§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)
in the Chair.
944 Clause 4:—
I Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 10, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words ' for the training of teachers shall require that in any school, college, or class so provided or aided, no pupil shall be excluded on the ground of religious belief, and.'"—(Mr. Channing.)Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ (2.50.) MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)
said he thought he was expressing the feelings of many Members on both sides of the House when he said they hoped that in the interval that had elapsed since the question was last discussed, the First Lord of the Treasury had found some effectual means for remedying a great and admitted grievance. It was a grievance which affected not merely Nonconformists as such. The total accommodation for the training of teachers ought to be largely increased, and to be made equally available for all classes of students, whether belonging to the Church of England, or to Nonconformist bodies. This was a matter of absolutely vital importance in any real scheme of educational reform. On the efficiency of the teacher depended the efficiency of the teaching, and the teacher, in a very real sense, was the school. Even as it was, the supply of trained teachers was notoriously inadequate. It was perfectly certain that this national function would not be adequately discharged by the county authorities alone. The House had, therefore, a right to appeal to the Government to make proposals that should be adequate to the occasion, and which would provide a remedy, not in name only, but in fact. Nothing less would suffice than that the system of building grants should be revised, and that the now educational authorities should have the same advantages in the matter of supplying undenominational training colleges as the denominations enjoyed in the first instance in the supply of their colleges. He believed the denominational grant amounted to about one-third of the total cost of the building. That was the very least that should be done for the county authorities, but he thought, himself, we 945 ought to do much more, because the county authorities would simply be doing 1'or the nation what the nation ought to do for itself. Ho agreed that the establishment of hostels in connection with the great university colleges, or in connection with existing or future training colleges, would be one of the most promising means of supplying deficiencies. But the Government must do something practical in order to promote their establishment, otherwise we might have to wait a very long time before they were established in anything like the number required. It was necessary to double the accommodation for the training of teachers, and tins could not be done simply by the expression of pious hopes. The First Lord should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and obtain from him something like adequate aid towards the accomplishment of this great national work. In this connection he desired to point out that the day training colleges received a much smaller grant, proportionately, than the residential training colleges. For this there was no reason whatever, and he trusted the Government would do something to correct this state of things. All these matters would take time, and the first thing to be done, he maintained, was to utilise to the utmost, existing resources. The Amendment under discussion asked that students should be admitted under the Conscience Clause. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and other Members on the Ministerial side, objected that this proposal would destroy the special atmosphere of these colleges, and allow of the introduction of "a foreign element." The question was how far this doctrine was going to be pressed. Were hon. Members prepared to make any concession whatever in regard to the character of these colleges? He would suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that without any damage to the special character of these colleges, and in tact rather to their advantage, he might make a small advance at least. It was made a condition by the Department in the case of the latest of these institutions—St. Gabriel's—that there should be received within its walls persons from outside—that was to say, day as well as residential students. Why should not this example be extended?
§ MR. C. P. SCOTT
No doubt that might be a difficulty, but in many cases the class and lecture rooms would be in excess of the dormitory accommodation. This would be a very small concession. It would introduce within the sacred walls a certain breath of fresh air from the outside—a certain element that would not be purely denominational. It would do these institutions all the good in the world to have an element not strictly its own and not hall-marked as sectarian. Having admitted the great national need that existed in regard to the supply of trained teachers, and in fact accepted all the premises on which the present demand was founded, the Government were now bound to come forward with some scheme that would meet the necessities of the case.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Member who had just sat down made it a reproach to the Government that they admitted a grievance which the machinery of this Bill, though it did not remove, certainly did mitigate. He did not think that was a just grievance. Let him consider for a moment where they stood. The existing system of training pupil teachers was partly by means of the denominational colleges, partly by means of the machinery of the day training colleges, and partly by means of arrangements by which persons in hostels, or whose lodging was otherwise arranged for, had opportunities of being trained at denominational colleges, although they did not belong to the denomination which controlled them. The suggestion was that we should practically deprive the denomination of those training colleges, or, at all events, greatly interfere with their denominational character.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Member might have disclaimed that, but he was speaking of the effect of the Amendment. It had always been felt that the general character of these institutions would be largely modified—he would not say whether for good or for evil—if there should be the same latitude with regard to students residing in the colleges as there rightly and properly was with regard to day students. Let 947 them consider the case of the Wesleyans. Was it not really monstrous? It was, at any rate, a most serious breach of the practice and traditions of the House to say to the Wesleyans: "You have been instrumental in obtaining these colleges for your students; you have contributed towards their erection and maintenance. It is true you have done all that on the faith that they were to be used for Wesleyan boarders. The House of Commons thinks differently, and, though you require more training colleges for your students, and though you are going to spend some of the Twentieth Century Fund to provide new training colleges, you are to be deprived of your old training colleges." He trusted that such a proposition might be dropped, and that the Committee might proceed to something more just and practical. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, which he thought was based on something which he himself had said with regard to the system of hostels, he thought that that was a good system, but it was not very easily or properly applicable to many of the existing training colleges. They were not fitted for expansion; it would be difficult to carry out, and would involve change in accommodation, change in staff, and in class and lecture rooms. Therefore, he did not think the suggestion would solve the question, though it might do something towards its solution. Then he came to the question of day training. That system had done admirable service. It was established by his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, and met, he was quite sure, with the approval of both sides of the House, but it evidently had its limitations. In the first place, he could not help thinking that day training colleges, however admirably suited for students who lived themselves in the neighbourhood of the college, were not very well suited for the class of students who had no local connection at all, who came from a distance, who bad to find their own lodgings, and who had no natural share in the corporate life of the place. He could not help thinking that it would be a great improvement to the system if a plan was added to it by which hostels could be provided in connection with training colleges. He was speaking now of the university 948 colleges, not of the denominational colleges. But it would be said: "How are you to do that without money, and where are you to get the money?" Scholars in day training colleges got a smaller grant from the Treasury than scholars who were being trained in residential training colleges, denominational or otherwise. How were they going to get the money so that these pupils might have the advantages of a connection with a university training? That question brought him directly to what was one of the central difficulties of the problem—the question of finance. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, the Member for North Camberwell, had made a great impression on the House by going through the figures for the purpose of showing 'how very small a proportion of the total cost of the colleges was paid by the denominationalists. He believed the arrangement was that they paid one-fourth.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
May I say that, though it is said that they must pay one-fourth, as a matter of fact they only pay one-fifth.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I will not dispute with the hon. Member over the figures. I thought the arrangement was that the Treasury should not pay more than three-fourths.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
The Treasury must not pay more than three-fourths out of Government grants. The remaining one-fourth includes the amount of the fees paid by students, and the charge made for books. That brings me to the one-fifth.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was speaking of the amount of the State contribution to the colleges. The hon. Gentleman had said it was not only considerable^ but too considerable. Let the Committee remember it would be in the power of the educational authority to build training colleges on as favourable terms as the denominationalists had. If it was said, as perhaps n might be, that that was not enough, then what became of the argument of the excessive contribution by the State to the denominational colleges? If the education authorities 949 got out of the Exchequer as mud as denominational training college they could build colleges—and be has no doubt that they would under the Bill—for their students on practically the same terms as the college sanctioned the other day in the South of London. If they told him that St. Gabriel's College was so well treated by the State, they could hardly turn round and accuse the Government of niggardly feelings, because they gave the denominationalists exactly the same terms. They would get whatever the denominational colleges now got. Bui he did not know that the matter should be left absolutely there. He was in favour, not merely of building more training colleges, but also, as he had already indicated to the Committee, of hostels connected with university colleges, and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he had considered this matter, and the Government were of opinion that, in order to carry out that desirable object, a student in one of these hostels should have as liberal treatment, should have the same contribution paid to him on behalf of the Exchequer, that a student has in a training college now. He thought it would be felt that on these lines they really were within sight of something like a solution of this most important question, but he did not conceal from the Committee that, in his judgment, the matter required to be further considered. He did not regard even the plan he had sketched out—although nobody could regard it as otherwise than a liberal plan—as a final arrangement. His right hon. friend near him, who had always taken a deep interest in this question, agreed with him that there ought to be an examination into this subject, and that on many, at all events, of its educational aspects they ought to have the advantage of the advice of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. He had no doubt such an examination would lead to many suggestions. In his view, it was not desirable that this should be too purely a local matter. He would hope to see many adjacent counties co-operating in this matter, and every encouragement given by the Government to enable 950 them to do so. He might parenthetically observe that he did not think the true solution lay in a State training college. He would not argue that question at length, but they had that system in Ireland, and he did not think it a good one. It did not harmonise with the rest of our educational system, and he did not think it would lead to that variety to which the plan he had proposed certainly would lead — a plan which contemplated the existence of denominational and undenominational training colleges, of day students, of students at university colleges lodged in hostels, and possibly of other machinery yet to be devised for attaining the same object. But, while he did not think the State ought to be responsible for the whole training of teachers, and would regret to see that great function simply entrusted to a Department at Whitehall, he did agree that there should be a liberal contribution from the Exchequer, and he thought he had indicated to the Committee that that contribution the Exchequer were prepared to give. He hoped he had made fairly clear the position he took up in the matter, and if he had given any satisfaction to the educational interests on both sides of the House—and he was glad to think that educational interests had largely predominated in these debates—he hoped they might be permitted to pass from the Amendment and proceed to the other important questions raised by the Clause.
§ (3.20.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
sympathysed with the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury that this question should be treated as an educational question, and was glad that he was prepared a) go at least some distance in the way of making bettor provision for undenominational training colleges. As ho understood the proposal, the Treasury would be prepared to pay to students in hostels n connection with day training colleges it universities the same grant as was already paid to students at denominational training colleges. Was that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Yes, of course, subject to limitations like training colleges themselves. The Treasury are prepared 951 to raise the1 scale of fees, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and as I thought I had put clearly to the Committee.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
If I remember rightly, the existing system with regard to denominational colleges is that the Treasury pay up to £50 if that be necessary, but they do not pay more than three-fourths, of the cost of the student. The same rule would be transferred from the training colleges to the hostels.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that would be so far to the good, but the right hon. Gentleman would see that, even if these hostels were being built, the accommodation at present would be quite inadequate, and they would require a grant for the building of hostels. The right hon. Gentleman did not assume that the County Councils would build the hostels. That appeared to be clear from his statement that he regarded this rather as a national than a local matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The right hon. Gentleman, in the last discussion on this point, denounced the liberality of the terms given to the denominational colleges—
MR. A. J. BALFOUE
The point of the speeches on the other side at any rate was that the treatment of the training colleges by the State was of so extraordinarily liberal a character that the denominationalists who owned those colleges ought to be deprived of their exclusive use. If you think that treatment so liberal, is it fair to describe it as illiberal when applied to the education authority?
§ MR. BRYCE
said the right hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken his argument; ho had said nothing whatever upon that subject. What he said was that if the right hon. Gentleman desired his suggestion to be effective for the purpose of providing undenominational training for teachers, it would be necessary to make a grant for the erection of these hostels, as well as a larger grant for each pupil in them. He also desired to understand under what system these institutions were to be managed, because it was perfectly clear that the local authorities would not be the proper authorities for managing these day training colleges in the universities. Some further indication was, therefore, wanted of the plan the Government were going to adopt in order to increase the number both of day training colleges and hostels. The additional grant of the Government, which he was very glad to have, did not, however, cover the argument in favour of the Amendment. It was a different thing altogether. The Amendment was intended to provide that no local authority should make grants to or for the erection of any training college from which persons could be excluded on the ground of their religious belief. The case in favour of that Amendment was altogether irrespective of, and untouched by, the arrangement now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. That case was that, under the existing system, these denominational colleges, supported by denominations to the extent of only 20 per cent, at most, excluded from the necessary training a large proportion of His Majesty's subjects who desired to pursue the teaching profession. In the view of the supporters of the Amendment, that was altogether unjust and indefensible, and no additional grant would remove their objection to the system. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that a grievance existed. Considering how relatively ample was the supply of denominational training, and how relatively insufficient was the supply of unsectarian training, it ought not to be in the power of the local authority to subsidise a denominational training college while that disparity remained. That was the case for the Amendment, and it was not met by the right hon. Gentlemen's proposal. Surely the first duty of the local authority was to supply that' which was most needed and to remedy 953 injustice where it existed. But he would go farther, and associate himself entirely with the argument which had been used to show that no aid whatever should be given by the local authorities to any college which excluded portions on the ground of religious belief, Ho based his position on the principle adopted by the Legislature in the University Tests Act, 1871, and in the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, where, although there was an admission that certain schools, which, by their original deeds or statutes of foundation, were denominational in character should preserve that denominational character, it was to be subject to a conscience clause provisions. He contended that these denominational colleges also ought to be subject to conscience clause provisions, and if those provisions were unsuitable to residential students, arrangements should be made to add such places as would enable residential students of every denomination to be properly accommodated. In any case, he did not think the local authorities wore the best fitted to make provision for the training of teachers. There were sixty-two administrative councils in England and Wales, and a very large number of borough councils which would be separate education authorities, to say nothing about the minor bodies which had apparently been added by sudden Amendments of the Bill as authorities for secondary education. That large number of local authorities was not, in his opinion, qualified to make provision for training colleges; it would be necessary for them to combine. It was rather a national than a local matter, and it ought to be regarded from the point of view of what the nation, and not the local authorities, would do. They must not consider that by any such grant as the right hon. Gentleman proposed they were really adequately dealing with the question of training colleges. What they wanted was a new departure altogether. They wanted the provision of new colleges by the nation, and the throwing open of the existing colleges to all His Majesty's subjects. Those were the two principles upon which a reform must proceed, and, believing that this was possible under the Amendment of his hon. friend, ho thought they were, bound to vote fox it.
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)
said that the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to have done away with a real grievance, namely, the lack of educational provision. The Amendment under consideration, however, really touched only the religious question and not the educational question at all. He looked at this subject from a slightly different standpoint to that from which some hon. Members had treated it. Personally ho should like to see the whole of these training colleges thrown open to everybody, and he did not believe in the argument that it was necessary to maintain them as close corporations in order to preserve a religious atmosphere. Students of different denominations benefited considerably by associating together, and he-did not think that the Church of England had anything to gain by not admitting Nonconformists into institutions where her position was already assured. He did not agree with the argument that because the State had given grants to institutions of this kind, the State had no right to withdraw that money or make further conditions in regard to it. If that doctrine were once accepted, it would logically follow that the State would have to refuse assistance to all institutions which were not under its control, and that would inflict a great blow upon private enterprise in educational matters. The reason why he objected to this Amendment was that it would either be inoperative or it would tie the hands of the local authority upon a matter in which the local authority was in a better position to judge than the House of Commons. He thought that under the Act the local authority would be able to do all that the Amendment proposed. The clause already provided that a local authority was not to refuse aid to any institution on the ground that it did or did not teach any particular form of religious instruction or worship, and he wished to leave the discretion of the local authority unfettered. What would be the the effect of such a mandatory Amendment? Either that the existing training colleges would continues they were before, and be refused all State aid, or they would shut up the institutions altogether. The result would be that they would destroy the existing educational provision, besides entailing an unnecessary expenditure upon the new local 955 authorities. Speaking for himself, he should be perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend below him, which concerned only the future provision of colleges. To that he should have no objection, upon the understanding that the Government would certainly not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton, which would have the effect of excluding all religious teaching. If they were to lay down any direction, he would far rather lay down a rule in the opposite sense, and enact that the local authority was not to provide any training-colleges in which ample provision was not made for meeting the religious requirements of members of every religious denomination.
§ (3.40.) MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)
said he was afraid it was too much to expect to get the suggestions upon this point made by the noble Lord and the First Lord of the Treasury carried out. Personally, he rather looked upon this question from an educational than a religious point of view, and, although the suggestion which came from the First Lord of the Treasury would not be a complete solution, it would go a long way towards securing that training of teachers which educationists had fought for for a long time.
§ EARL PERCY
said that what he said was that he should like training colleges thrown open to all denominations, but if they compelled them to adopt this course he was afraid that they would close them altogether.
§ MR. WILLIAM JONES
said that he had been supplied recently with figures showing last year's result in regard to all the candidates who got King's Scholarships. Although the accommodation in the Church of England Colleges was for 1,300, only 370 of them were applicants of the first class. Of the Roman Catholic accommodation for 140 there were 35 applicants in the first class; in the Wesleyans, out of 117 there were 47 in the first class; but in the case of the unsectarian colleges there was accommodation for only 407, although there were 485 applicants, or 956 six per cent. more than the accommodation. This was dealing with the first class, but in the case of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan accommodation they were obliged to take in second, and even third class applicants; whereas in the case of the unsectarian applicants not one half of them had any places open to them at all. The Committee would see that it was not altogether a religious grievance, but more of an educational one. The First Lord of the Treasury had approached the question in a very considerate and tolerant spirit. In regard to hostels, he thought it would be better to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. To show how these hostels were worked, he would take as an illustration one of the Welsh university colleges. He believed that he might claim that the best day training college in the kingdom was the Aberystwith Training College. There they had 120 students—60 men and 60 women. All the women were attached to a hostel presided over by an excellent head. The complaint in this case was that they did not get a sufficient grant. Instead of having from £54 to £50, they simply got £35 for the male and £30 for the female students, and as they paid £10 each for fees it was a beggarly system, for the students could hardly afford to live on that sum. They ought to feed their students well and attach a great deal more importance to their physical condition. He wished to translate this Bill into a reality by co-ordinating primary and secondary education, and surely it was the best thing, in the interests of elementary education, that the teachers of our elementary schools should be trained in the University alongside of the teachers in our secondary schools. This proposal would destroy for ever the line of demarcation between the elementary and the higher system. Teachers would be able to become inspectors, and good men they were as inspectors. Why did they not get more? Simply because a stigma was attached to elementary education. The University man said, "Once an elementary teacher, always an elementary teacher." Surely it was time to destroy that demarcation, and if this was to be a real educational Bill, nothing could be done for its reality more than by providing for the 957 training of teachers adequately and properly. He heard the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury with delight, because it provided in the future for the equipment of a greater number of teachers who had the best culture of England and Wales, He was sure that his hon. friend opposite, the Warden of All Souls, would agree with him that Normal school students who went to Oxford were loaders in the Union debates, in the football field, and in the cricket field, and that they carried off some of the best prizes in the university. The First Follow of the University of Wales was a Normal student and schoolmaster. Those hostels were catholic in their tendency. The lady who took the Exhibition at London University three years ago as the best in all England was a Jewess, and she was formerly a schoolmistress at the hostel at Aberystwith. Ho believed she was now the mistress of a Jewish free school. What he wished to show was that this was the best opening for the higher education and training of teachers. In the hostel at Aberystwith there were Churchmen, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Methodists, and Jews. If they wore Church people they were helped by Church people, and if they were Nonconformist and sectarian they were helped by the sectarians in the town. It was desirable to avoid the overlapping which would occur in some districts if the counties provided training colleges. A training college in the real sense must be a national institution. Ho did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen that they should build more colleges. Let them emphasise the university colleges.
§ MR. WILLIAM JONES
said he had mistaken the right hon. Gentleman. The already existing training colleges in Darlington and Durham had affiliated themselves with the Newcastle and Durban university. These were Church colleges, so that their Church friends, looking to the future, found that if they wanted good teachers they must have them with a university training. Some prophet had said that we were going to be a mighty nation, and that we were going to beat Germany and America in the field of commerce by getting the best brain 958 among the working classes. If we wished to do that, we must begin at the foundation, and that was the elementary school, and there the teachers must be men of the best culture, whose influence would permeate those who were to be the citizens of the best nation in the world.
§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
said it was a pity that these colleges were not, on their first initiation, open to all; but they must deal in this world with facts as they found them. No doubt it was assumed that training colleges representing dissenting bodies would also be started, and therefore those who wished to keep the training colleges as they were could not be blamed for their exclusion. What they wanted to know was what the new I authorities were to do when this very simple task was imposed upon them. He must say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had cleared the air enormously with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had met both sides of the House with liberality, fairness, and justice, and with a thorough comprehension of the difficulties of the case. One aspect of the case which had not been considered sufficiently by the Committee was the prospective advantages and disadvantages of the residential training college, the day training college, or the hostel suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. Ho had a very firm belief that the residential training college would not in the end prove suitable to the wants of the counties. Ho ventured to think that, from a practical point of view, the counties would have seriously to consider whether they would have residential training colleges at all, and whether they would not have to fall back on the system of day training colleges, or those hostels suggested by his right hon. friend. This was one of those questions which required far more consideration than could be given to it by the debates in this House. They must not discharge from their view the necessity of religious training in these colleges. With regard to this difficulty, he bogged to return his most earnest thanks to his right hon. friend for the statement the made with reference to the Consultative Committee on Education, 959 of which he had the honour to be chairman. He could assure the House that, whatever were the problems placed before the Consultative Committee, these were dealt with by the Committee in no party spirit or feeling. All these matters were only looked at with reference to what was good for education.
§ (4.3.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
said that the question was, what were the Government going to do with this Amendment? The Committee had been placed in a position which, he ventured to say, it ought not to have been placed in. One of the chief chapters in a Bill of this kind ought to have been the inclusion of a plan for the education of our teachers; but it was a remarkable thing that that circumstance had been overlooked altogether.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
Will the right bon. Gentleman point out to me what is the provision of the Bill which at all corresponds, in any sense to the suggestions he made tonight?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
No change in the Bill! Is there to be no clause to carry out these suggestions?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
If that is so, then I confess that that makes the matter all the more unsatisfactory. There ought to be some security for the training of the teachers. He had been extremely glad to hear the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, and that very high authority on education the right hon. Member for Dartmouth. They were not of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the admission to all these existing training colleges of persons not of the particular persuasion of those who had founded them would be an act of spoliation. It would be nothing of the kind. Why was the principle which was 960 applied to universities and other institutions which were originally strictly denominational, not to be applied to training colleges? The fact of admitting to the universities men of any opinion or no opinion or all opinions, where they came together and got to know one another, had been extremely beneficial; and why was that system to be objected to here? He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made suggestions that night which there was no doubt would be very beneficial in the creation of new colleges, and so far as that went he would be very glad if these suggestions were carried out. He hoped that the Committee would see in print some form or other in which that was to be done. But that was to apply only to new institutions. The question in hand, however, was, what were the Government going to do with the colleges and training institutions which now existed? Why were they not to be utilised for the benefit of all? What was the foundation of this claim of monopoly in these institutions, which were, to an enormous percentage, supported by public funds? That was the question. He could not conceive an argument which could support such a contention. Take King's College, which received a grant from public money. He was responsible, when in office, for the distribution of that grant, and acted on the principle that a college which excluded professors who were not members of the Church of England should not receive a grant. His successors, however, reversed that decision; but the remarkable thing was that King's College itself found that it could not proceed on that basis without injuring itself as an educational institution. The consequence was that the principle of a denominational test was withdrawn by the college itself under one of its statutes, because it had educationally operated so injuriously to the college. Educationally and nationally it was an evil and an unjust thing to draw this denominational line and give large sums of money and building grants to these denominational institutions He maintained that there was no foundation for this claim for a monopoly, and it was intolerable that such a claim should be made. He held that it was a fatal blot on the Bill that the training of teachers, in respect of a great proportion of the citizens of this country, should be 961 deliberately excluded from a great number of institutions supported by public money. He supported the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that in the discussion on the previous night the Bill was before the Committee they had travelled very widely from the strict form of the Amendment before them. He did not blame anyone in this matter, because he was amongst the chief sinners. He had taken the wider scope given to the discussion as an opportunity for making a statement. He did hope, however, that the matter should not go much farther; that they should now return to the strict limits of the Amendment and decide upon it.
§ Colonel NOLAN (Galway, N.)
said he had always taken an interest in English education, because there were a considerable number of Irishmen there. He knew that Catholics would always insist on religious training being given to their teachers; and this Bill as it stood removed a grievance which Catholics had in regard to the religious training of teachers. Few hon. Gentlemen in the House would send their children to school and training schools which were not of the same denomination as themselves, and why not allow the poor to do the same? To attempt to adopt the system of the Amendment would be to break down the entire educational system. It was much better to allow denominational teachers to be brought up together and receive the same religious training. That might be done, but he submitted that the time to do it was when the religious views of the children were formed. [Cheers from the Conservative Benches.] Hon. Members who cheered did not send their children to schools which were controlled by different religious views to their own. The question of hostels attached to university colleges might be the solution of a much larger question, but was not a solution to this.
§ MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)
said he, amongst others, had sympathised greatly with the hardship of what had been called the policy of exclusion, especially having regard to the considerable sums advanced by the State for the Church of 962 England training colleges in the first place, and the considerable sums paid by the State for maintenance in the second; but he had gone down to one of the training colleges and made some inquiries, and it was shown to him that this hardship was only apparent. He was told that he might defy anyone to produce a case of a first class Nonconformist King's Scholar who, being refused at a Church training college, had failed to get taken in at some other training college. All these training colleges were absolutely full, and it was only fair that when a vacancy occurred they should have the right of selection among those who were pari passu. He supported the Amendment.
§ (4.20.) MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
said let the colleges teach whatever catechism they thought proper: all the Nonconformists wanted was the training in the colleges for teaching purposes, and that they should not be compelled to subscribe to the dogmas of the Church. If that point was clearly understood, he could not possibly see how the Government could, with reason and justice, deny the claim of the Amendment. The speech made by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington appeared to him to have disposed of the whole of the religious difficulty, and that speech was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice-President of the Council. The Amendment was based on the just ground that where-ever public money was spent on public institutions all classes of the people had a right to participate in the advantages of those institutions. The First Lord of the Treasury had now a great opportunity before him. Let the right hon. Gentleman detach himself from all complications, contracts, and understandings that he might have entered into with any particular section of the community, and stand forth in this House, and, by acceding to this Amendment, make a great name and reputation for himself as a Minister not of a Party but of the nation. There was now a strong inclination on the Conservative side of the House to listen to this grievance and concede this measure of justice, for which the Nonconformists had so long appealed in vain. He supported the Amendment.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)
expressed some sympathy with the object of the Amendment, recognising the disadvantage under which undenominational youths entering the teaching profession suffered. It was not due to the perversity of Parliament, nor to the youths themselves, but to the force of circumstances. There seemed to be a greater cohesive power among the denominationalists, as a result of which they had stepped in, and, if they had not covered all the ground, had gone a considerable way towards it, and done far more than anyone else in providing training college. Was it to be wondered at that, when they had sufficient candidates for admission belonging to their own denomination, they should be given the preference? In a sense, no doubt, these institutions were supported out of public money. "In a sense;" but so were the War Office and the Admiralty clerks, whose salaries were paid by the State. The argument that these training colleges were supported out of public money was one of the most futile and silly ever advanced. He had some sympathy with the Amendment, but he thought it went too far. If it were confined in its operation to schools, colleges, and classes to be provided for in the future by the new education authorities, he would support it. He was not in favour of any grant being given for the establishment of denominational teaching; and if the County Councils took upon themselves to set up training colleges, they must be purely undenominational. But he thought it would be a grave injustice to apply the Amendment to the existing denominational training colleges, which did good work for the State, and were entitled to be paid for it. He therefore moved to amend the Amendment by omitting the words "or aided."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or aided."—(Mr. Hey wood Johnstons.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or aided' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said the hon. Member who had just spoken would not be in favour of any of the grants by County 964 Councils going towards State established denominational education. The Amendment which the hon. Member had moved, that the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire should be confined exclusively to colleges to be established in the future, would not be very useful to the Nonconformists. If it were successful, they would be excluded from the thirty-six colleges already in existence, and it was very doubtful whether any more denominational colleges would be built in the future, so that the concession would be absolutely worthless. They asked that in no college, whether it existed now or was to be built in the future, if it was supported out of public funds, should a religious test be necessary. The hon. Member for Horsham had said that these colleges were supported "in a sense" by public money, and compared them with the War Office clerk, who, he had said, was supported out of public money "in a sense." But these colleges were supported out of public money in the most practical sense in the world. He admitted that the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury was a concession which they had been asking for for years. He had himself moved for it on one or two occasions, but had never been able to make any impression on either the First Lord or the Vice-President. After waiting for many years, they had got this small and not very useful concession, which simply placed the students of day training colleges — where they received a better education — who received a grant of £75, upon the same level as the students of the residential colleges—where they received an inferior education—who received a grant of £90 a year, and that only where there was a hostel. Such a condition would limit the concession very considerably. In the first instance, the concession only amounted to £14,000, but, limited as it now was, it only came to £7,000. But surely, in such a case as this, the buying off of the Nonconformist conscience, the right hon. Gentleman might have appraised it at a somewhat higher price. This concession had the vice of all Government concessions. Like Mr. Dombey, the Government seemed to think that they could do anything with money; they had a golden plaister for 965 every ill; money could buy off the Nonconformist conscience, and it could buy the agricultural equivalent for a conscience—he meant the antipathy to the payment of rates. But this concession did not remove a real and substantial grievance. They were not now fighting for the rights of Nonconformists: they were fighting for the public interest; and it was against public interest that the thirty-one colleges maintained by the State for training students should be controlled by one sect. It was against the public interest that they should have these colleges at all on the basis of absolute sectarianism. The natural result was that teachers received inferior training, and that in itself was against the public interest. The First Lord of the Treasury was under the impression that these training college contributed one-fourth of the expense; as a matter of fact, the contribution to these residential training colleges by the denominationalists who controlled them was one-fourteenth of the total expenditure. And with regard to the different denominations, the Church of England contributed exactly one-twentieth, the Catholics one-fifth, and the Wesleyans one-sixth. Therefore, with regard to the bulk of the colleges—the Anglican colleges—the denomination which had the exclusive advantage of them contributed one-twentieth of the cost of maintaining them. That was grossly unfair. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they had no right to force upon a denomination the education of students of another denomination unless that denomination wished it. That was true, but what the Treasury could do was to say: "At the present moment, nineteen-twentieths of your funds come out of public money; you must treat the public fairly, or we, as the representatives of the public, will withhold the public grants." If that were done, the doors would very soon be opened. These grants did not meet the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was prepared to go further into the matter later on. That was important, but what sort of an inquiry did he propose? Would evidence be taken? Would it be a public or a secret Departmental inquiry, or what would it be? Matters would he greatly facilitated if the Committee had information on that point. The principle under discussion would have 966 to be fought until full justice was done. It was not enough to say that more money would be spent to help in the establishment of more colleges—and the right hon. Gentleman did not say even that. With this £7,000 the difficulty would still be as great. The difficulty of the day colleges was that they had no accommodation; the number of students could not possibly be increased by more than a few hundreds. If the right hon. Gentleman offered to give funds to the day training colleges to extend their system, the pressure on the existing colleges might be relieved, but he did not do so. The system of segregation would be continued. This was practically the only opportunity the Committee had of discussing this important question, and he hoped the First Lord would listen to them with patience. For five years they had been trying to din tins matter into his ears.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said they did do so. It was true the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division started the principle of day colleges, but the extension and the really practical application of the principle was made by Mr. Acland. From a Government which gave £2,000,000 to the landlords, £100,000 a year towards the parsons' rates, and £250,000,000 for a war, all that could be secured towards training teachers in undenominational colleges was a paltry £7,000 a year. The principle which underlay this clause—viz., that of sectarian control of public institutions—was one which would be fought throughout the Bill. The policy of dividing the nation into theological castes was a thoroughly mischievous one. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich defended it on the only possible ground when he declared that the Church upheld the thirty-one denominational colleges because they believed in segregating their students apart from those of other denominations. But the noble Lord seemed to forget that these 967 institutions were training colleges, not monasteries. The country required not pedagogic friars, but teachers for the children. At a time when Great Britain was competing with a country like the United States, where there were none of these denominational differences dividing the people into three or four theological camps, it was of the greatest importance that nothing should be done to extend that policy of segregation. Segregation had been a great failure and disaster wherever it had been tried. It had a good deal to do with the evils of Ireland, and it had been the mischief in France. It was the educational policy of the Empire to segregate the people into two or three theological camps, and as a result of that policy France during the last thirty years had been reaping an abundant harvest of strife, destruction and trouble. The wise statesmanship of Gambetta and others had broken down the barriers, and to that was attributable the recent triumphs of the Republic. At a time when Germany, France, and the United States were breaking down these barriers, and binding their peoples together in one educational whole, in the House of Commons they were discussing a policy of segregation, and all they were offered to break it down was a paltry £7000. The sooner the people mixed together the better, and no finer start could be made at present than by the establishment of training colleges where there would be no educational barriers.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
said the matter under discussion was a very considerable grievance in his part of the country, and he was glad the First Lord of the Treasury had given it his sympathetic consideration. He admitted the First Lord had done his best, as the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said, to satisfy the agricultural equivalent for a conscience, and he could not see why the hon. Member also should not be placated by the concession which had been made. He regretted, however, that the drum ecclesiastic had been beaten so loudly on this and other Amendments. The reverberations of that drum had reached the rural districts, and it had not done the Church any good, or made this Bill any more popular.
§ (4.57.) MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)
, having had some experience as a member of the Committees of two Church Training Colleges, desired to throw out a suggestion. Again and again he had seen cases of gross injustice under the existing system. Scores of students had had to give up the idea of entering the teaching profession, for which they were admirably fitted, because they could not squeeze their consciences into the particular form required by the denominational colleges. In cases where, by a great effort, they had been able to do so, the result had been to create a hatred instead of a love for the Church. Why should not a plan such as that in existence at Owen's College, Manchester, be adopted? Why should not the hostels be denominational and the colleges undenominational? That, he thought, would be the true solution of the matter. The students would then be brought together in a catholic spirit, and the whole class of teaching would be improved, because it was acknowledged that the undenominational colleges were the best from a technical point of view. In this way they would get better colleges and, at the same time, the advantage of religious association. As a Churchman he did not believe it was at all necessary to segregate Churchmen. On the contrary, he believed that the more they threw the Church open, the more would the people come under its influence. He did not think it was the true philosophy to shut up Church influences, and it was much wiser to draw people in by throwing open the doors widely, which he thought was better for education generally.
§ SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)
said that he was sure that all true educationists would rejoice at the announcement made by the First Lord of the Treasury. He hoped the time was not far distant when the greater part of the training of teachers would be carried on under University influence. Teachers were at present trained for their profession too exclusively and too early, before they were what they ought to be—men and women of the world. He trusted that before long teachers would not be taught in little folds of their own, but in the main at great centres 969 of learning, in which he included provincial colleges. That was why he welcomed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but his concession rendered the acceptance of the Amendment much more easy for him, for oven if accepted the denominational colleges had little or nothing to fear. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury would ask why they should make any change. They were at the beginning of a new educational era, and they ought to start fair, and by starting fair he meant that they should do everything in their power to develop both kinds of education, that which was called secular education, which was founded on natural knowledge, and that other education which was founded upon supernatural knowledge. Upon this point he was in accordance with the noble Lord who spoke a little while back, for he believed that the welfare of this country depends upon the full development of both kinds of education.
How were they to bring about the full development of both kinds of education? He ventured to say that this could only be done by letting each of them go their, own way, and especially recognising the fact, that while it was good for the State to regulate secondary education it was most difficult, and always led to trouble, when the State tried to interfere with religion. If they were to have a prosperous education in the future, he ventured to think that they would now start fair by doing nothing which would prevent the ultimate separation of secular from religious education, not that the one might grow at the expense of the other, but that both might be developed to their utmost. He ventured to suggest that this Amendment would be in that direction, and would not interfere with true religious education in denominational institutions, and yet would permit the freest development of other education by the State.
§ SIR ALFRED THOMAS (Glamorganshire, E.)
said he hoped the First Lord would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton arid provide for the maintenance of denominational hostels in connection with University Colleges. As one associated with the University College of South Wales, he could gladly testify to the fact that the hostel for women students in connection with the College was eminently successful. The 970 students of different denominations used the hostel, and he was quite convinced that the students would resent their being divided up into small groups and being denied the advantages of association with those of other communions. The same was true of the other University Colleges in the Principality. The Cardiff hostel was opened some seventeen years ago, during which time it has been managed by three different Lady principals, all members of the Church of England, notwithstanding the fact that the Council of the College was overwhelmingly Nonconformist in character. The concession made by the First Lord with regard to making provision for erecting hostels in connection with University Colleges would go to remove the difficulty under which Nonconformist students at present suffered. Indeed, he regarded it as the most important concession yet made, and he hoped that the First Lord would make further advances in the same direction.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said that he wished to call attention to the smallness of the question under discussion. There was nothing in this proposal which would affect the existing grant to denominational colleges, and they were really discussing not the question of State-aid to denominational training colleges, but the powers which it was proposed to throw on the local authority. An Amendment to the Amendment had been moved which would make it impossible for the local authority to start sectarian colleges. He believed that this Amendment would meet with general approval. There only remained the very small question whether the local authorities should be prohibited from aiding denominational or sectarian colleges. He did not think it mattered much whether the local authorities were empowered to aid, or not empowered to aid, these denominational colleges, because when they considered that every one of those colleges got 75 per cent, of its expenses supplied by the Treasury, they would see that the local authority was not very likely to assist institutions so largely assisted from other sources. The State aid was not in question, and the question was, whether it was worth while prolonging the discussion as to 971 whether this overburdened local authority should aid institutions which were already supported to this extent.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)
said that while he welcomed several of the speeches made on the opposite side, they had not yet been told what the Government were proposing to do with reference to this matter. They had heard speeches from supporters of the Government in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend, but they had not been informed by the Government whether they accepted this proposal or not. This Amendment admitted an important principle, which they had been contending for all along. He was very glad indeed to hear the views expressed by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, because in these matters he had been in the habit of allying himself with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He understood the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington to have expressed a desire to keep the doors open to all these students, so that this hateful policy of segregation might be disposed of. The arguments they had used had already produced expressions of opinion in favour of their policy. It was conceded that this Bill did not properly and adequately provide for the training of teachers. He would not now discuss the amount, but one thing was not clear—they had not been told how these hostels were going to be provided for. He agreed with what had been said in regard to the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury, but if the Opposition had not placed their views strongly before the Committee, even that concession would never have been made at all. So far from the concession of the Government diminishing his ardour for the Amendment, he accepted that concession as an indication of his consciousness that the Opposition were right. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as he would like to go, if circumstances left free play to his own opinion. He agreed entirely with the statement that the more they attached the training of teachers to universities the better. If they could dispose of all these small training colleges, and provide proper provision elsewhere, he had no objection, but 972 so long as these colleges were supported by the State they should insist upon these principles being carried out. It was I bad policy to insist that the young people in the training colleges should not be allowed to associate there with any except those who belonged to the same form of religion. In this way a stigma was cast upon Nonconformists, and undoubtedly they felt very bitter on the matter. While they admitted the concession which had been made from a monetary point of view, that did not diminish in the slightest degree the demand they made, as a matter of justice, to have this disability which had been hanging over their heads removed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that he did not think it was necessary to say much on the merits of the Amendment to the Amendment. He did not suppose any one contemplated that, in any of those educational institutions to be erected by the local authority, any person would be excluded by the local authority on account of his religious belief. He did not see any objection to the words proposed being inserted, but this was not the place in the Clause to make the Amendment. He suggested that his hon. friend should withdraw the Amendment, and move the insertion of words of similar import at the end of line 12. If that were agreed to the Committee might at once come to a decision on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
said he would agree to the suggestion if the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire would also withraw his Amendment.
Colonel WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)
said this Amendment could not come in at the place proposed, because the words proposed to be inserted would govern the whole of the remaining words of the Clause. If hostels were provided it would be perfectly possible for a County Council to say that they would pay part of the expenses of any local teacher if he would go to a hostel. Therefore, he thought that, under the proposal made by the First Lord of the Treasury, it would be possible for local authorities to help deserving students, to whatever denomination they might belong.
§ MR. CHANNING
said he fully appreciated the, suggestions of the hon. Member for the Horsham Division, but lie could not withdraw his Amendment. It involved a definite principle, to which the hon. Member had, to his mind, given very strong support.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ (5.22.) MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)
said this was the first occasion on which the religious question in connection with the Bill had been raised in this House, and it was far more likely that they would discuss it with less acrimony if the views of everybody were made clear on a salient point like this. It was perfectly right to say that the action of the First Lord of the Treasury was likely to mitigate the grievance the Nonconformists felt, but it would be a wrong impression if it were to be supposed that this compromise would be likely to satisfy the Nonconformists to any extent. The more the concession of the right hon. Gentleman was discussed, the more trilling it appeared to be. There was at present a deficiency of places for something like 3,000 teachers. Did anyone pretend that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was going to find places for those 3,000 teachers, who required training at the present time? Looking at the proposal from the point of view of the amount of accommodation required, the money provided by the right hon. Gentleman was quite inadequate. They objected on this side of the House to the "sheep and the goats" theory in education—the dividing up of the teachers into religious denominations. At the present moment Parliament had a great opportunity. They were entering upon a new educational period, and they had now to lay down a policy with regard to the training of teachers from this time forward. Surely the right policy was that which had been absolutely successful in the case of 974 Oxford and Cambridge Universities Parliament could in 1870 have done exactly with regard to the Universities what the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had been asking them to do now, and could have left them in the hands of one denomination. The Earl of Carnarvon stated then that there would be no difficulty in Roman Catholics and Dissenters opening private halls. That was what the Government were asking the Nonconformists to be satisfied with now. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would not supply the 3,000 new places, which would have to be found somewhere. Was it desirable that there should be thirty or forty colleges in England for training teachers—one for each county? Nobody wishes for that. It would be an extremely disadvantageous policy even if the right hon. Gentleman's plan were adopted of inviting some of the smaller adjoining counties to join and build one college. To his mind there was absolutely nothing else for it than that m this matter, as well as in other cases in which this question arose. The House should repudiate the doctrine that from separate colleges and schools supported out of the public funds either teachers or children should be excluded on denominational grounds.
§ MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire, Totnes)
said that as far as elementary education was concerned the State was prepared to pay for secular education m voluntary schools on condition that a conscience clause was in operation in such schools, and it did seem to him that the same principle should be upheld in the case of Training Colleges. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the other night, using the terms m no offensive sense, said that he looked on Nonconformists as a foreign element to be excluded from Church training colleges. But if they were to uphold that opinion by voting against the Amendment, how could Churchmen take Government moneys in support of their training colleges, moneys which were largely contributed by Nonconformists? Would not Nonconformists have a real grievance in the fact that they would be forcibly compelled to contribute towards the upkeep of institutions from 975 which they were excluded? As the Member for Honiton said the other night, lie could not see how this Amendment could harm the Church, since denominational teaching would continue all the same. He had been impelled to take this view because, as a strong Churchman, he was convinced that nothing could so damage the Church as that, as a consequence of the passing of this Bill, fair minded Nonconformists should have cause to feel that they have been treated with scanty justice.
§ MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)
said he was not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have spoken of the way in which the Conscience Clause was to be applied in the training colleges in the future. He was quite prepared to admit that under the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord's proposal as to new colleges, some might be built a considerable number of years hence. He could quite believe that it would be better for the Church to which he belonged to build twenty hostels now than to build in the future one or two large colleges for the training of their teachers. He put it to the noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division whether he was prepared to go down to his constituents, the enormous majority of whom were Nonconformists, and say that the Government had refused to grant a Conscience Clause to Nonconformist children wishing to enter denominational training colleges. The noble Lord professed at Election times to be a great friend of Nonconformity. The chairman of his election committee was one. The noble Lord went to the Wesleyan Chapels on the eve of the election, and he hoped it had done him much good. What was the noble Lord going to say to these Dissenters when he went to see them? It was not sufficient that they might erect hostels in future. The fact remained that there were upwards of forty training colleges, nearly the whole of which were denominational. The children wishing to go into them were largely Nonconformist children, but they refused to allow them to go in without compelling them to submit to a sectarian test.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he wished to mike a comment on the right hon. Gentleman's financial proposal. As he understood the First Lord of the Treasury, if the day student could be maintained in the hostel, the grant was to be on the same scale as in the case of the residential student under the Education Code.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that the grant to residential students was £50 for men and £35 for women. The grant for day students was £25 for men and £20 for women. The latter grant was increased in each case by £10, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, making the total grant to day-students £35 for men and £30 for women. The grant in respect of 684 men and 742 women, would amount to £32,000, or an increase of 16 per cent. The offer of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, seemed to him to be a much larger concession than many of his friends seemed to think. He wished to say, with great respect, that he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the building grants to denominational colleges had been withdrawn, was scarcely correct. It was only half a truth to say that the local authorities and denominational colleges were now in the same position, neither having a building grant, for the building grants had been withdrawn, only after all the denominational colleges had been built.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Gentleman was really mistaken, unless he had been greatly misinformed. No building grant existed when the last denominational college was built.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
admitted that one small college, St. Gabriel, had been built without any such grant; but twenty-nine such church colleges had been built at the cost of £300, and of that sum the State had found £100,000. Was there any proposal to give a grant of £100,000 to build these hostels? The maintenance scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was admirable and would 977 largely meet the difficulty; but where were the grants to come from for the building of those hostels which, when in existence, would meet this grievance to such a large extent. In reply to the statement of the hon. Member for North St. Paneras that never, under any circumstances, had a first-class King's scholar ever failed to be able to get admission to a training college, he must say that the hon. Member was very, very greatly mistaken, MR. MOON said he had made the statement on authority, but he was much obliged for the correction of the hon. Gentleman, and would be glad to receive further particulars.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he would supply the hon. Member with full particulars, which he had laid in full before the Committee which met in the National Society's Hall under the Chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of nine first-class King's scholars who failed to get into a training college because of their lack of the denominational test. There was another case of a girl, who was number 237 in the first-class list, who failed to get admission to a training college because she was a Nonconformist. She had to mark time and wait years and try to improve her position in the list. Yet during those years 2,781 candidates of the second class had been taken into the Truro Training College. He did trust that the right hon. Gentleman, would investigate this question. Grateful as he was for the concession of the First Lord, which would mean a sum of £25,000 in the first instance, it did not meet at all the grievance which would still exist in the fact that they had got institutions which we re supported out of the public funds to the extent of four-fifths of their maintenance, and which had been permitted to restrict admission to them to Church of England children. He had put his case last week very fairly and moderately, but he would quote the figures regarding Culham Dio cesan College in Oxfordshire. The total income of that college was, for the year ending June 30, 1901, £5,797 18s. 11d.; made up of subscriptions from individuals, £53; subscriptions from Diocesan Boards, £180; students' fees, £937 16s.; from sale of books to students, £183 1s. 9d,; 978 from other sources, 2s.; Government grants £4,453 19s. 2d—so that of the entire income of £5,793 of this college, the Church furnished £233, or 4 per cent. That distinctly seemed to him to be too narrow a basis on which to maintain that they should put this denominational ring fence round these colleges.
§ MR. SEELY (Lincoln)
expressed his regret that the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment. He hoped that those who managed the diocesan colleges and the English Church would show more good sense with regard to the future of the Church than had been shown by those who managed their affairs in the House. He spoke as a strong Churchman, and he thought that the Church had seldom enjoyed a greater opportunity than had been afforded by this Amendment. He intended to vote for the Amendment. The practical working of it would be that the Church would be the trainers of the school teachers of this country, and if anybody told him that bringing a few members of other sects into a diocesan college would have any effect whatever on the teaching or sentiment of the college, they must have a very small opinion of the Church.
§ MR. BLACK (Banffshire)
said he failed to see that this House was actuated by reason in attempting to deal with this question. Everyone who had spoken had condemned the proposal for which this Amendment was supposed to be the antithesis and the remedy, but nobody had given a reason for so doing. The only argument that had been adduced on the other side of the House was that of the First Lord of the Treasury, and that argument was that to give effect to this Amendment would mean spoliation. In his opinion that argument was wrong, and therefore he supported the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
(5.53.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 158. (Division List No. 268.)
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Aird, Sir John||Fardell, Sir T. George||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fcrgusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finch, George H.||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Fisher, William Hayes||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Balcarres, Lord||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Flower, Ernest||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn GeraldW.(Leeds||Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.||Maxwell, RtHnSirH. E.(Wigt'n|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W.||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Galloway, William Johnson||Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gardner, Ernest||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MiehaelHicks||Garfit, William||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Beresford, Lord Charles William||Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow|
|Bond, Edward||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morton, ArthurH. A.(Deptford)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Greene, Sir E W(B'ry S Edm'nds||Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Brassey, Albert||Creville, Hon. Ronald||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Brooktield, Colonel Montagu||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Myers, William Henry|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Hain, Edward||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Bull, William James||Hall, Edward Marshall||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Butcher, John George||Hambro, Charles Eric||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Penn, John|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Percy, Earl|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Heaton, John Henniker||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Chapman, Edward||Helder, Augustus||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Charrington, Spencer||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Purvis, Robert|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Rankin, Sir James|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hogg, Lindsay||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Horner, Frederick William||Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hoult, Joseph||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Kimber, Henry||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Knowles, Lees||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Dixon-Itartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th)||Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Lawson, John Grant||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lecky, Rt. Hon. WilliamEdw. H.||Spear, John Ward|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Stroyan, John||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.-Lyne||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Univ.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)||Younger, William|
|Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Take, Sir John Batty||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wodchouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Horniman, Frederick John||Perks, Robert William|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Price, Robert John|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Priestley, Arthur|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rea, Russell|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Kennedy, Patrick James||Reddy, M.|
|Black, Alexander William||Kitson, Sir James||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Boland, John||Labouchere, Henry||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Lambert, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Langley, Batty||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Leamy, Edmund||Runciman, Walter|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Caine, William Sproston||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cameron, Robert||Levy, Maurice||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lloyd-George, David||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Lough, Thomas||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Causton, Richard Knight||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants|
|Crombie, John William||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||M'Govern, T.||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Delany, William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mather, Sir William||Toulmin, George|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Frank||Mooney, John J.||Tully, Jasper|
|Elibank, Master of||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Ure, Alexander|
|Ellis, John Edward||Moss, Samuel||Wallace, Robert|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Murphy, John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Newnes, Sir George||Weir, James Galloway|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Norman, Henry||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)||Young, Samuel|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Harwood, George||O'Shee, James John||Mr. Channing and Mr.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham)||Humphreys-Owen.|
§ (6.8.) Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."983
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 245. (Division List No. 269.)987
ruled that the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for South Molton, to omit the words of the first sub-section of the clause after "shall," in order to insert "exclude any school or college where any religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any religious denomination is taught," had been disposed of by the Resolution at which the Committee arrived on the first sub-clause.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
suggested that if the sub-clause had been omitted, the County Council would have had a free hand in dealing with this matter. The Committee having decided, however, that the Council should not have a free hand, and that a certain direction should be imposed as to the application of the money, what he proposed by his Amendment was merely another application of the money.
said that did not apply to Amendments which negatived the principle of the sub-clause. The principle of the sub-clause was that the Councils should not consider or interfere with the religious or the non-religious character of any of these institutions. The Amendment of the hon. Member was that the Council should exclude any school or college where any religious catechism or formulary distinctive of any religious denomination was taught. That seemed directly to negative the principle of the sub-clause.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
pointed out that the Amendment referred only to catechisms and formularies, and was really an attempt to introduce into the Bill the Cowper-Temple Clause. It referred, not to general religious teaching, but to the teaching of definite formularies and catechisms, which was a well-known distinction in the days of the 1870 measure.
said he quite understood the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to define the expression used in the Bill as being any school where the catechism or formulary of any particular denomination was taught. That Question was in order, and would be raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
said that was hardly so. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs simply proposed to substitute the words "religious catechism or formulary" for the words "particular form of religion," but it did not propose to exclude a school which did teach a religious catechism. The latter was the objection of the hon. Member for South Molton, and it was something very different.
thought he might make the position clear by recalling to the Committee the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich in moving the rejection of the sub-clause. The ground on which the hon. Member urged the Committee to accept his Amendment was that no public money should be given to an institution which taught any religious worship or gave religious instruction. That raised the whole question, and it was disposed of by the decision of the Committee that sub-clause 1 should stand.
MR. HERBERTLEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
was under the impression that the statement previously made in Committee was to the effect that the question should be discussed on the proposal to omit the words "or shall not." As to his own Amendment, that was simply an alternative form of words, unless the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, to omit the word "not," were incorporated with it. If that incorporation were allowed, it would certainly raise the question in the form in which he believed the Committee desired it to be raised.
said that that question had already been considered and decided by the Committee. The same observation applied to other 989 Amendments on the Paper, the next proposal in order being that of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
then moved to omit "particular form of religions instruction or worship," in order to insert "religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination." His Amendment simply proposed another, and, as he thought, a better, form of words in the place of that appearing in the Bill. The words were taken from the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and had been found to work well in actual practice. He therefore begged to move.
Amendment moved—Clause 4, page 2, line 10, to leave out 'particular form of religious instruction or worship,' in order to insert 'religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination.'" — (Mr. Herbert Lewis).
§ MR. LAMBERT
said that as, according to the ruling of the Chairman, this Amendment raised the same question, he would be able to make upon it the same speech he had intended to make in moving his own proposed Amendment.
said his remarks must have been extremely obscure if they conveyed that impression. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs was in order because it suggested a different form of words in the place of that in the Bill. As he understood the hon. Member for South Molton, he now desired to argue that any school in which a particular form of religious instruction or worship was taught should be excluded and receive no grant. That certainly would not be in order.
§ (6.30.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that as the Bill stood, it was impossible for the County Council to raise the question of a particular form of religious instruction or worship in giving their grant. If the hon. Gentleman's words were substituted, they could only be debarred from imposing a condition when the point in question was not 990 the character of the religious instruction or worship, but particular formula. Therefore, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view—with which he agreed— he strongly resisted the Amendment as one narrowing the undenominational character of the Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (York, W. R., Morley)
did not consider the words "particular form" sufficiently clear, and suggested that some other phrase should be substituted. He recollected when the words "particular form" were first discussed, and he remembered the hon. Member for Tonbridge expressed the opinion that those words covered what he called undenominational teaching. Several other hon. Members had expressed the view that those words referred only to distinctly denominational teaching. In the course of his remarks just now, the right hon. Gentleman did not give any indication of what he meant by the words "particular form." Two distinct meanings had already been given to those words, and, in his opinion, any educational authority called upon to interpret the meaning of "particular form" would be under a very serious difficulty indeed. Therefore he thought that in any case the right hon. Gentleman would have to seek fresh words in order to make his meaning clear to the County Councils, and if this Amendment did not carry out this intention, some words would have to be sought to give a clear and definite meaning to the Clause. Words which could be interpreted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in one direction, and by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side in a directly opposite direction, could not be considered satisfactory. The effort to put this Clause in such a mandatory form, had led to some confusion, which he thought it would be very difficult to clear up. When they introduced a mandatory instruction they at once got into difficulties, but if they had given the same freedom to the authority which they boasted of in regard to secondary education, in reference to religious education the Government would never have got into this difficulty.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought that they were all agreed as to the object to be attained. The whole object of these words was to prohibit the County Council from making it a condition that a school which was subsidised should teach any kind of dogma applicable to any special form of religion. He did not think the words quite covered this object, for a dogma was not a form of religious instruction. He took it that they might convey a dogma applicable to a particular religion so long as they did not convey it in a special form. He suggested the adoption of the words upon this point from the Welsh Act, of which they had already had ten years experience, and which had worked well. He thought it might be possible for them to incorporate both the words of the Welsh Act and the words suggested in the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he thought that that addition was quite unnecessary, and he could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
called attention to the protest made by the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes with regard to this very question at one of the hospitals under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act.
§ (6.40.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the hon. Member was quite wrong because the case he had alluded to had nothing whatever to do with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act.
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS
said this only showed how necessary it was to stand by the Government and not allow hon. Members from Wales to interfere upon this question.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
denied that the case alluded to by the hon. Member for East Finsbury had anything to do with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and said the hon. Member ought to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN
suggested that the First Lord of the Treasury should accept the combination of the words which had been suggested.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order to move it in a different form—namely, that after the word "worship" should be inserted "or any religious catechism or formulary."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—After the word 'worship' insert 'or any religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular d nomination.'"—(Mr. Herbert Leuis.)Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)
proposed to omit the words "or shall not" from the provision that a Council shall not require that any particular course of religious instruction, &c., "shall or shall not be" taught. Clause 4 was not properly a Conscience Clause to determine the question of religious instruction or no religious instruction. What it really meant was that under Clause 2 certain fresh rating powers were given to the County Councils, and by Clause 4 he found very great difficulty in putting any sensible meaning on the Clause as it stood. He thought the words which he proposed to leave were capable of more than one interpretation. It seemed to him that the double negative would result in the possibility of the County Council being able to contradict the general tenor of the Clause by insisting on a particular doctrine being taught in a particular school. He should like to hear the opinion of the Leader of the House on the construction of the Clause as it now stood. As a matter of fact, the words were certainly ambiguous if construed logically. The drafting of this subsection was entirely new, and followed no settled precedent which had been before the courts.
Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 11, to leave out the words 'or shall not.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)Question proposed, "That the words 'or shall not' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that he was at a disadvantage compared with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was much more practised in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, but he would have thought, reading those words with the eye of a plain layman, that there was no ambiguity or doubt as to what was intended. The Council, in the application of their money, were forbidden to do two things—first, to require that a particular form of worship or formula should be used and, secondly, to prevent a particular form of worship or formula from being used. They were precluded from going to the right or to the left. The limitation put on them was a double one.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that this raised a question of substance. The words, whether read in the strictly legal sense or as a simple specimen of the King's English, would do something entirely unnecessary and unjust. If they were retained, the managers of a secondary school might impose on the children as a condition of entry the subscription to a certain form of belief, and the County Council would be powerless to refuse the grant. He would remind the Committee what was the Conscience Clause in the Education Act of 1870. The CowperTemple Clause was in these terms—No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school.It might be said the House had already determined that that should not apply. That was one of the grievances of the Nonconformists, and he had no doubt his hon. and learned friend had that in view when he gave notice of his Amendment. The Conscience Clause in the Act of 1870 was as follows—It shall not he required, as a condition of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday School, or any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religions observance or any instruction in religions subjects in the school or elsewhere, from which observance of instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs.There was a similar clause in the Technical Instruction Act of 1869. [An HON. MEMBER: And there is in this Bill.] He 994 thought not, and be would be quite prepared to argue that when they reached the clause to which the hon. Member referred. As he read the clause now before the Committee it would be possible for school managers to say to the children that they must belong to a particular denomination before they could enter the school. If that were so, the County Council would be powerless, so far as he could see, to say: "We will not give you this grant, because you hereafter make it a condition that a child shall belong to a particular denomination before entering the school." If the First Lord of the Treasury could inform them that such a condition would not be imposed he would be quite willing to learn.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
said the hon. Member had altogether overlooked the second subsection of the clause, in which the words of the Conscience Clause of the Act of 1870 were almost exactly reproduced. If the Amendment were carried, a County Council would have power to demand that a particular form of religion should not be taught in a school. It would be open to them to go to a college and say, 'I believe you teach the Apostles' Creed, and unless you drop that you shall not have any grant." He always thought the law was interpreted with common-sense, but if the interpretation given by the hon. Gentle man were accurate, there could not be much common-sense inside the Law Courts.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that, as far as day and evening scholars were concerned the hon. Member was correct, but in the case of boarders their subscription to a particular form of belief might be made a sine quâ non of entry into the school.
§ MR. CHANNING
said that unless the words were struck out as proposed by the Amendment, the local education authority would have no power whatever, supposing that the whole character of a training college or secondary school provided or aided by the authority were subsequently altered by the local governors or managers. An ordinary secondary school might be converted into a 995 monastic institution with the most sacerdotal teaching, and it seemed to him that the County Council ought to have some discretionary power for appealing to the Board of Education to check a process of that kind. He thought the wording of the sub-section was singularly unsatisfactory. He thought they should have an Amendment accepted which would place students and parents under this Bill in at least as good a position as they stood in under the Technical Instruction Act or under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. The hon. Member for North West Ham seemed to think that the Amendment would go too far; but what he contended for was that the substance of the Amendment should be adopted.
§ (7.3) MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said they were now laying down the lines on which secondary education was to be conducted for a long period, and why should they tie the hands of the County Councils, and prevent them from having the slightest discretion, when approached by purely private bodies, of saying how their own money and that of the public should be disposed of. He apologised for introducing once more the precedent of the Welsh Intermediate Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government, and had worked exceedingly well. It was worked on the only basis on which secondary education could be worked in this country; and that was that all schools receiving aid from the public funds in a new secondary educational system should be schools belonging to all the people alike, and not to one particular section of the community. The greatest difficulty in regard to the establishment of a new secondary educational system in England would be the building of the new schools, and he ventured to say that that would be carried out, not by the County Councils or the public as a whole, but by private associations and by religious sects; and for this reason, that the schools so erected would be maintained for ever after at the cost of the public. The Amendment now being discussed raised the direct issue as to whether, in starting a new system of secondary education which above everything should be general in character and fair to every section of the community, they should tie the County 996 Councils' hands. There was another reason why the Amendment should be accepted. When elementary education was made compulsory it resulted in an enormous increase in the number of children attending the schools; so he believed that, as in Germany and other countries, education at continuation schools would become compulsory and would result in a great increase in the attendance at secondary and continuation schools. If that were the case, it was all the more important that this portion of our system of education, now to be carried out for the first time, should be made a truly national system, and that the public funds provided for secondary schools should be administered under full public control. He did hope that this part of our secondary education would be kept entirely free from the meddling interference of private bodies. He again urged on the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the principle which underlay the Welsh system, which was the only one which could be carried out with fairness and efficiency. At a prize distribution in Wales in a secondary school there were on the platform representatives of the Church of England, of the Roman Catholic, and all the Nonconformist denominations—in fact, of all classes, creeds, sects, and parties. He ventured to appeal to the Committee as a whole to let at least one part of our educational system be thoroughly national, unsectarian, and free to all.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
said he hoped that the Committee would bear in mind that this clause lelated to existing schools as well as to institutions which might be founded in the future, and that it was entirely in accordance with the principles of liberty. He felt that there might be some cases where an institution associated with a particular Church or denomination might do such excellent work as to entitle it to a grant, and the clause was so drawn that the local authority would be empowered to make such a grant. Some suggestions had been made as to the working of the Intermediate Education Act in Wales, and that it should be conceded that the same system should be adopted in England. He did not think that it would be fair to make the concessions 997 made to Wales some years ago, in the special circumstances of Wales, a ground for their application to England.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said he could not help thinking that whatever might be the opinion of the Committee on the various points raised, they must all agree that the drafting of the Clause was most inconvenient. They must remember that the meaning of the words of the Clause would have to he tested in the Courts of Law, and that matters of the utmost importance might arise from the legal interpretation. The whole of the subsection depended on the use of a double negative, and he asked whether the use of the double negative, whether in conversation or Acts of Parliament, was not one of the most inconvenient things they could have recourse to. The hon. Member for North West Ham seemed to imagine that the County Councils were going to say to the secondary schools, "You will not teach the Apostles' Creed." That was not what would happen at all. The County Councils would not go to the secondary schools, but the secondary schools would come to the County Council's schools; and therefore they ought not to deprive the County Councils of the opportunity of judging whether, in the whole circumstances of the case, a denominational school was wanted or not. He would take a concrete case. Let them imagine that there was an existing boys' school in a locality under the Charity Commissioners, and that the managers wanted to extend its benefits to girls. The Church party might object because they desired to set up on the other side of the road a girls' school with denominational religious tests. What they wanted was that the County Council should in such an instance have the discretion of saying that in the whole circumstances of the case the benefits of the boys' school should be extended to girls, or that a new girls' school should be erected. It would also lead to a great waste of money if they were to have one school on one side of the street and another school on the other. The County Councils should not be debarred from saying that they thought, on the whole, that 998 a denominational school was not wanted. What the Committee was discussing was what were the conditions which a County Council might or might not attach to the grants they gave; and he wished to ask the Vice President if a County Council would under the Clause be debarred from having full discretion in the class of case he had attempted to put.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
said it seemed to him that there was very considerable misconception as to the meaning of the Clause. If a County Council refused an application from any particular school for a grant, and if the reason for refusing it was that a particular doctrine was taught in that school, could any hon. Member point out how that County Council could be compelled to make a grant. The courts of law could not compel any County Council to make a grant to a particular school under any circumstances. Under the Clause as it stood, the County Council had absolute discretion to refuse a grant to any institution in the county, and the Amendment was practically of no value. As to the Clause itself, any lawyer who read it would discover that it left the County Council with most absolute discretion. He defied any hon. Member who had ever attempted to construe an Act of Parliament to point out any section in the Bill by which a County Council could be compelled to make a grant to any educational institution in the county. There was no such power, and the discretion remained absolutely with the County Council. The Clause might be in the nature of advice to the County Councils, but it was advice and nothing more. He gathered that the Vice President assented to that view.
§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University
said he did not take much part in the discussions on the Bill; but he knew, after an experience of seven years at the Board of Education, that although such questions as that before the Committee created interest in the House of Commons, and gave rise to long debates, they did not create the slightest interest outside. As he had been specially appealed to by 999 the hon. Member opposite he would say that what the hon. Member just said was perfectly true. The Clause was not drawn in such a way that a mandamus could be issued to compel the County Council to make a grant. The County Council had absolute discretion. The reason why the words were put into the Clause was that it was presumed that the local authorities would desire to conform to the law, and the words were introduced to call their attention, in the administration of the Act, to their duties as laid down by Parliament. That was to say that in the matter of giving or withholding a grant, they were not to pay any regard whatever to the religious instruction which was given or not given in the school. He did not know whether the Committee would recognise him as retaining any kind of legal knowledge after the number of years that had elapsed since he practised at the profession; but if he might express an opinion he would say that the words of this sub-section were as clear as legal ingenuity could make them. No doubt lawyers were extremely ingenious in finding equivocal meanings in Acts of Parliament, but he could not conceive any local authority —and it was the local authorities that would have to interpret the section—desiring to understand what Parliament meant, having the slightest possible doubt as to what their duty was.
said the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply a reflection on the legal intelligence of his hon. friends, who had been endeavouring to discover what the words under consideration really meant. He was particularly struck with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the absolute worthlessness of the Clause. Why, therefore, should they be forced to spend so much time in discussing it. Surely, if it would make no difference, the most practical course for the Government would have been to have accepted the Amendment. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the Clause. There was no legal sanction whatever attached to it. It was merely so much academic or platonic advice given to the County Councils, but under the circumstances was it worth retaining. If it were suggested that it would be of value as advice to the County Councils, then he thought it was bad 1000 advice, and advice which Parliament ought not to give. He agreed with his noble friend that what the advice amounted to was that if two sets of persons were going to create two sectarian schools, the County Council was not to be allowed to consider whether it would not be better for the locality to have one non-sectarian school, instead of two sectarian schools. Did not the right hon. Gentleman admit that that was the meaning of the words?
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said it was not because of the denominational character of the school that the grant was refused, but because there was another way in which the wants of the neigh bourhood could be better and more suitably provided for.
§ MR. BRYCE
said it would be a better and more suitable way, because it would not cause denominational division. That was the very point which his noble friend put. They all knew perfectly well that there might be cases in which it would be practically impossible for a County Council to consider the educational needs and requirements of a district, without having regard to religious questions. They were not compelling the County Councils to do that, but they were only asking that they should not be forbidden to fix their minds on the religious question in addition to the other questions which would determine the grant of money. The only effect of keeping those words in the Clause, would be to hamper the County Councils, and prevent people from expressing their real motives as they otherwise would. The County Councils would act on the best view of what was needed, and it was only fair and reasonable that they should be allowed to discuss all the questions at issue.
(7.26) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 106. (Division List No, 270.)
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.||Dyke, RtHon. SirWilliam Hart||Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fardell, Sir T. George||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Ambrose, Robert||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fergusson, RtHn. Sir. J.(Manc'r||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fielden, Elward Blocklehurst||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Arnold-Forsten, Hugh O.||Finch, George H.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Hayes||M'Govern, T.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||M'Kean, John|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Flannery, Sir Fortescne||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Flower, Ernest||Middlemore, JohnThrggmort'n|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Flynn, James Christopher||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Foster, SirMichael(Lond. Univ.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Beach. RtHn. SirMichael Hicks||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Galloway, William Johnson||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Berosford, Lord Chas. William||Gardner, Ernest||Mooney, John J.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Garfit, William||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gibbs, HnA. G. H.(CityofLond)||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)|
|Bigwood, James||Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mst'w|
|Boland, John||Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bond, Edward||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morton, ArthurH. A.(Deptf'rd)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis||Green, Walford D.(W'dnesb'ry||Murphy, John|
|Brassey, Albert||Gretton, John||Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute|
|Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Myers, William Henry|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hambro, Charles Eric||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hamilton, RtHnLord G.(Mid'x||Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Harwood, George||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cavendish, V. CW.(Derbyshire||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich||Heath, ArthnrHoward(Hanley||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Chapman, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||O'Malley, William|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry||O'Mara, James|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||O'Shee, James John|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Penn, John|
|Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady||Jessel, CaptainHerbertMerton||Percy, Earl|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.||Purvis, Robert|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Kennedy, Patrick James||Rankin, Sir James|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kimber, Henry||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Reddy, M.|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Knowles, Lees||Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham||Law, HughAlex. (Donegal, W.||Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge|
|Delany, William||Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)||Ritchie, RtHon. Chas. Thomson|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawson, John Grant||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Leamy, Edmund||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lecky, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Doogan, P. C.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Tollemache, Henry James||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.||Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R (Bath)|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside||Valentia, Viscount||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Spear, John Ward||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stanley, Lord (Lincs.)||Welby, Sir CharlesG.E.(Notts||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stock, James Henry||Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd||Young, Samuel|
|Stroyan, John||Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne||Younger, William|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset|
|Sullivan, Donal||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ||Wilson, John (Falkirk)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud||Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Runciman, Walter|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Black, Alexander William||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Lambert, George||Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Northants|
|Burns, John||Langley, Batty||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Tennant, Harold John|
|Caine, William Sproston||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lough, Thomas||Toulmin, George|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Crombie, John William||M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin||Ure, Alexander|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Wallace, Robert|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Moss, Samuel||Whiteley, George (York, W. R|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Moulton, John Fletcher||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Newnes, Sir George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith||Norman, Henry||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Duham, Mid.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading||Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Partington, Oswald||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Grant, Corrie||Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Perks, Robert William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Philipps, John Wynford||Mr. Brynmor Jones and|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Rea, Russell||Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
§ It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.