment he moved was a discriminating Amendment as regarded the Church of England; it had no reference whatever to the Wesleyan body, or to the Roman Catholic body; and he thought he could show the House why it was necessary that, as regarded the National Church, it should be inserted, and why, as regarded other denominations which were outside the purview of the State, there was no need for any such safeguard. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether the Roman Catholic teaching given in a Roman Catholic school was in accordance with the fifth Council of Lateran, the Council of Trent, or the Vatican Council. These were matters in which they, as an integral part of Parliament, were not concerned; but he thought that that House, as an integral part of Parliament, and as representing the laity in the Church, were deeply concerned in the maintenance of the Protestant character of the doctrines of the Church of England. He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Newport realised that under this Section practically what was being done in the schools for the first time was sanctioning by statute an appeal to a purely ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England, viz., the bishop in each diocese. And what was the nature of that appeal? It was as to whether or not certain teaching was or was not in accordance with the standard of the Church of England. To him this seemed a most extraordinary position. They had heard a great deal from the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the Prime Minister about the rights of the laity of the Church of England, and no one, he was sure, welcomed more heartily than he did the vindication of those rights drawn from the Prime Minister in such unfaltering accents. It might be certainly a little late in the day, seeing the mischief that had already occurred in the Church of England by the unrestricted action of the clergy, but better late than never. Still, in applying that remedy, let them be careful they were not making the position, as regarded the Church of England in these matters of doctrine, more difficult in the future than it had been in the past. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that, by statute, they were to give to each Bishop in his own diocese the absolute right to decide what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Where the trust deed so provided.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said trust deeds were now being drawn, complying with the provisions of the Bill in such a way as to comprehend a final appeal to the episcopal authority. If that was the position, what were really the circumstances under which they found themselves? They had had an interesting discussion between the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the Prime Minister upon the real character of these elementary schools, in which religious teaching, mainly the teaching of the Church of England, was to be given, and while the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich insisted that these were Church schools, and that in them the authorised officers of the Church had alone the right to give religious instruction, the Prime Minister reiterated his opinion that they were an annexe of the family, in the sense that the children of the poor must go to these schools to receive that religious instruction which, in the wealthy ranks, was given in the home. He would, with great respect, venture another definition of those schools as the meeting place of State and Church in that most solemn and tender of all relationships, the religious and secular education of those millions of tender plants in whom the promise and potency of this country really lay. If these schools, as he believed them to be, were the meeting-place of Church and State in the giving of religious and secular instruction, why should the reference as to what was or was not the doctrine of the Established Church be by statute conferred on a single ecclesiastic in each diocese? They had never had by statute such an arrangement contemplated. What were they to expect as the result of such an arrangement? Reference had been made by the hon. Member opposite to the Bishop of Liverpool. He certainly yielded to no one in his admiration for that Prelate in the firm stand he was taking—a stand not narrower than the Church of England, and no wider—in refusing to admit the introduction of practices and ceremonies which at the time of the Reformation were thought to be finally abandoned by the National Church. If that was his line, what was the line of the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Rochester, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of London, and other Prelates? He should anticipate with some amusement the different definitions of the Anglican doctrine which would emanate from those worthy Prelates in their respective dioceses. It was nearly sixty years since, the beginning of that movement in the Church of England, of which today they were gathering the first fruits in the determination of that House to put a period to the movement, not in the churches, but in the schools, so far as in them lay. The extraordinary part of the thing was that while the appeal in the churches was to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the appeal in the case of the schools—quite as important, surely—was to be made in a grotesque fashion to each Bishop in his diocese, to decide according to his own ideas what was or was not the doctrine of the Anglican Church. No superior authority was imposed to bring them into uniformity. No appeal was given by which aggrieved managers—and they might have aggrieved managers other than clerical—could carry the matter further. They would have to carry out in each diocese whatever might be the predilections or idiosyncrasies of the Bishop, who would give to his decision the theological tinge which he happened to possess, He had in his hand the opinion the Attorney General delivered on 27th November on this Clause. Before the Bill went to the House of Lords there was a slight obscurity surrounding this Clause, which had been dissipated by putting it in another form. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he read the Clause as not interfering in the slightest degree with the functions of any ecclesiastical authority to determine what the doctrine was of the Church with which the school was associated, and if the question arose as to whether a particular doctrine was the doctrine of the Church of England, and if the trust deed provided for the decision of that by the Bishop, his decision would be obtained and it would be the duty of the managers loyally to carry out the decision of the authority provided by the trust deed of which they were the administrators. He hoped that before this sub-Section finally left the House, words such as he had indicated would be inserted so as to secure that each Bishop in his own diocese, in giving a decision in this matter, would have respect to the general ecclesiastical law of the Church of England. If they had no security of that kind, he ventured to say that the position in the various dioceses of this country would be a grotesque nullification of the benefits with which that Clause was supposed to be charged. The managers were to administer the dose which the Bishop was to prescribe, and in each diocese no doubt each Bishop would have his own idea of what that dose was to be, and what was or was not Anglican doctrine. He was speaking not only for today but for the future, and not only for the schools but for the future of the national Church of this country. They had had an extensive discussion today travelling over the whole field of Church polity and of those excesses which had marred her work and brought into discredit a considerable section of the clergy. He did not wish to follow in the wake of that discussion, but he thought the House ought not to shut its eyes to the possibility of the situation that the day would come when the question of reform in the Church of England must be considered unless, indeed, Parliament was driven to a solution which would involve the cutting of the knot which today bound Church and State together. He was one of those who did not wish to see the day come when that question of the dissolution of partnership would have to be considered, but he did wish, when constructive legislation such as was indicated by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire took place, both in the church as well as in the school, that the House should consider how far it would be prejudicing a settlement upon the supreme question of what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England, by allowing a different authority and a different standard to be set up today in Anglican schools to what was the constitutional authority for deciding disputes in the Anglican Church. These disputes had been active and acute to an extraordinary degree, and he only wanted to say that, while he did not desire for one minute to narrow the position of the Church of England, with those who desired to upset her adherence to Reformation standards, he wished for no truce, and would make no terms. He would apply in all its severity the old Spanish proverb— The war is not over as long as my enemy lives.

MR. T. M. HEALY

A nice religious spirit.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he held his convictions as dearly as the hon. Member held his with regard to his own Church, and it ill-became such an exemplar of courtesy and charity as the hon. Member for North Louth to fall foul of any man for exhibiting a spirit which possibly, for the moment, might have been intolerant and outside the limits of debate in this House. He desired to urge upon the House the absolute necessity of clearing up this point before they finally dismissed the Clause. He must press his Amendment, not because he wished to cast a slur upon the Bishops of the Church of England, but because he desired them to understand clearly from this House what it was they expected them to do, and that in giving their various decisions in the different dioceses they should respect the general ecclesiastical law of the country—the law which had been defined in the past by the supreme tribunal of law and order and which might be defined with equal exactitude in the future. He moved to add to the Lords Amendment:—

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— At the end, to add the words, 'But where any such decision is given by a bishop or other superior ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England, the decision shall be in accordance with the law as declared by the courts having jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical."—(Mr. Austin Taylor.) Question proposed, "That these words be added to the Lords' Amendment."

(5.0.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he did not think it necessary to follow his hon. friend into all the topics upon which he had dilated with so much ability and earnestness. He felt that his hon. friend had a little exaggerated the scope of this Clause when he spoke of it as for the first time giving statutory recognition of an appeal on the doctrine of the Church of England to the Bishops. It did not create any such tribunal. The only effect was that where a trust deed provided for a reference of any matter in dispute to an ecclesiastical authority, the trust deed should not be interfered with by the provisions of the Clause. He thought the House would agree that there might be great convenience in a provision of that kind. His hon. friend's Amendment was confined to one of the many churches that might be affected by this Clause; it was confined to the Church of England only; and the hon. Member appeared to be under some misconception of the provisions of the Clause upon which he proposed to engraft his Amendment. The reference to the Bishop, or other authority, was to be on the question whether the character of the instruction was, or was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed, and the Amendment was inapplicable to the Clause. If the trust deed provided that the teaching was to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, then the Bishop would, of course, in the exercise of the authority given by the trust deed, decide if the requirements of the trust deed were adhered to as to the nature and character of the religious teaching. That would be the only question with which the Bishop would be competent to deal. His hon. friend proposed to say by his Amendment that the decision of the Bishop should be in accordance with the law as declared by the courts having jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical; but how did the hon. Member propose to enforce that? What was the use of a brutum fulmen of that sort? If he school was intended to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, of course it would be for the Bishop to decide what the doctrines were; but what was the use of saying to the Bishop that he should do his duty? To have any effect, the matter would have to go further; there would have to he an appeal from the Bishop to some higher authority; but his hon. friend had not proposed that in his Amendment, and for the best of reasons. What was wanted was a ready decision which would be defeated if an appeal to a higher court were permissible.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

With great deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, I think he has missed that which is the really governing fact of the whole of this case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not the introduction of the Bishop for the first time, because the Bishop is already acknowledged in the trust deed to be the proper authority to settle the doctrine to be taught in the schools in conformity with the doctrine of the Church of England in all respects. But the trust deed, so long as it governs the conduct of the school, which after all (although it receives Government assistance) is a private school, in order to carry out the desire for religious education, and other education, according to the ideas of the subscribers who have set it up. But that is a very different thing now. The same school is supported out if the public funds and by the rates, and when it comes to stand on the same footing, practically as the church itself—I do not mean the church with the big "C," but the church with the small "c," i. e. the church of the parish—let the House consider for a moment, how extraordinary would be the state of things that would be created by this Clause if passed as it at present stands. Suppose a certain parishoner is aggrieved at the doctrine which he hears taught in the church—he himself being a, member of the Communion of the Church of England and attending the administrations of the incumbent. He hears a certain doctrine preached which he thinks is not in conformity with the principles of the Church of England. Then we provide him with a certain means of obtaining redress. We say "You will have an appeal to a certain authority instituted by Parliament for the purpose. He has an efficient remedy, though I admit it is slow and costly. But the same man finds that his child is being taught the same doctrine in the school, and his only remedy there is an appeal to the Bishop, and the Bishop's decision is final. The two cases seem to me, by the legislation of this year, to be brought into parallel relation with each other; and yet we deal with one in an entirely different way from that in which we deal with the other. What reason is there that this matter should be left to the decision of the individual Bishop? One Bishop may differ from another in his views and opinions, and you might have one kind of teaching in one diocese differing from that given in another diocese. When a Bishop was translated from one diocese to another he might find that the decisions of his predecessor in regard to the doctrine of the Church of England were entirely contrary to his own views. You will thus have a state of confusion. These may be on very small points, but when taken in globo—enmasse—they would lead to a very serious state of affairs. Why is one kind of doctrine to be ministered to the lambs and another to the sheep? I do not see any reason for it. I do not think it is any answer to the hon. Member opposite for the Attorney General to say—"You have proposed this Amendment, but you have not provided the machinery for enforcing it." Of course the hon. Member has not provided the machinery; and I should not be surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not consider himself competent to do so. It may require a great deal of thought to provide a proper court of appeal: but there should be some appeal as to the doctrine taught in the school, just as there was an appeal to the highest Court in the realm as to the doctrine taught in the Church. To say that we should leave the decision as to the doctrine taught in the school entirely to the Bishop, means that one decision may be given by one Bishop, and another decision by another Bishop. But surely it goes more closely to a man's heart to hear erroneous doctrine taught to his child than to himself. If he is well enough informed, and cares enough about the subject, he can, at least, defend himself against it; but in the case of the child there is not, under this Amendment, that safeguard. And therefore there is, in the child's case, a higher claim to some appeal than the mere ipse dixit of a Bishop than in the case of the father himself. I accordingly think that the words the hon. Gentleman proposes are absolutely necessary to bring this matter of the school into the same position as the Church now is in, and in order to obtain that order and regularity in the doctrines and practices of the Church and in the school which ought to prevail so long as the Church of England is to retain its connection with the State.

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said he thought this was a most important point, and ought to have been foreseen and provided for by the promoters of the Bill. The Church of England was the Church of England by law established. The Roman Catholic Church was not by law established, and none of the Free Churches were Churches by law established. But the Church of England was by law established with the King at its head, and all matters pertaining to its doctrine and discipline were referable to and decided by the Privy Council. Now, by this Clause it was stated that any Bishop of the Church of England had in his diocese absolute power to decide what was the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. How could a trust deed be legal if it over-rode the ecclesiastical law of England? In this case they should be doing an exceedingly injudicious, perilous and dangerous thing if they passed this Clause without the Amendment proposed. He should have thought that an Amendment of this sort would have been at once adopted by the Government. If a Clause of this kind were passed he believed it would be unconstitutional, and it would be a Precedent which would be very dangerous at some time or another to the Church of England if that Church was going to remain paramount in the land. He was not a lawyer; but when he heard the speech of the Attorney General, he was astonished that he should have allowed a thing like this to go through without providing a safeguard. That was an extraordinary thing to him as a layman, and as an Englishman. He appealed to the Government to put this matter right. Where would they be unless it were provided that the matter should not go through without the safeguards that his hon. friend had asked for? He should certainly vote for the Amendment. No member of the House of Commons, no Member of the Church of England, no Englishman, ought to be so foolish or so unpatriotic as not to vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend. Unless the Lords' Amendment were amended he should vote against it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said they ought to have the views of the Government on this matter. The Attorney General had given only a legal opinion on the Amendment. The question was, were they going to make the Bishop the one clerical personage who was, in point of fact, to overrule the lay managers? Was that the intention of the Government? The decision of the Bishop would govern all the elementary schools in the diocese. Then, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment very properly said, each of the Bishops would give a different decision. The point was to ascertain what were the doctrines of the Church of England; and for that they ought to go to one single authority not to twenty or thirty authorities all differing from each other. That was not the way to get at the doctrines of the Church of England. What had happened during the last few years? One Bishop insisted on a clergyman leaving his diocese on account of his being disloyal to the doctrines of the Church of England; but he was immediately instituted into a living in another diocese. That had happened in two most flagrant cases. What was the use of leaving it to individual Bishops to determine what were the doctrines of the Church of England when they had not the authority to do that with reference to the ministers of the Church itself. In his opinion the effect of the Amendment put in in the Lords would be to destroy denominational education altogether; because they would have the spectacle of a number of Bishops, each on his authority determining the doctrines of the Church of England in different directions. It seemed to him to be a most injurious proposal; and one which would introduce chaos into the denominational system.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he thought the Amendment before them mainly concerned the Church of England and the question of the orthodoxy of that Church. But this was a matter which also concerned the Imperial Parliament. This was not the Parliament of the Church of England. It consisted of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Atheists, and although, of course, it was true that the Church of England was by law established, at the same time, every hon, member of every other Church must have a similar concern for the orthodoxy of his Church as the hon. Member for East Toxteth had for the teaching of the orthodoxy of the Church of England. He understood that the hon. Member's opinion was that if the lay managers, consisting of the farmers or grocers of the district, were dissatisfied with the Bishop's appeal there should be a further reference to the judges of the Divorce Court, which finally settled all these questions in regard to the Church of England. Today it was Lord Cowley and Sir Charles Hartopp, to morrow the doctrines of the Church of England. He was not immediately concerned, but he should like to ask whether he should be in order in moving after the words "affecting the Church of England" the words "and in the case of the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the decisions of His Holiness the Pope." That was the logical result of having an Imperial Parliament to consider questions affecting the religion to which he belonged

COLONEI, PILK1NGTON

On a point of Order, I wish to point out that the Church of Rome and the Free Churches are not under the Crown.

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that this was an Imperial Parliament, and he had as much right as a Catholic to safeguard the interests of his Church as the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division had to safeguard the teaching of the Church of England. Why was he to be denied, if he had any apprehensions on this subject of religious teaching, the right to see that in the ultimate result he got the quintessence of orthodoxy, just as the hon. Member sought to get it through the Divorce Court?

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he must interrupt the hon. Member who had just credited him with delusions which he did not possess. He had never even imagined an appeal to the Divorce Court. The appeal he desired was to the Superior Ecclesiastical Courts of England, which could not benefit the Church of Rome, which had no connection with the State whatever in its capacity as a Crown institution similar to that which the Church of England had.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he always thought that religion was a divine institution, and not a Crown institution, and it was under that delusion that he proposed his Amendment, and then as all these bodies necessarily desired orthodoxy, the Jews could have a reference to the Chief Rabbi, and the Nonconformists—say to Mr. Perks. It was only when the hon. Member for East Toxteth contemplated the result of his own Amendment that he would begin to discover its absurdity. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman had accused him of a desire to show some want of courtesy upon this question, but he assured the hon. Member that they look as deep an interest in proposals which affected the Church of England as perhaps the hon. Member did in regard to the Church of Rome. What appeared to him to be the view of some of those representing the Church of England was that they wanted endowed nonconformity in the Church of England; and, therefore the position taken up by the Nonconformists seemed to him to be much more logical, because they were willing to part with all the advantages which belonged to the Church of England in order to assert their right of private judgment, which he thought was a much more honourable position. He wished to know if he should be in order in moving his Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he did not know whether the hon. Member was serious in asking that question. His proposal would not be relevant, having regard to the first words of the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Then I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, with the best intention in the world, they could not at this stage travel over the whole field of ecclesiastical controversy. He ventured to think that this was hardly a proper occasion in which to deal with the matter; and he would, therefore, suggest that a division be now taken.

(5.28) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 215 (Division List No. 642).

AYES.
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Helme, Norval Watson Roe, Sir Thomas
Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Holland, Sir William Henry Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Atherley-Jones, L. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hoult, Joseph Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bignold, Arthur Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Langley, Batty Spear, John Ward
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Layland-Barratt, Francis Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Strachey, Sir Edward
Burns, John Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Causton, Richard Knight Levy, Maurice Toulmin, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lloyd-George, David Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cremer, William Randal Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Crombie, John William Lough, Thomas Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Emmott, Alfred Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Evans. Sir Francis H (Maidstone Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Grant, Corrie Partington, Oswald Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick Perks, Robert William Yoxall, James Henry
Griffith, Ellis J. Philipps, John Wynford
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Rea, Russell
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Haslett, Sir James Horner Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Mr. Austin Taylor and
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Colonel Pilkington.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
NOES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.) Arkwright, John Stanhope Bailey, James (Walworth)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bain, Colonel James Robert
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arrol, Sir William Balcarres, Lord
Ambrose, Robert Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Baldwin, Alfred
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn) O'Brien, William (Cork)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)
Bigwood, James Graham, Henry Robert O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O'Doherty, William
Boland, John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Groves, James Grimble O'Dowd, John
Rousfield, William Robert Hain, Edward O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x O'Malley, William
Bowles, T. GibSon (King's Lynn) Hammond, John O'Mara, James
Brassey, Albert Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bullard, Sir Harry Healy, Timothy Michael O'Shee, James John
Burke, E. Haviland- Heaton, John Henniker Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Henderson, Sir Alexander Pemberton, John S. G.
Carew, James Laurence Hickman, Sir Alfred Percy, Earl
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Higginbottom, S. W. Platt-Higgius, Frederick
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E Plummer, Walter R.
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Power, Patrick Joseph
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hudson, George Bickersteth Pretyman, Ernest George
Chamberlain. Rt Hn J. A.(Wore. Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Jameson, Major J. Eustace Purvis, Robert
Chapman, Edward Jordan, Jeremiah Pym, C. Guy
Clive, Captain Percy A. Joyce, Michael Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kennedy, Patrick James Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cogan, Denis J. Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ratcliff, R. F.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready King, Sir Henry Seymour Remnant, James Farquharson
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Knowles, Lees Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Compton, Lord Alwyne Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Leamy, Edmund Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lecky. Rt Hen. William Edw. H. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Crean, Eugene Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cripps, Charles Alfred Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rutherford, John
Crossley, Sir Savile Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lockie, John Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cullinan, J. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Sharpe, William Edward T.
Delany, William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dickson, Charles Scott Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Macdona, John Cumming Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand)
Doughty, George MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Maconochie, A. W. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Doxford, Sir William Theodore MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sullivan, Donal
Duke, Henry Edward M'Fadden, Edward Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas M'Govern, T. Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(0xf'd Univ.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Kean, John Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Thornton, Percy M.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw, M.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n Tully, Jasper
Ffrench, Peter Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Valentia, Viscount
Field, William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E.(Taunton
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mooney, John J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Finlay, Sir Robert Rannatyne More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Fisher, William Hayes Morrell, George Herbert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Fison, Frederick William Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Willox, Sir John Archibald
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Myers, William Henry Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nannetti, Joseph P. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Flower, Ernest Nicol, Donald Ninian Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Forster, Henry William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gailit, William O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Sir Alexander Acland
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

(5.48) Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the

The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 82. (Division List No, 643).

Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) Fisher, William Hayes Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fison, Frederick William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Mooney, John J.
Ambrose, Robert Flannery, Sir Fortescue More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Flavin, Michael Joseph Morrell, George Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Aroold-Forster, Hugh O. Flower, Ernest Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Arrol, Sir William Flynn, James Christopher Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Forster, Henry William Myers, William Henry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Garfit, William Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gilhooly, James Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Balcarres, Lord Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Baldwin, Alfred Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH' ml'ts O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Graham, Henry Robert O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O'Brien, William (Cork)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Bignold, Arthur Groves, James Grimble O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Big wood, James Hain, Edward O'Doherty, William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (M'dd'x O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Boland, John Hammond, John O'Dowd, John
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Haslett, Sir James Horner O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N
Bousfield, William Robert Hatch, Ernest Frederick George O'Malley, William
Brassey, Albert Hayden, John Patrick O'Mara, James
Bullard, Sir Harry Healy, Timothy Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burke, E. Haviland- Heaton, John Henniker O'Shee, James John
Campbell, John (Armagb, S.) Henderson, Sir Alexander Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Carevv, James Laurence Hickman, Sir Alfred Pemberton, John S. G.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Higginbottom, S. W. Percy, Earl
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Plummer, Walter R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hoult, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Power, Patrick Joseph
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc. Hudson, George Bickersteth Pretyman, Ernest George
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chapman, Edward Jameson, Major J. Eustace Purvis, Robert
Clive, Captain Percy A. Jordan, Jeremiah Pym, C. Guy
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Joyce, Michael Qailter, Sir Cuthbert
Cogan, Denis J. Kennedy, Patrick James Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Ratcliff, R. F.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Rearly Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Atho e King, Sir Henry Seymour Remnant, James Farquharson
Compton, Lord Alwyne Knowles, Lees Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Scaly bridg.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGroeg
Crean, Eugene Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Crossley. Sir Savile Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cullinan, J. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Leigh-Bennett, Henry Curcie Rutherford, John
Delany, William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dickson, Charles Scott Lockie, John Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Sharpe, William Edward T.
Doogan, P. C. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Doughty, George Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, Ea t)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Smith, James Parker (Lanaras
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lundon, W. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Duffy, William J. Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Duke, Henry Edward Macdona, John Cumming Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Sullivan, Donal
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Maconochie, A. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd Univ.
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Taylor, Austin (East Toxtelh)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Fadden, Edward Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r M'Govern, T. Thornton, Percy M.
Ffrench, Peter M'Kean, John Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Field, William M'Killop, James (Stirlingshiie) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. M'Killop, W. (Sligo North) Tully, Jasper
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n Valentia, Viscount
Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE(Taunton Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
White, Patrick (Meath, North Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Sir Alexander Acland-
Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne Wrightson, Sir Thomas Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wyndham, lit. Hon, George
Willox, Sir John Archibald Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
NOES
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud) Helme Norval Watson Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Asquifch. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Holland, Sir William Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Langley, Batty Strachey, Sir Edward
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Layland-Barratt, Francis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Leese, Sir Joseph E. (Acerington Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Burns, John Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice Toulmin, George
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lloyd-George, David Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Causton, Richard Knight Lough, Thomas Walton, Joseph Barnsley
corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cremer, William Randal Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Crombie, John William Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Weir, James Galloway
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan Morley, Charles (Breconsbire) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Elibank, Master of Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.
Emmott, Alfred Partington, Oswald Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Perks, Robert William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Philipps, John Wynford Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsf'd
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Yoxall, James Henry
Grant, Corrie Rea, Russell
Griffith, Ellis J. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Robertson. Edmund (Dundee) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roe, Sir Thomas Mr. William M 'Arthur

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 32, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 5, line 32, after 'section,' insert as a new sub-Section, 'Any transfer of a public elementary school to or from a local education authority shall for the purposes of this Section be treated as the provision of a new school.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time—

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen S.)

thought the Amendment open to great objections. While reserving his right to take exception to the sub-Section afterwards, he desired now to call attention to a matter of drafting. The Transfer Clause of the Act of 1870 was not repealed by the Bill, and therefore prima facie remained in force. The terms of the Amendment, however, seemed to imply that the procedure of the present Bill was to be substituted for that of the Act of 1870, and that conse quently the latter was to be pass vely repealed. The question ought to be settled distinctly one way or the other, and he moved to insert after "section," in the second line, "and subject to the provisions of Section 24 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870."

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— After the word 'section,' to insert the words 'and subject to the provisions of Section 24 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Bryee.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON)

, who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that the words were unnecessary. There was no idea of repealing Section 24 of the Act of 1870.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

(Wiltshire, Cricklade) thought the matter ought to be made quite clear, as it was very desirable that the Councils at starting should not be involved in a great mass of legal uncertainty.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the words of the proposed Amendment would give rise to infinitely more doubt and difficulty than the sub-Section as it stood.

MR. YOXALL

(Nottingham, W.) understood his right hon. friend's fear to be that unless the Amendment were made the regulations with regard to transfer would override and millify the provisions of Section 24 of the Act 0f 1870.

DR. MACNAMARA

(Camberwell, N.) suggested the addition of the words "but nothing in this provision shall authorise the Bishops." If any doubt existed, he thought those words would remove it.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the words of the Clause were quite clear as they stood, and he desired that the Amendments should not be multiplied.

Proposed Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said this was an important Amendment. He did not desire to take uptime unnecessarily by dwelling upon the machinery contained in Sections 8 and 9. Section 29 contained elaborate provisions for the publication of notices, and what he objected to was the great delay that would ensue in consequence. Those provisions would involve an enormous amount of unnecessary work, and, as this matter was fully discussed in this House, he should have thought that what was good enough for the House of Commons ought to have satisfied those who sat in another place. He hoped the Government would not insist upon this House adhering to the Lords' Amendment upon this point. They might fairly anticipate that, this was a matter which the House of Lords would not attach any very great importance to.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

submitted that the cases of a new school and that of transferring an existing school were essentially different. In the case of a new school there might be a need for the statutory precautions; but in the case of an existing school no hindrance should be placed in the way of its cheap and rapid transfer to the local authority. This was a mere transfer of a school with its scholars, and it seemed to him that the view taken by the Government originally, as opposed to the view taken in the other House, was much more correct and far more adapted to the circumstances. So far from introducing obstacles, they ought to provide the utmost facility for the transfer of schools in either one direction or the other, and unless they adopted that course, they would in the end be placed in a position most disadvantageous to the education of the nation, always, in his expressed opinion, a matter of vital importance, and an opinion which had been confirmed by his recent observation and experience in America, compared with which we were many years behindhand in public education.

MR. ALFRED IIUTTON (Yorkshire. W. R., Morley)

said that this Amendment applied cumbrous machinery to the transfer of schools in both directions, whether from the private owners to public authorities or from the public authorities to private managers. Suppose the transfer was to take place from a private owner or a railway company. He was considering the case of the purely denominational school. Why should not those private owners or public companies be allowed to transfer their schools, which had been erected in a sense with public money? Why should they not be allowed to transfer their schools without this period of three months in which they would be liable to receive all these complaints from all quarters? The Government were doing all they possibly could in the interests of denominational schools. The machinery which was now proposed was far too cumbrous, and they ought to oppose it and endeavour to make it as easy as they possibly could for those public spirited owners to transfer their schools.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the Amendment only made perfectly clear what had been said over and over again in the House—namely, that when a school changed its character it came under the operation of Clauses 8 and 9.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

asked if it would not be better from the Government point of view to leave this proposal out altogether.

MR. BRYCE

said he never understood that Clause 8 was meant to apply to these cases of transfers. They had always taken the words "new public elementary school" not to apply to the changes in the character of existing schools, but to the creation of a new school altogether, and consequently they were greatly surprised at the introduction of this Amendment. His hon. friend was under a complete misapprehension if he thought that they ever took Clause 8 in that sense. He thought this proposition would add very much to the expense which would be incurred by local authorities if they were obliged to go through all this process, and it would render it far more difficult to make private bargains. In the interests of the economy of the rates, it was very much to be deprecated that this Amendment had been introduced. In the interests of the rates he objected to this elaborate machinery being brought into play in the case of the transfer of an existing school.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the Prime Minister had long ago made it perfectly clear to the House that Clauses 8 and 9 would apply to the transfer of existing schools as well as of new schools. The proposal here was to make it clear that such a transfer would, as in the case of the expiration of a lease, fall under the operation of this Clause.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said he recollected that the Prime Minister made a statement that when once a school had been transferred to the public authority it was never to return to private management. He ventured with great respect to submit his recollection of that statement to the Attorney General, who had spoken of his own recollection of what the Prime Minister said. This Amendment, when made on the Bill in another place, came I upon him as a matter of great surprise, and he believed that surprise was shared by many hon. Members on this side of the House. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether it would not be in the interest of this part of the Bill not to press the Amendment. It could not pass without a division, because they felt a little sore about it. It was thoroughly understood that this was not to apply to transfers, and therefore they were bound to oppose the Amendments.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he was a little surprised at the opposition which was being offered to this Amendment. There were many cases where the voluntary schools were at present leased from the local authority, and where the lease would expire in the course of a year or two. It was perfectly possible for the Board of Education to declare the school unnecessary; the school would not then be run as a voluntary school. The managers might get the building and the plant back, but they could not run it again as a voluntary school. He should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have considered it to their interest to support the Amendment. To his mind the Clause made for the diminution of those small, unnecessary, and very often denominational schools.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the machinery here proposed was cumbrous. The great bulk of the cases would be transfers of voluntary schools to the local authority. In that event what would happen would be that the local authority would first of all give notice to the managers of any other school in the district. Those managers could appeal, or any ten ratepayers could appeal, to the Board of Education. The result would be almost interminable delay before the transfer could take place. Under the present system a transfer could be effected promptly within a few days, but under the machinery now proposed it might take twelve or eighteen months, or even two years. It would involve great expense and deprive the children in many cases of the opportunity of getting proper education.

(6 23.) Question put.

The House divided:— Ayes, 224; Noes, 79, (Division List No. 644).

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E., Field, William M'Kean, John
Agg Gardner, James Tynte Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Ambrose, Robert Fisher, William Hayes Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fison, Frederick William Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E.(Wigt'n
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Arrol, Sir William Flavin, Michael Joseph Mooney, John J.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Flower, Ernest Morrell, George Herbert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Flynn, James Christopher Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bain, Colonel James Robert Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Baldwin, Alfred Garfit, William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gilhooly, James Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH' mlets O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bignold, Arthur Graham, Henry Robert O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Bigwood, James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O'Brien, William (Cork)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Boland, John Groves, James Grimble O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hain, Edward O'Doherty, William
Bonsfield, William Robert Hammond, John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo O'Dowd, John
Brassey, Albert Hay, Hon. Claude George O Kelly, James(Roscommon N.
Bullard, Sir Harry Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Burke, E. Haviland- Healy, Timothy Michael O'Mara, James
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Heaton, John Henniker O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Carew, James Laurence Henderson, Sir Alexander O'Shee, James John
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Higgin bottom, S. W. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E Pemberton, John S. G.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Percy, Earl
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hoult, Joseph Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard
Chamberlain, Rt Hon J A(Wore. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hudson, George Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R.
Chapman, Edward Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clive, Captain Percy A. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Power, Patrick Joseph
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Jordan, Jeremiah Pretyman, Ernest George
Cogan, Denis J. Joyce, Michael Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kennedy, Patrick James Purvis, Robert
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Pym, C. Guy
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole King, Sir Henry Seymour Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Compton, Lord Alwyne Knowles, Lees Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Condon, Thomas Joseph Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ratcliff, R. F.
Crean, Eugene Leamy, Edmund Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cripps, Charles Alfred Leeky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Remnant, James Farquharson
Crossley. Sir Savile Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Cullinan, J. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Davenport, William Bromley- Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Delany, William Lockie, John Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dickson, Charles Scott Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, John
Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon Long. Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Doogan, P. C. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Doughty, George Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lundon, W. Seely, Maj J. E. B (Isle of Wight
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Duffy, William J. Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Duke, Henry Edward Macdona, John Gumming Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas MacVeagh, Jeremiah Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc' M'Fadden, Edward Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Ffrench, Peter M'Govern, T. Sullivan, Donal
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Valentin, Viscount Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Yerhurgh, Robert Armstrong
Thornton, Percy M. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Tritton, Charles Ernest Willox, Sir John Archibald Sir Alexander Acland-
Tully, Jasper Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Holland, Sir William Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Asher, Alexander Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Atherley-Jones, L. Jacoby, James Alfred Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Strachey, Sir Edward
Brigg, John Kearley, Hudson E. Taylor, Theodore. C (Radcliffe)
Broadhurst, Henry Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Thamas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Leigh, Sir Joseph Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N
Burns, John Levy, Maurice Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Caldwell, James Lloyd-George, David Toulmin, George
Campbell-Bannernian, Sir H. Lough, Thomas Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Causton, Richard Knight Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cremer, William Randal M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Wrrner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Crombie, John William Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackniannan)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Weir. James Galloway
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Norton, Capt, Cecil William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Partington, Oswald Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Philipps, John Wynford Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Rea, Russell Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Reckitt, Harold James Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Grrey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Roe, Sir Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale- Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Mr. Yoxall and Sir John
Helme, Norval Watson Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Brunner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 5, line 39, leave out 'already, and insert 'for the time being.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said that the words "for the time being" were in the original Bill, and "already" had been substituted for them. Why had the Clause been altered again to its original form?

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the purpose was to make it quite clear what the meaning of the Clause was. "For the time being" referred to the moment at which the question arose, not to the passing of the Act.

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 9, lines 10 and 11, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment— In page 9, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'they continue to charge fees,' and insert 'fees continue to be charged.'

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson).

MR. BKYCE

said that this Amendment might be of very great importance according to the interpretation put upon it. If it meant merely a simple change of phrase, then, of course, no one could object to it; but if it meant that the power of charging fees, which was given by the Bill as it left this House to the local authority, was to be transferred to the managers with the consent of the Board of Education, then the objection to that was very strong. He could hardly believe that that was the meaning of the Government, for they had repeatedly assured the Committee that the local authority would have complete control of finance.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was not the slightest intention to alter the power of the local authority in regard to charging fees. The substituted words were only meant to make the power more general.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that that explanation might be satisfactory; but he must say that the original words were far preferable, because the unrepealed Clause in the Act of 1891, which empowered the Board of Education to regulate the charging of fees, might be held to override the words in the altered form, and to give the Board of Education power to impose fees or modify them, without reference to the local education authority at all. The rights of the local authority, unless clearly stated in this Clause, might also be affected by the Code recently introduced by the Board of Education in regard to night schools, which insisted that fees should be charged.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said that the House ought to have some assurance, or explanation from the Attorney General as to the power of the educational authority to fix or to abolish fees in regard to these schools. He understood that the education authority would have the power in regard to secular instruction, but the destination of the fees might not necessarily be for secular instruction; they might go to other objects, such as repairs, which the education authority would not administer. It seemed to him that if it was not made clear in the Bill that the power to charge fees was taken from the managers, and rested in the local education authority, the presumption would be, if the Lords Amendment were accepted, that that power remained in the hands of the managers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought the suspicions of hon. Members had very slender foundation and were leading them into unnecessary refinements of drafting. The whole object of the Lords' Amendment was to make the meaning clear, in which apparently it had not been successful. With that object in view he would consent to alterations, leaving out the word ''fees" and inserting "they;" and after "continue" inserting the words "to allow fees."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords' Amendment amended—

"By leaving out in the words to be insetted the word 'fees,' and inserting the word 'they,' and by inserting, after the word 'continue,' the words 'to allow fees.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 10, line 16, agreed to.

Lords' Amendment—

"In line 16, after 'nomination' to insert' or recommendation.'"

—the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

, said that after the answer which had been given to him by the Secretary to the Board of Education during the afternoon, the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if he asked for an explanation of this Amendment. He wished to know how they stood now in regard to it. There was considerable discussion in Committee as to the meaning of the word "nomination." Originally it had one meaning attached to it in this House; and another meaning was afterwards attached to it by the President of the Board of Education in another place. He wished to know whether, when a body was nominated, the County Council would have the right of rejection or not. He also wished to know what distinction was drawn between "nomination" and "recommendation." The whole question was somewhat complicated by the words in the proviso "where it appears desirable;" and he appealed to his hon. friend to throw a little more light on it. His hon. friend, in reply to a hypothetical question, said that it was time enough to consider the solution of problems when they arose; but these problems would arise in the very immediate future, as the local authorities would have to consider within the next month or two what kind of scheme they would send up for confirmation. Surely, it would save the local authorities trouble, and the hon. Gentleman himself trouble, if the local authorities were given some information as to the views of the Board of Education on these very doubtful words. If the hon. Gentleman could not answer now, would he before the end of the year send out circulars to the county authorities explaining the views of the Board?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that from the very beginning of the Bill, he had called attention to the way in which the local authorities had been treated. He believed that any County Council worth its salt would resent the attempt to put on their committees men whom they did not wish to have. If the Government wished their plan to work, they should treat the County Councils in a very different manner.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said he was quite sure that the Borough Councils would object strongly to a nominative non-elective element being imposed upon them. The word "nomination" was ambiguous, and the addition of "recommended" established an alternative which gave additional force to the objectionable word "nomination."

(6.53.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that from experience, he had little hope that explanations from him would assist hon. Members in the solutions of conundrums they had themselves constructed. It seemed to him that no statement in these debates was so simple as not to call for explanation, and that every explanation seemed to darken counsel. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think some indignity was put upon County Councils, but, so far as his communications had gone, he had not discovered any disposition on the part of County Councils to receive in any but a favourable light the proposals in the Clause, and he believed they would endeavour by this means to constitute committees worthy of the position and adequate for the work. Appointment would be made by the Council, but if the Council invited some body within its area to make a nomination, such, for instance, as a University college, there might be some difficulty in rejecting the person nominated. Still, in many areas there would be bodies of such dignity that a Council would desire them to have representation, and would ask them to make a nomination, reserving the ultimate right of appointment. But there might be other bodies, associations, federations, or unions of various kinds, to whom the Councils might not think it necessary to send invitations to nominate, although it might be desirable to invite them to recommend, and recommendations would involve the Council in much lighter responsibility of acceptance or rejection. In fact the result might be arrived at by informal communications between the Councils and the bodies concerned. The Amendment was, he believed, an attempt to meet some of the difficulties which his right hon. friend had suggested on a previous occasion. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. BRYCE

said that the Secretary to the Board of Education began by observing that all the explanations given by the Government had only succeeded in darkening counsel. They might agree with that. He himself certainly recollected four or five cases whore they had endeavoured to ascertain without result the meaning of new words which had been introduced. He understood the explanation of the Secretary to the Board of Education to be this, that where a scheme gave nomination to a body, the County Council was obliged to accept the person—that it had no choice in the matter.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

No, no. What I said was that the appointment is with the Council, but that, when the Council has asked a body of some dignity or position to nominate a person, it would be exceedingly difficult for them to reject the person nominated.

MR. BRYCE

said that in that case, if the County Council could reject the person nominated, there was no difference between "nomination" and "recommendation." The idea of the Government apparently was that where there was a recommendation it could be refused without offence; but that where there was a nomination it would be an insult to refuse it. What would happen if the County Council continued to refuse the particular persons nominated? Must the Council, in the last resort, accept a person, however displeasing, because the word "nomination" conferred an absolute right on the nominating party? He should be obliged if the Government would explain that.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said he thought lie understood this simple matter until he had beard the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. When the proviso was first introduced, it was agreed that it meant that every scheme proposed by a County Council was bound to provide for nomination by other bodies. In answer to an objection, the Government introduced the words "where it appears desirable." Therefore, it was now within the discretion of the County Council to decide whether its scheme should provide for nomination or not; but, where it did provide for nomination it was compulsory. If his view were correct, the word "recommendation" was very much better than "nomination;" and, in the circumstances, he thought the House would do well to agree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W. R., Keighley)

said he did not yet quite understand the position. Would the Secretary to the Board of Education say whether a County Council could of its own will nominate the bodies from whom it would receive representatives.

*MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Lords' Amendment—

'In page 10, line 17, after 'bodies,' insert 'including associations of voluntary schools.' "

— the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said as the House had not sufficient time properly to discuss many important Amendments which remained to be considered, they would have to express their views on the Amendment now before the House by dividing against it. The Clause in the Bill was perfectly clear. He believed that some Roman Catholic Members of the House were under the impression that the Amendment was of some importance to them; but he submitted that the Roman Catholic Bishops would be brought in under the words "persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area." The associations referred to in the Amendment were the diocesan associations. In a Parliamentary term they were created only by the grant to poor voluntary schools, and would cease to exist on the passing of the Bill; and in regard to them, he would only say that they had not carried out their work to the general satisfaction. Those who had experience of the working of those boards did not like them to be included in the nominating bodies under the Bill. They were happily extinguished by the Bill, and he would prefer their members to appear in a representative capacity, rather than as nominees of the boards. The Amendment was unnecessary, because the best of the members would be brought in under the words he had quoted; but the Amendment would increase the representation of these boards on the education committees, not by the county gentleman nor by the leading clergy, but by the secretaries of the boards against whom it was charged that they had not administered the grants to poor schools made by that House with that discretion and fairness which they should have expected of them.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said he regarded the inclusion of these words as good evidence of the partisanship which had been displayed both in the House of Lords and by the Government. He regarded the words as most objectionable from the point of view of the local authorities and of education, and as a direct invitation to that very religious strife and controversy which the Prime Minister had expressed his intention to avoid by some of the other provisions of the Bill. Moreover, the representatives of the voluntary schools would see that the provision of new schools would be in the direction of denominationalism and to the detriment of public schools. Why should the representatives of denominationalism be allowed to put a spoke in the wheel of public interest and public progress. He thought the Amendment was evidence of special favour, of which the Government ought to be ashamed. They had established on the management; a permanent denominational majority of four to two; but, apparently, that was not enough; and the Amendment was introduced to still further secure the interests of the Voluntary schools. They had a majority of four to two on the Board of Managers, and surely that was sufficient protection for the interests of denominationalism.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

asked whether it was under stood that the diocesan associations would have the right to nominate members upon the county governing committees, or whether it was in the option of the County Council to put such members on or not. In connection with the Intermediate Education Act in Wales, representatives of the Voluntary schools had been put on the local subcommittees, which afterwards elected representatives to the county governing bodies. There was no representation of diocesan associations. Would the County Council be able to secure the representation of Voluntary schools in a similar way, or would they be compelled by this Amendment to put on representatives of the diocesan boards? If the latter was the ease, the provision as amended was more mischievous than in its original form.

Mr. SAMUEL EVANS

said that, supposing a County Council framed a scheme which excluded the representation of diocesan associations, the Board of Education would apparently be able to alter the scheme. He thought the House ought to reject the Amendment. It was pro posed to give a right to sectarian bodies to interfere in educational matters—a principle which was objectionable in all parts of education, and which was now being introduced for the first time in reference to secondary education.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

did not think the Amendment would have the effect which was apprehended. Referring to the two specific points which had been put to him, he said it was impossible for him to state what the Board of Education would do with regard to hypothetical schemes which were not yet before it. He was sure the Board, under the guidance of the President and the Parliamentary Secretary, would do its best to make these schemes really workable schemes for all classes of education carried on under the control of the local education authority. In reply to the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, he said that there was nothing in this Amendment, or in the Bill as it now stood, making it obligatory that the schemes of local authorities should provide for the representation of the diocesan association or any other association. That was a point which would depend on the character of the scheme. There was nothing in the Amendment or the Bill to prevent the County Council suggesting another method of representing the interests of Voluntary schools, such as the method for which the hon. Gentleman had a preference based on the experience of Wales.

MR. LLOYD-GEORCE

remarked that all he said was that that was the method which had been pursued up to the present.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

understood the hon. Member to express a preference for it, but the point was immaterial. There was nothing in the Amendment to make it absolutely necessary that the education authority or the Education Department should adopt one plan rather than the other.

Mr. BRYCE

said it was not denied that this Amendment, taken in conjunction with the rest of the Bill, gave power to the Board of Education, against the will of Borough or County Councils to, provide for the representation of diocesan associations.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not relevant to the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

maintained that it was relevant, because the associations were mentioned. Here was a specific direction singling out these voluntary associations, and wherever a specific direction of that kind was given in an Act of Parliament the Department which had to administer the Act had regard to that direction. His view was that in many cases the Board of Education would place, against the will of the County Council, representatives of voluntary associations

on the committees. He would vote against the Amendment.

(7.28.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 645.)

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.) Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J.(Manc'r Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Ffrench, Peter Macdona, John Cumming
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Field, William MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Ambrose, Robert Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fisher, William Hayes MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fison, Frederick William M'Fadden, Edward
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon M'Govern, T.
Arrol, Sir William Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flower, Ernest Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Baldwin, Alfred Gardner, Ernest Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Garfit, William More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans Morrell, George Herbert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Gilhooly, James Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mount, William Arthur
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bignold, Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bigwood, James Graham, Henry Robert Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Boland, John Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Groves, James Grimble O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Bousfield, William Robert Hain, Edward O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brassey, Albert Hall, Edward Marshall O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Bullard, Sir Harry Hammond, John O'Brien, William (Cork)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hayden, John Patrick O'Doherty, William
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Henderson, Sir Alexander O'Dowd, John
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hickman, Sir Alfred O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc. Higginbottom, S. W. O'Malley, William
Chapman, Edward Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside O'Mara, James
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hoult, Joseph O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil O'Shee, James John
Cogan, Denis J. Hudson, George Bickersteth Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Pemberton, John S. G.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Jordan, Jeremiah Percy, Earl
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Joyce, Michael Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kennedy, Patrick James Plummer, Walter R.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cranborne, Viscount Keswick, William Power, Patrick Joseph
Crean, Eugene Knowles, Lees Pretyman, Ernest George
Cripps, Charles Alfred Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Crossley, Sir Savile Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th Purvis, Robert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Leamy, Edmund Pym, C. Guy
Cullinan, J. Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Davenport, William Bromley- Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Delany, William Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Ratcliff, R. F.
Dickson, Charles Scott Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lockie, John Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Doogan, P. C. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Doughty, George Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Royds, Clement Molyneux
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rutherford, John
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Long, Rt Hon Walter(Bristol, S. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Duffy, William J. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Duke, Henry Edward Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lundon, W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham, Rt. Hum. George
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset Tully, Jasper
Strutt, Hon. Charles Medley Valentia, Viscount
Sullivan, Donal White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS FOR: THE AYES —
Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester) Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-nnd. Lvne Sir Alexander Aclaud-
Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Willox, Sir John Archibald Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wortley, lit. Hon. C. B Stuart-
NOES.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Holland, Sir William Henry Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Asher, Alexander Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman. Dr. John G.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jacoby, James Alfred Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Brigg, John Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Spenoer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Nortiiants
Broadhurst, Henry Kearley, Hudson E. Strachey, Sir Edward
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Layland-Barratt, Francis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff'e)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Leigh, Sir Joseph Thonias, David Alfred (Merthyr
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Levy, Maurice Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Hums, John Lloyd-George, David Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R)
Caldwell, James Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Toulmin, George
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Markhani, Arthur Basil Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Causton, Richard Knight Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cremer, William Randal Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Weir, James Galloway
Dalziel, James Henry Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Norton, Capt Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Partington, Oswald Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fiizmaurice, Lord Edmond Rea, Russell Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudderst'd
Goddard, Daniel Ford Reckitt, Harold James Yoxall, James Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Tellers FOR. THE NOES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Robson. William Snowdon Mr. Herbert Gladstope and
Helme, Norval Watson Roe, Sir Thomas Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question, "That this House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, Further Consideration of the Lords' Amendment stood adjourned till the Evening Sitting.