Commons Sitting of 8 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time Tomorrow.

  TYNKSIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS WILL [LORDS] KING'S (CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No -2) BILL [LORDS].
  Second Heading postponed under Order [1st May] till Thursday, at the Evening Sitting, by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committtd.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BUCKIE BURGH EXTENSION AND BUCKIE (CRATGENROAN) HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  London (Poplar) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  Huddersfield Corporation Bill.
  Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]
  Great Northern Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bedlingtonshire, Chepstow (Urban and Rural), Cowes, Hitchin, Morpeth, Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, and Morpeth (Rural), Pokesdown, Slough and Datchet, Stevenage, Tadcaster and District, Trefriw, and certain districts and parishes in the West Riding of the county of York." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Suburban Tramways." [Aberdeen Suburban Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time. Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 264.]
  ABERDEEN SUBURBAN TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time. To be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th July; and to be printed. [Bill 265.]
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Pembroke; Middleton in Teesdale; Sheffield; Cheadle Hulme; Wimborne (two); Sunderland; and Aberystwyth; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Tutbury; Bethnal Green; Clupham; Preston; Horsforth; Chelmsford; West Mailing; Ticehurst; and Chipping Norton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Poplar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dewsbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1901. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2844 to 2846 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY AND TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 and 1894.
  Copy presented of Seventh Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon Complaints made under
  1070
  Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2). BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
  APPLICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CHARTERS.
  Address for "Return giving the name, population, and area of every place which has applied for a Municipal Charter of Incorporation since 1888, and stating whether the application was granted or refused, and the date of the grant or refusal."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ACQUISITION OF LAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (a) the number of instances in which between the 24th day of June 1897 and the 31st day of March 1902, local authorities acquired land for allotments and small holdings by (1) compulsory purchase; (2) purchase by agreement; (3) compulsory hiring; (4) hiring by agreement; and in each case the parish in which such land has been acquired; the acreage; and the number of tenants to whom the allotments and small holdings are let under the Acts: (b) The number of cases in which parish councils between the same dates acquired by purchase or hiring land for other purposes than allotments; and in each case the quantity of land and the purpose for which it was acquired: (c) The number of cases in which between the dates mentioned (1) representations were made by parish councils to County Councils under Section 10 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, with regard to the hiring of land compulsorily for allotments; (2) orders were made by County Councils on such representations; (3) such orders were confirmed or disallowed by the Local Government Board."—Sir Walter Foster.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied funds to the purposes of Technical Education during the year ending the 15th day of May 1902, under the following Acts:—Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries Acts."—(The Lord Advocate.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Small Holdings in Scottish Crofting Counties.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if will state the number of crofter holdings in each of the six crofting counties which are held under lease at an annual rental value of less than £30.
  (Answer.) I am informed by the Crofter Commissioners that there are no data available from which the information referred to by the hon. Member can be derived.—(Scottish Office.)

  Dublin Postal Officials—Coronation Bank Holidays.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware of the breakdown that occurred in the Dublin sorting office on Friday the 27th June, whereby correspondence was delayed, and, seeing that if the collections were made at the usual time, no such breakdown would have occurred, can he say what explanation there was to offer as regards the arrangements in Dublin; whether he is aware that the day in question was not materially affected by the special Bank Holiday arrangements, and that a number of commercial firms had previously
  1072
  intimated their intention of opening, can he say why the Dublin officials still held by their original Coronation arrangements.
  (Answer.) As the hon. Member is aware, Friday the 27th June was appointed by the Government as a bank holiday, and the usual bank holiday arrangements were accordingly observed at the Dublin Post Office, as at all other Post Offices in the Kingdom. The posting of correspondence by the public at Dublin was much heavier than is usual upon ordinary bank holidays, and considerable pressure was experienced in the sorting office in consequence; but the Postmaster General finds that only a comparatively small number of articles, mainly book-packets and circulars, were omitted from the night mail despatch, and he does not consider that in the exceptional circumstances there is any reasonable ground for complaint.—(Post Office.)

  Disaster to a German Torpedo Boat—Thanks of Government for Gallantry of Commander.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the running down of a German torpedo boat at the mouth of the Elbe on the night of 23rd June, and to the last order given on that occasion by the Commander of the torpedo boat before he was drowned, viz., that the four Englishmen on board should be saved first; whether his Majesty's Government have conveyed their thanks to the German Government, and their sympathy in the loss of the Commander.
  (Answer.) The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the incident, and they have expressed to the German Government their warm acknowledgments of the deceased officer's generous and gallant conduct, and their deep regret that his life should have been sacrificed—(Foreign Office.)

  South African War—Return of Lord Kitchener—Public Reception.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if any opportunity is to be

  1073
  afforded to the Volunteers and Yeomanry and Militia out for training in arid around London, who have served under Lord Kitchener in South Africa, and have already received the medal, to join in the parade of troops by whom he is to be received; and if the hour of that public reception can be so timed as to afford working men an opportunity of witnessing it after the close of their work.
  (Answer.) Only those troops will be brought to London, on the occasion of Lord Kitchener's reception, who are required to hold the streets. There is no objection to the attendance unofficially of the members of the auxiliary forces referred to in the Question. Probably Lord Kitchener will leave Paddington about one o'clock on Saturday.—(War Office.)

  Sandhurst — Incendiary Fires and Disturbances—Indiscriminate Punishment of Cadets.
  Colonel BROOKFIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the recent disturbances at Sandhurst, several old soldiers employed as servants at the Royal Military College have been summarily dismissed; and if so, whether they have been punished in this way for any proved offence, after investigation and trial, or whether this course has been taken on general grounds of expediency.
  (Answer.) Three servants on orderly duty at the time of the fires have been discharged because they were held not to have exercised sufficient vigilance.—(War Office.)

  Votes and Proceedings—Imperfect Record.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he wished to call attention to the omission from the Votes and Proceedings of certain Amendments made in Committee on the Education Bill. Ought he to do so with Mr. Speaker in the Chair or when the Chairman took the Chair again?
  MR. SPEAKER: It depends on what the hon. Member's point is. It may be that what appears to him to be an error
  1074
  may possibly be in accordance with the forms of the House. The hon. Member had better state more definitely what his complaint is.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: There are, as I conceive, two errors of omission. Two Amendments were inserted in a particular clause which do not appear in the records. I submit this is a serious matter, and one which may affect our future proceedings in Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean that two Amendments were moved and inserted which do not appear in the Votes?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: There was no division on them, I understand. I think the hon. Member will find that in the ordinary course Amendments of that kind are, not recorded unless there has been a division on them.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: My point is this: Certain words were inserted in Clause 4 which do not appear in the record of our proceedings, while other words which were inserted do appear.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member means that the House decided that certain words should be inserted, and he complains to the House that that fact does not appear in the records?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will call my attention to the words, it is not too late to insert them in the Records, and I will take care that the correction is made in the Journals.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I will communicate with the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, of course, knows the whole matter.

(2.18.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  American Shipping Combine—Mr. Pier I pent Morgan's Offer to the Admiralty.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the

  1075
  Admiralty whether the offer of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, on behalf of the new shipping combine, to place for the next fifty years at the disposal of the Admiralty, on certain terms, British ships in the combine, has been accepted or considered.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORMER,): An offer has been received, the details of which I am not in a position to communicate to the House, though I may say that the point mentioned in the hon. Member's Question is included. The offer has not as yet been accepted, because it can only be dealt with in relation to British shipping generally in the Atlantic trade, the position of which is being very carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. As soon as His Majesty's Government are in a position to make a general statement on the subject to the House, they will do so.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: From whom has the offer been received?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: From Mr. Pierpont Morgan.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Do I understand that the offer is under consideration?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir that is so.

  India — Extra - territorial Powers of Governor-General.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will stat when copies of the Order in Council recently sanctioned by His Majesty, conferring additional powers on the Governor General of India, and authorising him to exercise them in territories of India outside British India, will b issued to Members; and whether, in
  1076
  view of the importance of the changes involved in this new Order and of other Indian questions awaiting the consideration of the House, he will arrange that the Indian Budget shall be taken at n earlier date than usual this session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Steps have been taken to present to both Houses of Parliament the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order n Council dated the 11th of June, 1902, n accordance with the provisions of the Statute of 1890. As regards the Indian Budget, the date of the Statement will depend on the progress that is made with the other business of the session.

  Quarantine Regulations at Port Said.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if lie will explain why, on the arrival at Port Said of the day train from Cairo on the 17th February last, passengers, after inscribing their names at the Sanitary Office, were not allowed to go on board the Peninsular and Oriental Company's homeward bound steamer "Arabia" until they received a permit from the Quarantine Office, distant a quarter of a mile, for which permit a charge of upwards of twenty piastres was demanded; will he ascertain whether this demand was rightly made, and why the office was left in charge of five natives, neither of whom could speak English, French, German, or Italian; and, seeing that 90 per cent, of the passengers passing through Port Said are English-speaking, can he take any steps with a view to secure the employment of more English-speaking attendants.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The formalities in question are in pursuance of the sanitary precautions adopted in consequence of the existence of plague in Egypt. The fee mentioned is that prescribed by the Quarantine Board. The Quarantine Office is only about two minutes walk from the landing stage. It is never left in charge of natives. There are no natives on the medical staff and only one native is employed as a clerk. Except during the tourist

  1077
  season, the proportion of English travellers is not largo. But if the hon. Gentleman would like to explain the matter to me in greater detail, I shall be glad to confer with him.

  British Naval Protection at Port Said.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why a British gunboat is no longer stationed at Alexandria, and why no military or naval protection of British interests is afforded at Port Said.
  LORD CRANBORNE: It is believed that at the present moment there is a British ship of war at Alexandria. But the arrangements for providing naval or military protection there or at Port Said are left to the discretion of the naval Commander-in-Chicf in the Mediterranean and the officer commanding the British force of occupation, who are in direct communication with His Majesty's Agency and Consulate General.

  Copenhagen Fishery Conference.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a date has yet been fixed for the Copenhagen Fishery Conference; and, seeing that there is to be no special representative of the Scottish Office, will he state by whom Great Britain will be represented.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUK,): The meeting of the International Fishery Conference at Copenhagen has been fixed to take place on 22nd July. Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, and Professor D'Arcy Thompson, scientific member of the Fishery Board for Scotland, have been appointed British delegates, and they will be accompanied by Dr. H. R. Mill arid Mr. W. Garstang of the Marine Biological Association at Plymouth, as experts. These gentlemen were present at the Christiania Conference in 1901.

  Merthyr Tydvil—Petition for Incorporation.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department it there is any objection to supplying the Merthyr Tydvil Urban District Council with a copy of the Report of the Commissioner
  1078
  appointed by the Privy Council Office to investigate the allegations contained in the several petitions for and against the incorporation of Merthyr in 1897; whether the representation addressed to the Crown by the Department in respect to such petitions was based solely on the facts as ascertained by Mr. Commissioner Cress well at the public inquiry held in Merthyr; or whether the Privy Council Office was guided in its representation by information furnished in any other manner; and if he can give the names of the Committee of the Lords of the Council who consider applications for municipal charters of incorporation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have consulted the Lord President of the Council who states that the Report of the Commissioner of the Lords of the Council on the petition for the incorporation of Merthyr Tydvil was of a confidential nature, and confined to the statement of facts which he was instructed to furnish. It was on this statement of facts that the Charter was refused. It is not the practice to state the composition of the Committee of Council to which such petitions are referred.

  Hanwell Schools.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a Medical Report issued in February, 1902, in which it was shown that 520 out of 1,000 children in the Barrack Schools of Hanwell could not pass the whisper test for hearing; that 335 were, or had been, the subjects of discharge from one or both ears; that eighty-eight of them were suffering from chronic suppuration; and that 434 children out of the 1,000 examined had adenoids; and what steps have been taken to improve the condition of these children.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen the Report referred to, from which it appears that the results of the examination of 1,000 children at the Hanwell

  1079
  Schools were as stated in the Question. The examination was made by Mr. Cheatle, by request of the managers of the schools. I am informed that the children suffering from adenoids are now receiving surgical treatment, and that a committee of the managers, after consultation with Mr. Cheatle, are considering the best means of dealing with cases of diseases of the ears. It may be mentioned that a similar examination, which was made by Dr. Willcocks in 1898, revealed a large proportion of adenoid disease. As a result of that investigation, 107 children from the schools were successfully treated for adenoids at St. Bartholomew's Hospital between October, 1898, and January, 1901. In his Report, Dr. Willcocks stated that the school life and the surroundings of the children could not be held responsible in any sense for adenoid troubles, the disease being prevalent among children in all classes of society. A similar opinion has been expressed by Mr. Cheatle and other medical men interested in the matter.

  Glamorganshire Census.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the principle upon which the order is determined in which the detailed abstract of the census returns by counties is presented to Parliament; when the detailed abstract for Glamorganshire is likely to be presented; and, in view of the fact that no abstract has yet been presented for a Welsh county, and that the increase of population in the decade and the consequent changes were greater in Glamorganshire than in any county of the United Kingdom save one, will he expedite the presentation of the census particulars relating to Glamorganshire.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Detailed abstracts of the Census Returns are published county by county in order of population. Glamorgan stands ninth on the list. The abstracts as to five of the eight larger counties have already been presented to Parliament and the Registrar General expects that the volume dealing with Glamorgan will be issued not later than the early part of next month.

  Scottish Board of Manufacturers and the National Gallery in Scotland.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will say what notice was given to the Board of Manufacturers for Scotland of the Government's dissatisfaction with their management of the National Gallery in Scotland; and will he state the constitution of the body which is to undertake the projected inquiry, and its scope.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My statement the other day was rather an expression of opinion that the constitution of the Board of Manufacturers was not suited for the management of a National Gallery, than of dissatisfaction with the Board. I am not aware that any communication to the latter effect has been addressed to the Board. I am now in communication with the Secretary for Scotland as to the nature and scope of the inquiry into the subject.
  MR. BLACK: Will the Committee be a Departmental one, or a Committee of this House? I ask that in view of the eminence of the men constituting this Board.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have said all I have to say on the subject.

  North Sea Fisheries Researches.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the tonnage of the vessels employed for scientific fishery researches by the various Governments signatories to the North Sea Convention. Will he say whether, in connection with the international scheme for investigating problems connected with the fisheries of the North Sea and adjacent waters, any specified area has yet been designated for research; and, seeing that the British Government have arranged to spend £42,000 for the purposes of the scheme, can he state how much each of the other Governments concerned propose to spend.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am not at present in a position to give the hon.

  1081
  Member the detailed information asked for. A meeting of the International Council appointed to carry out the programme of investigation is to be held this month at Copenhagen. The steps taken by each participating Government, including the particulars desired by the hon. Member, will doubtless be reported to the Council, and it will be for that body to designate the precise areas to be jointly investigated.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the Fishery Board for Scotland have reported that the small steam yacht "Garland" has proved incompetent to effect the scientific research she was expected to perform in I he Moray Firth, he will state what duties it is intended to assign to this vessel now that the Government propose to extend fishery research to an area in the North Sea.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: In view of the arrangements recently made for international scientific investigations in the North Sea, the Fishery Board propose to dispose of the "Garland" because of her unsuitability for that work. The Board will carry out the more northerly portion of the British part of the international programme, and will receive funds to enable them to hire a suitable vessel.

  Strabane Loan Fund Appeals.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of Donegal, held at Lifford on 20th June last, two appeals from dismisses of the magistrates at Petty Sessions under section 24 of 14 and 15 Vic., c. 93, in summonses at the suit of the Receiver of the Strabane Loan Fund Society, in proceedings for the recovery of £10 and £8 respectively, were struck out by the County Court Judge on the ground that no appeal lies from a dismiss of the magistrates under said Act. And, whether, in view of the state of the law with regard to the right of appeal from dismisses in proceedings under the Petty Sessions Act, it is proposed to introduce legislation on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the decision referred to. There is no intention to introduce legislation dealing with the matter this session.

  De Freyne Estate Evictions—Service of Process on Defendants in Sligo Gaol.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when Bailiff M'Niff was serving the writs on the defendants in the De Freyne land suit, who are at present at Sligo gaol, the defendants were brought into the presence of a visitor without being informed of the fact that the visitor was a process server and was about to serve writs upon them; whether the sanction and permission of the Irish Prisons Board were given to this proceeding.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The course followed in these cases was in accordance with the general practice, approved by the Prisons Board. The service of writs in such cases is of frequent occurrence.
  MR. MACVEAGLI: But was the sanction of the Irish Prisons Board obtained for this proceeding?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I said the facts are correctly stated in the Question. That covers it.

  Irish Congested District Board Marine Works—Roads Slip, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what date the allocation of the funds for marine works at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the current year was made; whether he is aware that an application for the improvement of the slip at Roads, county Kerry, was made on 25th June, 1901, and on previous occasions; and whether, if it is not possible to carry out permanent improvements this year, the Congested Districts Board will place irons on the slip so as to afford a proper foothold for the fishermen before the autumn fishing begins.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The available funds were allocated in March last. The consideration of works, such as that at Roads, for which a grant had not already been made, was then postponed. The Board's engineer will be instructed to place irons on the slip at Roads, if he can arrange to do so, before the autumn fishing.

  Orange Demonstration at Rostrevor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Orangemen of the Armagh district, held in the town of Armagh, it was decided to hold an Orange demonstration on the 12th instant in the town of Rostrevor, county Down; and that Rostrevor is a district a very large majority of the population of which are Roman Catholic. And whether, with a view of preventing the provocation and disorder which are likely to arise, the Government intend to take any action in the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON:I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the Kilbroney Branch of the United Irish League, held in Rostrevor, at which it was resolved to stop the Orange procession which has been arranged to take place near Rostrevor on the 12th July; and whether the Government will take care to afford protection to this procession. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he has seen the threat of a Roman Catholic priest, made on behalf of the United Irish League, to send 10,000 ruffians to Rostrevor—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the interest of peace and goodwill I must respectfully decline to take official notice of the Press paragraphs on which, I think, these Questions are based. These paragraphs are construed as challenges and counter challenges by those to whom they make appeal. Coming to the facts, I understand that influential members of the Orange Society are using their best efforts to dissuade other members from
  1084
  taking part in the excursion to Rostrevor I trust that these efforts will be successful, but, in any case, the Irish Government will not permit any demonstration or counter demonstration in, or near, Rostrevor on 12th July, and will take the necessary steps to notify the same by proclamation.
  MR. DILLON: Then are we right in understanding the Chief Secretary to say he will not allow any demonstration or counter demonstration in the neighbourhood of Rostrevor on July 12th?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is so.

  Irish Public Works.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government auditors have reported any instance in which the certificate for new works has been exceeded in any county or rural district during the financial year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The audits of the accounts of County Councils for the year ended 31st March last have not yet been completed, and the Board is not, therefore, in a position to give the desired information.

  Irish Railway Fares—Cork Exhibition.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the effect upon the Cork Exhibition and the city of Cork by the attitude of the railway companies in withholding, unless at rare intervals, excursion trains at moderate fares; and whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Industry in Ireland, which has spent money in aid of the Cork Exhibition, will be drawn to this attitude of the Great Southern and Western and other railway companies.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has been in correspondence with the railway companies on the subject. The companies some time ago made reductions in the fares, and further substantial

  1085
  reductions have been made by the Great Southern and Western Company to take effect from tomorrow.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the other railway companies act on the same lines as the Great Southern and Western Company?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member must understand that the Irish Government could not take action in this matter, but the new Department, could, on specific complaint being made.
  MR. J. F, X. O'BRIEN: Has not the Department of Agriculture in Ireland the same powers in this respect as the Board of. Trade in England?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The powers of the new department become operative only on the receipt of specific complaints.

  Proposed Chancery Court for Yorkshire.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will take steps to institute a Court of Chancery for Yorkshire, similar to the Court now existing in Lancashire.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I should, of course, have to consult the Lord Chancellor on this matter, which is brought to my notice for the first time by the Question. I think the proposal would require legislation to carry it into effect, and that being so, I do not imagine it possible in the immediate future.

  Scottish Congested Districts—Fishing Harbour Construction.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Government have decided to provide £100,000 for the construction of piers and harbours required in congested districts of Ireland, will he say whether similar arrangements can be made to meet the requirements of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with a view to the construction of harbours of a size suitable for the larger boats now requisite for the line-fishing industry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not a question to which the principle of the equivalent grant is applicable. Each case must be dealt with on its merits. Cases are considered by the Treasury.

  War Office Vote.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the War Office Votes will be taken in their order when they are debated on Friday week; and, if not, when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing Vote 2 for medical establishments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Secretary of State's Vote must come first, and I can give no promise of a special day for the Vote in which my hon. friend is interested, but possibly an opportunity may occur on some Supply day before Supply is finally concluded.

NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL.
Reported with Amendments from the Select Committee with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 265.]
Bill, as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Patent J Law Amendment Bill—Sir William Allan, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Brigg, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Cripps, Colonel Denny, Mr. Fielden, Sir Joseph Lawrence, Mr. Moulton, Mr. O'Mara, Mr. Platt-Higgins, Mr. Randles, Sir Robert Reid, and Mr. Samuel Roberts.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee.

1. "That, in the case of the Ystrad-fellte Water Bill [Lords], the Standing

1087
Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the London United Electric, Railways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 266.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Dillon, nominated members of the Select Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir John Dorington be one other Member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond)
MR. HERBERT LEWISopposed the nomination of Sir John Dorington, in order to give notice to substitute for it the name of the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, who had had great experience in inquiries of this nature, and had shown great capacity for dealing with questions of that sort. He explained that his objection was not personal to this hon. baronet, who was as much respected on the Opposition side of the House as on his own, but this was the only method open to him of calling attention to the fact that there was no representative of the Welsh Members on the Committee at all. The susceptibilities of the various sections of the House were invariably considered in matters of that kind, and a definite proportion of representation was allocated to each section of the House. On a matter of this importance the claims of Wales ought certainly not to be disregarded.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: As the number of the Committee is not specified, would it not be in order to move the addition of one or two names?
MR. SPEAKER: No name can be put before the House unless notice has been given on the Paper.
SIR WILLIAM WALRONDpointed out that he had nothing to do with the appointment of Members on the other side; that always resting with the head Whip on the other side. He suggested that, if the hon. Gentleman allowed the Commitee to go through, probably he could have a conversation with the chief Liberal Whip, the right hon. Member for West Leeds, when the matter might be arranged.
Question put and agreed to.
Sir James Fergusson, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Lough, Sir Lewis M'lver, Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Edgar Vincent, and Mr. Eugene Wason nominated other Members of the Select Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

PARISH COUNCIL LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To regulate the repayment of Parish Council and Burial Authorities' Loans in Scotland," presented by Mr. Munro Ferguson, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Douglas; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 267.]

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
Clause 4:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 12, after the word 'college,' to insert the words 'aided but not provided by the Council, and no pupil shall be excluded on the ground of religious belief from a school or college provided by the Council.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

1089
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he, like other hon. Members, felt some doubt as to the value of the Amendment in its entirety. If it were inserted it would not go far enough, and he therefore proposed to insert additional words to secure that pupils should not be placed in respect of any form of religious teaching on an unequal footing. The right hon. Gentleman, by his form of words, safeguarded any one on entering the college or school, but he wanted to go a little further and prevent the student, while in the school, from suffering any disability on account of religious belief.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'from' to insert the words ' or be placed as respects any form of instruction on an unequal footing in.'"—(Mr. John Ellis.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)submitted that it was unnecessary to load up the proviso in this way. The Amendment was dictated by an unreasonable fear that a County Council, having got a pupil into the school, would begin to persecute him. He hoped it would not be pressed.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would study their position, he would see that the Amendment was almost absolutely necessary in view of his refusal, on the preceding night, to consider and add to his Amendment certain other words.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not decline to consider them. But that is not the question before the Committee now.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a different attitude the difficulty would have disappeared. The Committee must face the fact that, under the Bill as it stood, County Councils would have the
1090
power of founding schools to be conducted under the control of one particular religious denomination. That was a condition the Opposition could not accept and was bound to fight. It was a retrograde position which was never contemplated by the Act of 1870, and yet now when, after an interval of thirty years, Parliament was dealing with the higher education of the people, they were proposing to allow all public money under this clause to be used by County Councils for the purpose of establishing denominational institutions. As a Churchman he protested against that, and he believed such a step would be injurious to the Church itself.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in discussing now the Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs?
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he was not discussing that Amendment. He was only pointing out the position in which these institutions would be placed by the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It would be competent under them for County and Borough Councils to give public money to institutions run or controlled by one religious denomination. He was objecting to the adoption of that policy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question before the Committee is the Amendment to the Amendment, and the debate must be confined to that.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the right lion. Gentleman's Amendment had for its object the securing of perfect religious freedom for all pupils in these institutions. There was a suspicion in the minds of many hon. Members that these educational institutions would be used in the interests of one particular religious denomination, and that a student belonging to another religious community might not find himself treated equally as well as the member of the particular denomination. For instance, a Unitarian in the Trinitarian College might be placed in a rather invidious position. He had known such things in social intercourse, and why should they not transpire in school or college life?

1091
The Amendment of his hon. friend would, he believed, secure absolute religious equality for all and he, therefore, supported it. Admittedly it did not go far enough to suit him, for he desired that, in no instance, should public money be given in connexion with secondary education to any institution run on a denominational basis.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that when the hon. Member for Horsham spoke on the Amendment he said 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. The First Lord accepted that sentiment, and the Clause as he proposed to amend it read thus—
"A Council in the application of money shall not require that any particular form of religious instruction shall or shall not be taught in any college (aided by, but not provided by the Council), and no pupil shall be excluded on the ground of religious belief from a college provided by the Council."
He agreed with the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs that the sub-section as originally printed was far better than this Clause, as amended by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He would test the original sub-section by concrete cases. In the first place it was quite clear the sub-section applied to schools which already taught a particular form of religion. There would be no interference with them, neither would there be any interference where no particular form of religion was taught, or where a new school was built by the County Council; for it was provided that the County Council should not require a particular form of religion to be taught, nor should it forbid the teaching of a particular form of religion. But that was a long way from saying that the County Council should not be empowered to provide denominational training colleges. If the words of the right hon. Gentleman had any meaning at all, they contemplated a protection to the pupils from something. That something was that they should not be excluded on the ground of religious belief from a college provided by the County Council. What reason was there for that protection if the County Council could not provide denominational colleges? He had
1092
no doubt that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman wore accepted, denominational colleges could be provided by the County Council. If an undenominational college were founded by the County Council, the protection sought to be afforded to the pupil by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be adequate. But if, for instance, the County Council provided a Catholic college, a Wesleyan who entered it would not be protected by the Amendment from being trained in what had been called a "Catholic atmosphere." In his opinion it should be distinctly laid down in the Clause that in any college provided by the County Council no religious catechism or formulary which was distinctive of any particular religious denomination should be taught. That would carrry out the view of the mover of the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was quite prepared to discuss the whole Amendment if it were in order, but he thought it would be better if the Committee confined themselves to the narrow point raised by the Amendment to the Amendment.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsuggested that the Amendment was a contradiction in terms. The student, by his own act, placed himself on an unequal footing, because he withdrew from part of the education. The Amendment, which said he should not be on an equal footing was, therefore, a paradox.
MR. BRYCEheld that the issue raised by the Amendment to the Amendment was not so narrow as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. The words of the right hon. Gentleman only provided that no pupil should be excluded from a college provided by the County Council on the ground of religious belief. But the Amendment was intended to secure that the schools should be undenominational in their character, and at the same time to make it possible for religious instruction to be given, but in such a way that all denominations would be on an equal footing. That was not a small point. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise on the previous day an Amendment securing that in all schools provided by the local authority

1093
the undenominational principle should prevail. The present proposal went in the direction of carrying out, that object, but they did not look upon it as a concession. They had never supposed the local authority would have power to provide denominational schools; therefore, the proposal was merely carrying out what they had always understood to be the object of the Clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think the Amendment to the Amendment would be satisfactory, whether as interpreted by its framer or by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He perfectly understood that when a local authority founded a college or school in which religious instruction was given, it was quite right that everybody should have access to that school, and that was provided for by his Amendment. But it was said that the Government should go further. He was not prepared to deny that, but he did not think they ought to go further in the direction suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Supposing the County Council started a secondary school. In that school there would be no denominational teaching, in the narrow sense in which the term was usually used. But that implied that the Catechism of the Free Churches, which some interpreted as not being a denominational document, might be taught. In that case he still the ought the pupils entering the college should have protection, but not the protection of everybody being able to teach denominational religion at large.
MR. BRYCE: That is not the Amendment. The proposal is that everybody should be treated alike.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the teaching was of the character he had suggested everybody would not be treated alike, because the school would provide for a particular form of undenominational teaching in which the son of a Unitarian or Jew could not participate. It surely did not mean that the class-rooms were to be given up to the teaching of Judaism, Unitarianism, or Agnosticism. That would be an unreasonable way of dealing with the situation. He agreed, however, that they ought not to content themselves with saying
1094
all pupils were to be admitted. When admitted they ought to be protected by a Conscience Clause, and in these schools to which everybody was to be admitted as a boarder he thought it would be fair that the Conscience Clause should provide, not merely for day students, but also for boarders.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEadmitted that there was some force in the criticism that in a denominational school all students could not be placed on a footing of strict equality, in respect of all forms of religious instruction. At the same time, the object of his hon. friend was a perfectly laudable one, and ought to be attained. That object was to secure that there should be no inequality as between pupils, purely and simply because they belonged to a denomination other than that which dominated the school. If all friends of religious education were as tolerant as the right hon. Gentleman, he would agree that the fear of any such persecution was unreasonable, but unfortunately that was not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman had had the experience that many Members had had of the working of denominational schools in rural districts he would admit that there was some excuse for the timidity with which they regarded a provision of this kind. The inequality under which Nonconformists suffered was not confined to the pupils; it extended to the teachers. In the 14,000 or 15,000 denominational schools of the country Nonconformists had no chance of being in a position of equality with other teachers when an opportunity for promotion occurred. He asked whether the First Lord would object to the insertion of such words as "or be placed on an equal footing in," which would make it perfectly clear that no child was to be placed under any inequality because he belonged to an unpopular faith.
MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he had hoped his Amendment would receive more practical favour at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. Certain technical reasons had been given for the non-acceptance of the actual words of his proposal. He yielded to no man in his claim for absolute religious

1095
equality. That was the bad-rock on which Nonconformists stood. They did not desire toleration. The vital words of the Amendment were "an unequal footing," and he was prepared to accept any words which carried out what the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted to be a necessity, viz., that all pupils and teachers should be on an equal footing. On that point he recalled to the Committee the dignified words of the address of the Free Church deputation to the First Lord of the Treasury—
"It has been said by more than one prelate of the Established Church that they will, when the Bill becomes law, deal fairly with Nonconformist. But we do not acknowledge any right on the port of that Church to deal with us, fairly or otherwise. Our appeal is to the State; we are its citizers, and before it all are equal."
He would commend to the attention of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, whose rather juvenile interruptions the previous night, when he accused the Opposition of disorder, contrasted strongly with his own outrage—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Order."] Yes, he would say that the greatest Parliamentary outrage committed this session had been committed by the noble Lord in the Lobby.
THE CHAIRMAN:—That has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment
MR. JOHN ELLISreplied that he had said all he had to say on the subject. He commended to the attention of the noble Lord a letter from the Bishop of Hereford, which appeared in The Times of that day. It was because religious equality was at the botton of his Amendment that he pressed it on the Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he had some words to suggest which he thought would carry out the views expressed on the other side. He suggested that his Amendment should be amended as follows—
"Aided but not provided by the Council and no pupil shall be excluded from nor placed in an inferior position in any school or college provided by the Council on the ground of religious belief."
If the House would allow him to withdraw his previous Amendment and move it in the form he had suggested, he would do so.
MR. JOHN ELLISexpressed his assent to the words of the First Lord of the Treasury in preference to his own.
1096
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 12, after the word 'college,' to insert the words 'aided but not provided by the council, and no pupil shall be excluded from nor placed in an inferior position in any school or college provided by the Council on the ground of religious belief.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. McKENNA, upon a point of order, reminded the Chairman that the Committee had already decided that no particular form of religious instruction or worship should be taught in any school. Therefore, he desired to know if this particular Amendment was in order. Earlier in the debate the First Lord of the Treasury accepted an exception to this rule in the case of training colleges, but the whole principle of this sub-clause was accepted upon the understanding that no teaching of any particular form of religious instruction would be required in any of those schools. The right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment now proposed to allow religious instruction to be required, although he proposed that no scholar should be obliged to attend religious instruction. The Committee had already decided that the Council should not require any particular form of religious instruction to be taught in any school whether they were aided or provided.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member's point is that the words "aided but not provided by the Council" cannot now be added.
MR. McKENNA: Yes, because in debating the whole clause exceptions were moved and disposed of, and now the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to make a further exception.
THE CHAIRMAN: If I am to discriminate against this Amendment now I ought not to have admitted the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. It was not an actual negation, but a limitation. The Amendment now suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury would be a limitation, because

1097
it would limit this sub-clause to schools "aided but not provided by the Council." Therefore, it is only a limitation, and I do not think I can rule it out of order.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcontended that they were now dealing with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman de novo as if nothing had taken place, and any objection which was valid yesterday was valid now. He understood from he ruling just given that in consequence of having allowed an Amendment by the hon. Member for Northampton now they were discussing the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment as if it was now being proceeded with for the first time.
THE CHAIRMAN: I said I did not take objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton to the sub-clause because it proposed to limit it to schools existing at the present moment. That is a limitation of time. Now the limitation is not one of time, but it takes a fresh line of cleavage and divides the schools and colleges as between those aided and to be aided and those which are to be provided in the future. Having admitted the other Amendment, I do not see how I can refuse to admit this one.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the Amendment which is now proposed de novo, I think one great cause of the confusion or bewilderment into which the Committee has been drawn is that we are looking at this question from two aspects. There is the supposition that the schools and colleges to be provided will be denominational. If they are to be denominational colleges and schools, then the words of the right hon. Gentleman meet the case, because they secure that no pupil shall be excluded on account of his religious opinion, and there will be no favouritism to those who share the opinions which are acknowledged to be those of the school as against those who do not share them. That is a good and substantial guarantee against the abuse of the denominational preference which already exists. But a number of my hon. friends take another view, when goes deeper. We say that there ought to be no denominational character in any
1098
school or college to be provided by this clause, and it is because we are trying to fit these two separate ideas into one part of the Bill that we have got a little at cross purposes. For my own part—and I believe I speak for the great majority of Members on this side of the House, and I know that many hon. Members opposite hold the same view—I think there ought to be no denominational character in those schools. If there is to be, we are willing to accept the conscience clause, and the Cowper-Temple Clause, but we are not going to have these put to us as if they were a complete satisfaction of our ideas. It is one of those cases in which it is not true that half a loaf is better than no bread. If ! we are to have half a loaf against some I principle which we believe to be a sound and essential one, then we would rather have the no bread than a promise which involves the abandonment of our principles. That is the reason why the First ! Lord of the Treasury, while finding his concessions and proposals received very good naturedly and pleasantly, suddenly discovers a strong feeling almost leading to their rejection. The one way in which the right hon. Gentleman might escape any further difficulty, would be to acknowledge in so many words that a denominational school or college should not be provided by the State.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought this Amendment would be necessary, even if they adopted the Cowper-Temple Clause in its extreme form. Let them suppose that the Cowper-Temple Clause was added to the sub-section, would it then be necessary or not to say that "in any school or college provided by the Council." He contended that this was unnecessary. He thought they must protect the pupils, whichever denomination they belonged to. Therefore they did require the safeguard proposed in the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not now tell the Committee whether he was prepared to accept this Amendment. That would make all the difference in the world. If it was not accepted, he was still of opinion that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman made things worse. He had submitted the clause to one or two legal

1099
experts, and they wore of opinion that a County Council could, under the words as they stood, teach any dogma particular to any denomination.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The words of the clause are—
"A Council, in the application of money under this part of this Act, shall not require that any particular form of religious instruction or worship.…"
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked what that meant. These words "shall not require" were narrowing words. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Cowper-Temple Clause, which would prevent any formula being taught in schools founded by the County Council, the Committee might save a good deal of time. That would show that he was prepared to meet them on this most important religious difficulty.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid it was evident from the discussion which had taken place that the clause contemplated that there should be denominational schools and colleges. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated over and over again that undenominational colleges could be established under the Bill, and if it was not under this clause they could not be established under any other clause in the Bill. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was not frankly fulfilling the promise which he had made. The difficulty of the position would be somewhat removed if the First Lord would state frankly that he would accept the Cowper-Temple Clause.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was necessary whether the Cowper-Temple Clause was included or not, and he urged that the latter be inserted as in the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, which was a statutory precedent from both points of view.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Committee had now for about an hour and a half been on the fringe of a great question without touching the question proper. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs that unless the First Lord would accept the Cowper-Temple Clause he would rather not have the Amendment. What they
1100
wanted to find out was whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept that clause or riot. The real question was whether the County Councils had the power to establish denominational schools or not.
THE CHAIRMANsaid if the hon. Member for Flintshire was successful in carrying his Amendment, he understood that the right hon. Baronet would accept the clause, but if the hon. Member was unsuccessful, it would still be open to the Committee to reject the Amendment of the First Lord.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was to meet the general wish of the House that he withdrew his Amendment.
MR SAMUEL EVANSsaid it would be convenient for him to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, because it would not restrict discussion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. That Amendment was to add the words "hereafter established and aided, or."
THE CHAIRMANsaid the words "established hereafter" would not be in order. The Committee had already decided to make no distinction between colleges now existing and those established in future.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he would move the Amendment in a form to meet the Chairman's ruling. He thought it would be very much better at this stage, if the right hon. Gentleman would say what code he proposed in regard to the colleges to be hereafter established. He understood that the general feeling of the majority of the Committee was to leave the existing schools as they were. His own opinion was that the Government ought to make a distinct difference between the schools which would come into existence in the future, and the schools already in existence in various parts of the country. The object of his Amendment was to prevent the possibility of excluding pupils from the schools provided hereafter by the education authority. The now technical schools ought to be entirely free from any denominational or sectarian influences.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "college," to insert the words "aided or." (Mr. Samuel Evans.)

1101
Question proposed, "That the words 'aided or' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. BONDsaid the question the Committee had to consider was what should be done in the colleges established by the County Council. With regard to the day schools, a Conscience Clause was already provided by the Bill; in the technical schools the question of religious instruction would hardly arise at all; and the only institutions with regard to which it could arise were boarding schools for boys or girls, if they were established by County Councils. He did not think it was at all likely that the County Councils would establish such schools, but if they were established, it was desirable in the cause of justice, or, at all events, conciliation, that the Cowper-Temple Clause should be accepted.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he must interrupt his hon. friend on a point of order. His hon. friend appealed to him to bring the discussion to an end. In accordance with the promise he had made he could not bring it to an end until they had an issue brought before them.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would state now that he would accept the Amendment, they need not occupy the time of the Committee any further.
MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to dissent.
MR. BRYCEsaid he sympathised very much with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the difficulties in which he was placed, and in which the Committee found itself. If the Chairman ruled that the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Member for Mid Glamorgan, must first be disposed of, he would not say another word; but if they were on the general discussion he had something to say.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee were now on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that when he began his speech he stated that he would move the Amendment in this form—leaving out the word "hereafter."
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDU- CATION (Sir JOHN GORST,)said he hoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment, and let the Committee get to the real issue which the Committee was anxious to come to a decision upon. They thought that they had settled the question as to the schools which were aided, but now the hon. and learned Member, by a very ingenious Amendment, has again brought in the aided schools which had been discussed all yesterday and part of the day before. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Committee to come to the question whether the local authority was to have a free hand to establish both denominational schools and undenominational schools at the public expense, or whether they were to be limited by the State to the establishment of undenominational schools.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand the Amendment. Suppose that a Town Council or a County Council, instead of founding a secondary school, elected to aid a particular grammar school. All that his hon. and learned friend proposed was that if the Town Council or County Council did so, they would not be allowed to exclude pupils on the ground of religious belief. Surely that was a very proper thing to do. In organising a secondary system of education, why should they put the secondary schools on a different footing from the elementary schools from which the County Council could not exclude a single pupil on account of their being Dissenters? From every school which accepted public money or aid for the purpose of teaching secondary education no child should be excluded because it was a Wesleyan, or Baptist, or Congregationalist, or anything else. He could not recollect a single Amendment in which this issue was raised before, because they never knew that such exclusion was possible until this Amendment was proposed. It would be worse than the Sectarian system of primary education. He was glad his hon. and learned friend had raised the point, because this was the only opportunity they would have of discussing it.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that the Amendment was quite a reasonable one, and he trusted the Government would accept it. There was no difference in principle between aiding and providing.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, and he would withdraw his Amendment in order that they might proceed to the discussion of the larger issue.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GEORGE WHITEmoved that in line 4 of the Amendment, after the words "school or college" there be inserted "hostel."
Question put, and agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he wished to move as an Amendment to the Amendment to add at the end the words—
"And no Catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel so provided."
This Amendment, he said, would meet the views of many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and he was sure would give satisfaction to most hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It would introduce into the Bill what was commonly known as the Cowper-Temple clause, limited in its application to schools provided by the local authority. It would not prevent the creation by individuals or societies of denominational hostels which might take advantage of the secular instruction given in these schools or colleges. He would not discuss this well-known clause and its effect. There was no special reason to suppose that the local authorities desired to establish in future denominational schools; and he believed that the Amendment, if adopted, would have a conciliatory effect, and would promote the cause of education, while it would not injure the cause of religion.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words—
"And no Catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel so provided."—(Sir William Anson.)
1104
Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not know what course the Government were going to adopt on this Amendment, but he gathered from the position from which the Amendment had been moved that they were not unfriendly to it. There was, as the Committee knew, a class of members who were inclined to take a middle course in, regard to this matter; but he asserted that whether the Government accepted the Amendment or not it would be the duty of those who took strong views on the question to resist the Amendment and press it to a division. He quite agreed that it was very unlikely that County Councils would be disposed to found schools out of the public funds to meet denominational needs, although it would not be very impossible to convince his hon. friend that such a thing would happen. Take the case of a district where almost the whole population was Roman Catholic. Was the County Council in no case, however pressing the educational needs of that district, to found a Roman Catholic school for higher education? A private preparatory school conducted on a broad-minded sensible plan was another instance. In such a school there was scriptural religious education, and Church of England religious education taught without the slightest friction or disturbance. Suppose a County Council found itself in a position to establish a school of that kind, why in the name of commonsense was Parliament to say that they should not. Why was the Church Catechism, however much it might be desired by the majority of the population, to be tabooed as if it were an unclean thing not to be tolerated within the walls of a school. That was the reason why he should oppose the Amendment. It was nothing less than an outrage on those who believed that denominational religion, whether Nonconformist or Church of England, was the only real religion, that distinct denominationalism should be put under a stigma and should not be liberated in a public institution, however much that might be the wish of the local authority. An Amendment which had the appearance

1105
of erecting the standard of this new bigotry—[Several HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Which was the more bigoted position, to say, "Teach what you like; teach what meets with the wishes of the parents," or to say "you will not teach this, however much it may accord in the will of the parents." It was because he adhered to the principle of religious equality, because he wished perfect religious equality, as between Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, and Members of the Church of England, that he would oppose the Amendment.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid as a Member of the House of Commons in 1870, the present situation was one of the peculiar cases in which history repeated itself. In 1870 the original proposal of Mr. Gladstone's Government was that the School Boards about to be established should have the right of setting up denominational schools out of the rates, that they were to have an absolutely free hand to set up denominational or undenominational schools. After three months' excited discussion in the country, the Bill had to be recommitted, and it was only in July 1870 that the House entered on the real Committee stage of a Bill introduced in the previous February. There was then only one way of arriving at a solution which was acceptable to the mass of the people of the country. The extreme secularists had to be put on one side, as had also the extreme, denominationalists; and a compromise was arrived at which was associated with the name of Mr. Cowper-Temple. It was perfectly certain that the settlement now proposed would not be more acceptable to his noble friend who always spoke with such great ability than was the settlement of 1870 to views then as ably represented in the House of Commons. They had all read in the letter of the Bishop of Hereford in today's Times that it was possible to have a form of religious teaching, not necessarily denominational, but yet based on the bed-rock of Christianity common to all the great religions in this country. He happened the other day to come across a speech delivered by Lord
1106
John Russell as far buck as 1856 when he was Leader of the House of Commons and Prime Minister of the country. Lord John was endeavouring to lay down the general lines of what he believed would sooner or later, be the education of this country, arid he used two sentences which were a very good answer to what had fallen from his noble friend. Lord John Russel said—
"Did the House mean to say that there would be no religious instruction except that confined to the distinctions between different bodies and sects of Christians?"
Then he proceeded—
"Was there to be no religious instruction except that which discriminated between Protestants and Papists and Presbyterians and other sects of Christians."
He was sure they all anticipated for his noble friend who had just spoken a great and distinguished career, like that on which Mr. Gladstone was then entering when Lord John Russell replied to him in the sentences he had just quoted. Might they not also hope that before his noble friend's career was terminated he might bring forward a large and broad measure of educational reform such as Mr. Gladstone did in 1870. Lord John Russell in the speech from which he quoted pointed out certain great principles of the Christian religion which were accepted by Roman Catholics as well as by Protestants. He referred to such books as Fénéloas "Evidences of Christianity," and asked if they were not books which could be accepted and taught in common in connection with all forms of the Christian religion. Lord John also asked whether a book on female confession, although written by a Catholic, would not be accepted and read in Protestant schools. The Committee should remember that they were not dealing with primary education but with secondary education. Why should they not mention in that connection such books as Butler's "Analogy" which was founded on the bed-rock of Christianity. The noble Lord said that that would be an insult.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he never suggested that it would be an insult to have good books read in the schools. What he objected to was the exclusion of the Church Catechism.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he thought he had already succeeded in inducing the noble Lord to reduce the proposition he had put before the Committee. The letter of the Bishop of Hereford was a protest against the view that they should have denominational teaching if they were to have religious teaching at all; and that was the argument which he, too, was endeavouring to refute. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division, who was a Charity Commissioner, knew, the House was responsible for the establishment and the maintenance of the very system now proposed in many of the large grammar and endowed schools of the country. In the schemes of the Charity Commissioners they had the Cowper-Temple Clause in a slightly different form. There was one scheme which had distracted the House of Commons for seven years, but it was eventually settled exactly on the lines of the Cowper-Temple Clause. That scheme stated—
"Subject to the provisions of this scheme, religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith shall be given in each school, under such regulations as shall be made from time to time by the Governors."
As a result, there was not the smallest difficulty with reference to religious teaching under that scheme. Why, when schemes of that kind were in operation under the Charity Commissioners all over the country, should they not take the bull by the horns and put an end, once and for ever, to a terrible question, which had vexed this country for such a long period?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he greatly admired the erudition of the noble Lord, but if other Members of the Committee were endowed with such a minute knowledge of the controversy, the debate would be unnecessarily prolonged by the recital of ancient woes. He almost trembled to make a speech, as, perhaps, years after he was dead, it might be quoted from when the House of Commons found itself still engaged in this perennial subject. With reference to the proposition of his hon. friend the Member for the Oxford University, he really had not much to say. From a theoretical point of view, there was nothing less capable of
1108
defence than the Cowper-Temple Clause. It was absolutely impossible to find any rationale for it at all. He, however, never approached the question as a theoretical matter; he approached it as a practical matter, and from that point of view there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment. The Scottish system allowed, and, in fact, all most encouraged, the local authorities to have denominational schools; but he did not believe the Scottish system was suited to the English practice, and he did not believe that the County Councils and the Borough Councils would erect these denominational schools. But to embody the Cowper-Temple Clause in the Bill would be an advantage from the point of view of the local authorities themselves. It was impossible to remove entirely from discussion among those local authorities the religious question. Let Parliament do its best to remove it. After the prolonged use which the English community had had of the conscience clause, he thought, if they inserted it here, it would be taken as a Parliamentary indication that denominational religion was not to be taught, and that schools in the interests of a single denomination were not to be erected, and the Councils would feel themselves protected by such a provision. It was perfectly true that there was no religious dogma in this world which could not be taught in any school under the Cowper-Temple Clause. You might teach the doctrines of the Council of Trent or the doctrines of the Council of the Vatican, the Cowper-Temple Clause not with standing; but on the whole, and even so, he was disposed to think it would be an aid to the County and Borough Councils if they did not add to the very difficult task which this Bill threw upon them the additional difficulties that might arise if they were open to appeals to build schools in the interests of a single denomination. He did not believe they would ever do it, but, at the same time, all religious controversy should be as far as possible removed from these bodies, and he therefore, as a matter of practice, was inclined to think the Committee would do well to accept the proposal of his hon. friend.
MR. BRYCEexpressed the opinion that it would be difficult to discover any method for dealing with this question which could be more easily adopted than the embodiment of the Cowper-Temple Clause, of which they had had thirty years experience, and which had worked so well. It was extremely unlikely, he thought, that any County or Borough Council would establish any denominational college; but the best step they could take to ensure, as far as possible, the removal of these controversies, undoubtedly would be to unanimously accept the Amendment before the House.
EARL PERCYsaid that he bad no quarrel with the view taken by his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury; he rose chiefly to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to leave this matter to the decision of the House. Personally, he intended to vote against the Amendment, because he thought that the attitude of his noble friend the Member for Greenwich was infinitely the broader-minded and more liberal of the two. They were not arguing whether the Councils should be allowed to set up schools or colleges in which one form of denominational teaching was enforced; all that was in question was whether the local authorities were to be obliged to refuse to allow any doctrines distinctive of one denomination to be taught in a college, even if the needs of the locality required them. Why should such a duty be imposed on a County Council? Why, after twenty centuries of Christianity, were they to adopt the extraordinary thesis that religion—which was, no doubt, very estimable in its way—was, like smoking and other personal indulgences, not to be allowed in a public institution? He was somewhat surprised that this should be the attitude of many broad-minded Members of the House, more especially as he noticed that lower down on the Paper there was an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, in which he actually made the contrary proposal with regard to these new hostels. That Amendment ran—
"In a hostel or boarding house of a school or college which receives assistance from the
1110
local education authority, and in the management of which a paid official of the school or college takes part, the following provisions shall take effect:—(1) Scholars shall be allowed to attend such places of worship, and to have reasonable facilities for religious instruction from such religious teachers as their parents may choose for them."
That proposal for the Nonconformist hostels was exactly the same as that which was now made to the Committee for every school. He regretted that the Amendment had been moved, because it made it so excessively difficult for those who wished, to deal with these sectarian matters from a broad Catholic standpoint to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite half way. He disliked to see the exclusive spirit, either in the school or in the Church. But if they were to go further, and say no religious teaching should be allowed at all, and that the civil and religious life were to be shut up in water-tight compartments which had no connection with each other, then he was bound to dissent. Even if the State cared for none of these things, at all events it ought not to persecute, but give full liberty and toleration to those who did.
MR. DILLONsaid he had long held the view that the English people were the most irrational and illogical people on the face of the earth, and that opinion had been confirmed by these debates. Whenever the Cowper-Temple Clause was proposed, he should feel bound to oppose it. It was the root and source of all that religious strife which had sterilised and paralysed all educational work from 1870 to the present time. The religious instruction of this country must be based on Christian faith. The Cowper-Temple Clause was an absurdity; and he opposed it on theoretical grounds, because to his mind it had given away the only solid principle upon which this religious controversy could ever be settled. What he desired to do was to draw attention to the way in which the introduction of this Clause might affect the Catholic interest in this matter. Clause 2, it would be agreed, would include all the industrial schools in the country. The provision undoubtedly included the industrial schools of the country, and they would largely pass under the control of the local education

1111
authority. He could not help laughing to himself when hon. Members declared that it was against their consciences that any public authority should have power to apply money out of the rates to the support of institutions managed by denominations. Surely they knew perfectly well that many County and District Councils were in the habit of making large grants to industrial schools which were denominational institutions. The industrial schools of the Catholic Church were, no doubt, provided largely by the denomination, but in many cases so liberal were the County and Borough Councils that they had given them not only maintenance grants, but also building grants; and it would be an absolute disaster and absurdity if the Clause forbade the giving of religious instruction in those schools. Hon. Members were very enthusiastic about the virtues of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but when it was a question of reforming poor waifs and strays, the common sense of the country, instead of trusting to the operations of the Clause, handed them over as far as possible to the denominations to which they belonged, thus recognising that denominational instruction was the most likely to reform them and prepare them to take a better part in the life of the nation. He, therefore, asked the First Lord to give an assurance that he would inquire into this matter, and see that the hands of the local authorities were left absolutely free in dealing with the industrial schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was quite willing to give that assurance.
MR. JAMES HOPEfelt bound to oppose the Amendment. He did not for a moment contemplate that any County Council would establish a denominational college of any kind, but he did contemplate as possible the establishment of a college of which the teaching qua college would be purely secular, while facilities were given for special religious instruction for those students who desired it. The Amendment, he feared, would render that impossible, and such a restriction, from an educational as well as a denominational point of view, would be disastrous. These institutions should be made popular
1112
and well frequented; to attain that object the general confidence of the public must be secured. Parents would not send their children to a school unless the sort of education they desired could be there obtained. That was a natural and proper position to take, and from an educational point of view it would be the greatest folly not to acknowledge it. He earnestly asked, therefore, that in this matter the local authorities should be given an absolute discretion, as in Scotland, the scholars being protected by a conscience clause in each case.
DR. MACNAMARAexpressed his gratification at the acceptance of the Amendment, and his belief that the passage of the Bill would be facilitated thereby. To have left the local authorities to determine the form of religious instruction would have been an insuperable obstacle to the development of secondary education, particularly in the small areas. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that the Amendment would strike a blow at denominationalism. What had been the effect of the Cowper-Temple Clause on denominational instruction in England and Wales? Since 1870 the number of denominational elementary schools had increased from 8,281 to 14,319; the number of pupils from 1,693,000 to 3.055,000; the income per child from 8s. 10d. to 35s. 5d.; the amount of grants received by the Church of England from £408,000 to £3,600,000, and by the Roman Catholics from £40,000 to £464,000. So far from injuring denominationalism, what the First Lord had done would take a great difficulty out of the way of these local authorities in the establishment of their new schools, and what had happened under the Cowper-Temple Clause with regard to primary schools was likely to occur under this Bill with regard to secondary schools.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that, although he did not speak officially as the Vice-Chairman of the Church Parliamentary Party, he had no hesitation in expressing his great satisfaction with the policy of the Government in this matter. Ever since the passing of the Act of 1870 he had been connected with

1113
the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and had had opportunities of watching its operation, both in contests and in the conduct of schools; and no conviction was more firmly settled on his mind than that the Cowper-Temple Clause had been a great protection for religious teaching. He ', was sure that if that Clause had not been part of our educational system, there would have been contests at school board elections most injurious to religion while they were being conducted, and frequently fatal to religious teaching in the schools after the issue of the poll. Under the system, instruction had been given which might not have suited the tastes of heated partisans on the one side or the other, but which had, he believed, commended itself to the mind and judgment of moderate men of all parties. Many accomplished and devout men and women gave religious instruction in elementary schools on the week day, and then on the Sunday taught the same children in what he might describe as the mora technical departments of religious knowledge. He believed that the proposal would give new solidity, new spirit, and possibly new life, to the teaching of religion in this country, and he welcomed the introduction of the Clause as a great improvement to our educational system.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that there were one or two points in the remarkable speeches they had just heard to which he should like to refer. The hon. Member for North Camberwell sought to prove that the Cowper-Temple Clause had been a message of peace to this country, but he forgot to mention that there had been a great increase in the number of denominational schools, that a great amount of money had been spent upon them, and a great deal of zeal had been thrown into them. These schools were so many protests against the intolerable nature of this Clause. The whole feeling was that the Cowper-Temple Clause was an unsatisfactory form of religions instruction. If the Cowper-Temple Clause was quite acceptable, then denominational schools would have withered away as the British schools had withered away. His hon.
1114
friend the Member for Wigan took a stronger line. He was a very warm supporter of voluntary schools, and a liberal subscriber to them; but for the life of him he could not understand, if the Cowper-Temple Clause was such an ideal system, why everyone could not go to the board schools, and then we should not have this dispute.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he did not say the Cowper-Temple system was perfection, and he preferred the Church of England system; but as a practical policy, he thought the Cowper-Temple system was the best under existing circumstances.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the hon. Baronet believed that the Cowper-Temple system was not so good as the Church of England teaching, but, nevertheless, he was not prepared to allow a County Council, however much they might desire it, to build a school which made it impossible for the County Councils to provide schools which he all the time believed to be best for the children. Such was the logic to be found among the admirers of the Cowper-Temple Clause. He agreed that this Amendment would have no practical effect. In so far as it represented a reality at all, it was a great injury, hardship, and tyranny to those who maintained that denominational education was right; but as a matter of principle it was entirely indefensible. He was filled with alarm at the attitude of the Government in accepting an Amendment to conciliate opposition, which he was afraid the Government would find was altogether incapable of conciliation, and which was j altogether vicious in principle. [Cries of "Oh. oh!" and "Withdraw!"] He meant that the Amendment of his hon. friend was vicious in principle; the Opposition, of course, was replete with virtue. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to conduct the Bill throughout on those lines, it might advance quickly, as far as the Opposition was concerned, but it would not solve the education problem, and he did not think he would find that it would increase the warmth of the support of those devoted to denominational education, and it would not tend to religious peace either in this House or outside.

1115
(4.50.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 318; Noes, 29. (Division List No. 272.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dahymple, Sir Charles

Holland, Sir William Henry

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horner, Frederick William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davies Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Horniman, Frederick John

Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hoult, Joseph

Allen, Charles P.(Gloue. Stroud

Denny, Colonel

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Dewar. John A. (Inverne-s-sh.

Howad, J. (Midd, Tottenham

Anstruther, H. T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arnold-Eorster, Hugh O.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jacoby, James Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Bagot, Capt. Joscehne FitzRoy

Dunn, Sir William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Baird, John George Alexander

Edwards, Frank

Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a,

Baldwin, Alfred

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jones, William(Carnarvonshre

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Ellis, John Edward

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. f (Denbigh

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidst'ne

Kimber, Henry

Balfour. Rt Hn. Gerald W. (L'ds

Evans Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Kitson, Sir James

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Knowles, Lees

Banbury, Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Labouchere, Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Alien Benjamin

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lambert, George

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fanqusarson, Dr. Robert

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Lawrence, Wm F. (Liverpool)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lawson, John Grant.

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Finch, George H.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bill, Charles

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Black, Alexander William

Fisher, William Hayes

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Bond, Edward

Fison, Frederick William

Leng, Sir John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Levy, Maurice

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

Lewis, John Herbert

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Brassey, Albert

Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W

Long, Col. Charles W.(Eveshsam

Brigg, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Long, Rt. Hn. Waher(Bristol, S)

Broadhurst, Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fuller, J. M. F.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Garfit, William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Port smouth

Brown. Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdona, John Cumming

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Burt, Thomas

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH ml'ts

M'Arthnr, William (Cornwall)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Caine, William Sproston

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Caldwell, James

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Cameron, Robert

Grant, Corrie

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Causton, Richard Knight

Greston, John

Mansfield. Horace, Rendall

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mather, Sir William

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Gunter, Sir Robert

Max well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W, Brampton

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Ham, Edward

Meysey-Thomp-on, Sir H. M.

Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Coddington, Sir William

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Ld G. (Midd'x

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hardy, Laurence Kent, Ashf'rd

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morley. Charles (Breconshire

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morrell, George Herbert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Morrison, James Archibald

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Heath, James(Staffords. N. W.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Helme, Norval Watson

Moss, Samuel

Cremer, William Randal

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Crombie, John William

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hagginbottom, S. W,

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Myers, William Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Runciman, Walter

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Newnes, Sir George

Russell, T. W.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wallace, Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

O'Brien, Kendal, Tip'erary, Mid

Schwann, Charles E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Parker, Ebenezer

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Welby, Sir Chasles G. E.(Notts.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, George (Norfolk)

Pease Herbert Piker, (Darlingt'n

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tynes'd

Whiteley, J H.(Ashtonund, Lyne

Philipps, John Wynford

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pierpoint, Robert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Soares, Ernest J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pirie, Duncan V.

Spear, John Ward

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Plummer, Walter R.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spencer, Sir E. (W Bromwich)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Price, Robert John

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pym, C. Guy

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Rankin, Sir James

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull. W.)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

Rea, Russell

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

Remnant, James Farquharson

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Tennant, Harold John

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'sfield

Renwick, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalyb'dge

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Younger, William

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomson, F. W.(York, W. R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Robertson, Samuel (Sheffield)

Thornton, Percy N.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tomkinson, James

Tellers for the Ayes—

Rollit, Sir Albert Kays

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Sir William Anson and

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Toulmin, George

Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flower, Ernest

Percy, Earl

Bignold, Arthur

Galloway, William Johnson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Carew, James Laurence

Greene, Sir E W(By S. Edm'nds

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hutlon, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Charrington, Spencer

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Wylie, Alexander.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cranborne, Viscount

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Tellers for the Noes—

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir, T.(Man'r

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr.

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

James Hope.

Question, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR LLOYD-GEORGE, in moving an Amendment of which Dr. Macnamara had given notice, said that this Amendment raised t e very important question of religious freedom and equality. He was not aware of any day college at the present moment where there was any occasion for this Clause at all. If the day schools were perfectly willing to admit Nonconformists
1118
under the conditions indicated, he did not see why residential colleges should not be compelled to do so as well. They did not want instances like those which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had referred to repeated too often. He thought it reflected discredit on religion itself when they forced children to nominally accept a faith which they did not believe, only to get admission into a college subsidised by the State. He trusted the First Lord of the Treasury would see his way to accept the Amendment.

1119
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 13, after the word 'college,' to insert the words 'including any day or residential college for the training of teachers.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid there was no objection to the principle of this Amendment. He hoped the hon. Member would not insist on moving the Amendment now. He himself was strongly of opinion that it was unnecessary, either here or on the interpretation clause.
DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the definition of "college" would be sufficient to include a day college and a residential college.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid his impression was that it was not necessary, hero or in the interpretation clause, to give the definition; but if there was any idea that it was necessary, it would be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the object of the Amendment he rose to move was to put boarders or residential scholars in the same position as those who attended these secondary schools as day scholars for instruction. It seemed to him that there should be no division of qualification on the part of those who were compelled by the force of circumstances to reside in the wards of a secondary school and those who were merely day scholars. He believed that a great many of the secondary schools which were recognised as such by the Education Department already practically worked on that basis. He had made inquiry in regard to two schools in Bedford, and had found that they were conducted on a perfectly undenominational basis, and there was nothing in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman might not accept. The necessity for an Amendment of this kind was that in sparsely-populated districts parents would be compelled to send their boys and girls to such schools, because they could not get the educational advantages of these schools on any other condition, and thereby they would be placed at a disability. It was a reasonable Amendment, and therefore he begged to move it.
1120
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 15, to leave out the words 'attending as a day or evening scholar.'"—(Mr. George White.)
Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the Committee would agree to keep this part of the Clause as it stood. It had been arranged that in schools provided by a local authority there should be no denominational formulary used, but the Committee were now dealing with grammar and other schools, where, as most Members knew, it was necessary, for school discipline, to keep up a certain form of religious instruction and to follow the religious observances of a particular denomination. There was a clear distinction in the cases, which legislation should recognise, and such an Amendment would upset necessary arrangements for proper management. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he supported the Amendment, and urged hon. Members who took an interest in religious freedom in secondary schools to do the same. After the very conciliatory and wise attitude displayed by the First Lord of the Treasury in dealing with the previous question, he had been rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had refused this modest concession of a conscience clause—not the Cowper-Temple clause—in regard to this class of schools aided by the local authority. Supposing the local authority were anxious to aid a sectarian school like Lancing College, in Sussex, which was of a very High Church character, but which, from the amenities of its situation, and the effectiveness of its educational training, might well attract pupils from all parts — why should not the parents of pupils who did not care for the religious observances there, have the slender protection of a conscience clause? A conference of ecclesiastics was recently held at Lambeth, which dealt with the question of confession, and oilier matters. The question naturally arose as to the use of j confession in secondary schools. Most

1121
divergent opinions were expressed. There were head masters present who said that confession was desirable for boys, while others condemned it in the strongestterms. He asked any fair-minded man who took a broad view of the rights of parents, and the desirability of maintaining a real religious spirit in secondary education, whether it was not desirable that there should be the protection of a conscience clause in schools of that kind, where the practice of confession and of other religious rites of a similar character might be introduced. At that conference the opinion of the late Archbishop Benson was quoted. He said that he would not give a vote for a head master who would insist on confession being used in his school. He did not say that it was imposed in any school, for he had no evidence to that effect; but even if some parents wanted their sons to be trained to confession, other parents who objected should have the benefit of a conscience clause for their sons, and their sons should be protected from practices indistinguishable from the Roman Mass. The character of such a school could not be destroyed by exempting a few children from attending and taking part in such religious services.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he did not think it was quite sufficient for the First Lord to say that in all these secondary schools they had a canon of regulations to maintain, and that if a conscience clause were introduced it would completely upset those regulations. He did not suppose that any of the schools to which the, right hon. Gentleman had referred had ever received a shilling from public funds, but if the schools were to be subsidised at the public expense, they ought to go on a now principle. He supposed that in a great many places the manner in which the local authority would aid such schools would be by establishing scholarships through the primary schools. Take Lancing College, in Sussex, which was a good school giving a most admirable education. Suppose that school was the one convenient school to which boys who had won those scholarships could conveniently be sent. The question for the parent and the boy would be whether they were to make use of the scholarship or not. The probability was that if
1122
they made use of the scholarship the boy would have to go to a school where religious teaching was entirely contrary to the convictions of the parent, and to those in which the boy had been brought up. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had said that it was an outrage on a parent that he should not be able to secure that character of religions teaching which he might choose his child to receive. Whether that was correct or not, surely, when they were giving a scholarship to a boy from an elementary school, the condition should not be imposed that he should not receive that education without also receiving certain religious denominational education.
SIR JOHN GORST: Let him go somewhere else.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it was all very well to say that he might go somewhere else, but in many cases it would be impossible to send him somewhere else. The school nearest to the parents' house might be the most convenient and desirable school in every other point except the religious teaching, and to compel him to accept that religious teaching, which might be against the convictions of his parents and himself, would be an infinitely greater outrage than that referred to by the noble Lord. He felt sure that, without endangering the management of these schools, some protection could be given in this matter.
MR. LLOYD MORGANthought that the schools to which the First Lord of the Treasury had referred were not the schools which were likely to come under the Clause at all. The case to which he would like to draw attention was that of a man who desired to send his son as a boarder to a rate-aided school in his own town. In such a case as that, it was very hard that there should not be the protection of the conscience clause. This man might have been contributing to the rates for years, and yet, if he were a man with strong Nonconformist convictions, although he had made great sacrifices to maintain the schools, his son was not to be allowed to go to the school unless he violated his conscience. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the attitude he had taken up with regard to this matter.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he desired to give an illustration of how this Amendment would affect this matter, by a case which was within his own knowledge. A strong Unitarian sent his two girls to a secondary school for special training. In the summer time they were able, on their bicycles, to go daily from their father's house to the school, and were, therefore day pupils, and were protected by the conscience clause. But in the winter they were obliged to board with one of the masters of the school, and the effect of this Clause would be that during the summer time the girls would be protected, but during the winter they would lose such protection. He was certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not desire an in-and-out arrangement of that kind.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid they would be protected during the winter.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsubmitted that they would not be under the clause as it stood at present. The case was one which would press very hardly upon rural scholars. The Vice-President said let them go somewhere else; that, no doubt, would be easy enough to do in a town, but in the rural districts there was no other school to go to. Why should not a man who had peculiar religious views have this protection given to his children? He was quite at a loss to understand why a distinction should be drawn between day scholars and boarders.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that this was a point which had arisen when the first Endowed Schools Act was discussed in Parliament, and there was no doubt at all that, although, as the Vice-President had said, the number of these cases was relatively few, cases might occasionally be met with where there was considerable hardship. It was hard to suggest the exact way out of this difficulty, but the framers of the Endowed Schools Act dealt with it by means of the 16th Section of that Act. His experience was not sufficient to say how far the 16th Section had been successful in dealing with it, but possibly the Vice-President, or the hon. Gentleman representing the Charity Commissioners, might
1124
be able to throw some light upon the question, and, at a later stage, it might be possible to frame some clause upon the principle of that Section to give relief in this case. If the Amendment was pressed to a division. he should support it, because when these cases arose they showed how far the Conscience Clause really went. He hoped that before the Bill assumed its final shape, something would be done to remedy this evil.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid if the Government would, by some alteration of the wording, place boarders arid day and evening scholars on exactly the same footing with regard to day religious instruction, the difficulty would be to some extent met. It was clearly unfair that because a scholar happened to be a boarder he or she should be obliged to attend for religious instruction, when another scholar who happened to be a day scholar was under no obligation to attend.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSrecognised that from the point of view of discipline there was some difficulty in the matter, but insisted that they were creating here what would no doubt be a disability on some parents. They were in a morass, and would remain there so long as they allowed these formularies to be taught in schools which were rate-aided schools, which schools might be the only schools, or, at all events, the only convenient schools, to which a man could send his children. He supported the Amendment.
MR. MOSSalso supported the Amendment. He said there were a hundred reasons which might be suggested for a parent sending his boy to a particular school, and there might be extreme cases when it was desirable that a boy should be a boarder in a school in the same town in which his father lived, though those cases were extremely rare. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could point to any case under the Welsh Act which did not work well, and he thought the acceptance of this Amendment would involve no practical difficulty whatever in working.
MR. C. P. SCOTThoped the First Lord of the Treasury would sec his way to make some concession on this point. It was a case of real hardship which should receive some consideration. He urged that these schools should be placed in as good a position now with reference to religious teaching as they were by the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. By the Act of 1869, it was expressly laid down that when a parent or guardian wished a child to be exempted from religious instruction in an endowed school, and the governing body of the school were unwilling that that should be done, it should be the duty of the governing body to make proper provision for the attendance and exemption of such child as a day scholar. That was done with regard to schools where there was no question of a contribution of public money. Here they were aiding with public money denominational schools, and they did not even give Dissenting parents the same protection as was given by the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. It was neither reasonable nor defensible that the Dissenting parent should not be protected, to this extent, and an Amendment might easily be framed which would mitigate the serious evil.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, NE

Bond, Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bousfield, William Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Crossley, Sir Savile

Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden

Brassey, Albert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Ambrose, Robert

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.

Delany, William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bull, William James

Dickson, charles Scott

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Butcher, John George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Baird, John George Alexander

Carew, James Lawrence

Dillon, John

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Baldwin, Alfred

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Donelan, Cap. A.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r.

Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire

Doogan, P. C.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cayzer, Sir (Charles William

Doughty, George

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Banbury, Frederick George

Charington, Spencer

Duke, Henry Edward

Bartley, George C. T.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

Beckett, Ernest William

Coddington, Sir William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Beresford, L'rd Charles William

Conen, Benjamin Louis

Faber, George Denison, York

Bignold, Arthur

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bigwood, James

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bill, Charles

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ (Manc'r

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Finch, George H.

Boland, John

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MR. BRIGGasked what would be the effect of this Amendment upon those schools which had been recognised and which had already the Conscience Clause under the Endowed Schools Act.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the schools reorganised under the Endowed Schools Provisions of the Charity Commission would not be affected by this clause. The scholars would have the same protection under the schemes as they now had.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite prepared not to divide the Committee upon this question if the right hon. Gentleman would meet him upon the matter. He thought, however, there was a great evil to be remedied, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to meet him, he had no alternative but to go to a division.
(5.18.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 273.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

Reddy, M.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowe, Francis William

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd. Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Redmond, William (Clare)

Flaunery, Sir Forte-cue

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Reid, James (Greenock)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Flower, Ernest

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Renwick, George

Flynn, James Christopher

Maconochie, A. W.

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Slalybridge

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinl'gh, W.

Ropner, Col Robert

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlt's

M'Kean, John

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Goschen, Hn. GeorgeJoachim

Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriesh're

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Seely, Maj. J. E.B. (IsleofWight

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hain, Edward

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hall, Edward Marshall

Moonev, John J.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morrell, George Herbert

Spear, John Ward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. Midd'x

Morrison, James Archibald

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hatch, Ernest, Frederick Geo.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stock, James Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy John

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sullivan, Donal

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Myers, William Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Thornton, Percy M.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Tufnell, Lieut.-ColonelEdward

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Tally, Jasper

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid

Valentia, Viscount

Horner, Frederick William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hoult, Joseph

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

Hozior, Hn James Henry Cecil

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Malley, William

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

O'Mara, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Jebb, SirRichard Claverhouse

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Johnston, William (Belfast)

O'Shee, James John

Wills, Sir Frederick

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Parker, Gilbert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

Pease, HerbertPike (Darlingt'n

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kimber, Henry

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Knowles, Lees

Percy, Earl

Wylie, Alexander

Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Young, Samuel

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Plummer, Walter R.

Younger, William

Lawson, John Grant

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Leamy, Edmund

Pretyman, Ernest George

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Pym, C. Guy

Tellers for the Ayes—

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rankin, Sir James

Sir William Walrond and

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Mr. Anstruther.

Lewellyn, Evan Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Broadhurst, Henry

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Black, Alexander William

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Brigg, John

Burt, Thomas

1128

1129

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Caine, William Sproston

Hutton, Altred E. (Morley)

Runciman, Walter

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann Charles E.

Cameron, Robert

Joicey, Sir James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, David Brynm'r(Sw'nsea

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cremer, William Randal

Kitson, Sir James

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Crombie, John William

Lambert, Sir James

Soames Arthur Wellesley

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

Dewar, John A. (Inverness sh.

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, Harold John

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

Edwards, Frank

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Elibank, Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Ellis, John Edward

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

M'Kenna, Regmald

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Mansfield, Herace Rendall

Tomkinson, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Toulmin, George

Fenwick, Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan Charles Philips

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mather, Sir William

Wallace, Robert

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

Foster, Sir Michael(L'nd'n Uuiv

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

Morley, Charles (Brecoushire)

Weir, James Galloway

Fuller, J. M. F.

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Newnes, Sir George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Pease, J. A. Saffron Walden)

Wilson, Henry J.T (York, W. R.

Hardie, J. Keir(M'rthyrTydvil

Philipps, John Wynford

Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Rea, Russell

Helme, Norval Watson

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Tellers for the Noes

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Rigg, Richard

—Mr. George White and

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, John H. (Denhighs.

Mr. Corrie Grant.

MR. MANSFIELDsaid that a teacher, in order to secure a position in an elementary school, had often to undertake certain duties which were not compatible with those of the teaching profession, and which certainly ought not to be allowed to be made a condition of service. The object of the Amendment he was about to move was to prevent a similar practice obtaining in connection with secondary schools. He quoted advertisements from the Schoolmaster in which such qualifications as the possession of a good bass voice and ability to play the harmonium or organ were required in candidates for the positions offered.
SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member applied to elementary schools.
MR. MANSFIELDfeared that, unless his Amendment were accepted, a similar state of things would arise in connection with secondary schools. The employment of a teacher should depend upon
1130
his capacity as a teacher, not upon his ability to play the harmonium or organ, to clean the windows of the church, or to look after a pony. Under such conditions the best men did not get the best places, and the education of the nation suffered. If the Church required these other services to be performed, she should be willing to pay for them in a proper way to a proper person. It might be argued that it would be difficult to enforce the Amendment. The Committee ought not to trouble about that; their first duty was to protect the teacher and enable him to discharge the duties for which he was trained by the State, without having these subsidiary engagements tacked on as conditions of service.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words, 'No teacher shall be required, as a condition of his or her employment, to attend, or abstain from attending, any Sunday school or place of worship, or perform any duties other than those pertaining to education.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

1131
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had imported a controversy from the sphere of primary education, where it might perhaps exist, into the sphere of secondary education, where, he ventured to say, it had never been heard of. The hon. Member had not brought forward a single case from a secondary school where any grievance existed of the character he desired to expose. There were plenty of secondary schools carrying on their operations under the public eye, and if there had been any likelihood of such a grievance developing, it would surely have developed ere now; but never did he hear any complaint of the kind alluded to. Apart from that, even if the grievance existed, the words of the Amendment were not such as the Government could accept, because they would prevent a master from teaching in a school on Sunday. Why should he not teach on Sunday? In no school that he had attended was he so fortunate or unfortunate as to escape lessons on Sundays. He had heard of secondary school teachers having been engaged because of their athletic as well as their scholastic qualifications. Athletics were perhaps being carried to excess in education, but their pursuit was a thing which those who had been watching the trend of opinion on the Continent, at least, would not venture to despise; and he should be sorry that no such qualification should be taken into account in engaging secondary teachers. But the main grievance mentioned by the mover of the Amendment could not possibly arise. Who had ever heard of a secondary teacher being engaged to play the organ? The grievance complained of had reference to a wholly different state of things, and, while he did not deny that this contention might be relevant to another part of the Bill, he ventured to suggest that it was not relevant to this clause.
MR. BRYCEsaid that he should be disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not relevant, had it not been for the great change recently introduced into the popular conception of what was elementary education and
1132
what was secondary education, since the appearance of Mr. Cockerton with his magic wand. So many schools which were formerly considered elementary were now considered secondary, that he was not sure that the grievances covered by the Amendment might not arise, though he quite agreed that up to the present there had been no cause of complaint. Take, for instance, the higher grade schools. They sprang up in urban districts and large towns, and very often they would be connected with the parish, and the incumbent might think that he would be able to get the type of teacher he wanted in connection with the higher grade schools; and under those circumstances he could imagine conditions of that kind being imposed. It was only within the last year or so that this grievance could have arisen. This Amendment was a reasonable one, and he did not see why the Committee should not agree to it. The right hon. Gentleman said that his hon. friend's Amendment dealt with another part of the Bill, and perhaps it would have been better if these points had been raised separately. The teaching in the Sunday schools raised a different kind of question whether it ought to be settled in this way or not. It certainly ought to be settled in different grounds. It was quite true that in many kinds of secondary schools Scripture lessons were given on Sundays, but then they were not Sunday schools, but part of boarding establishments. The teaching of lessons on Sunday at a school like Harrow was not a Sunday school in the ordinary acceptance of the term, but it was part of the usual programme of education carried out on Sundays as well as week days, and it would not be covered by his hon. friend's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman objected to restricting teachers from performing other duties besides those appertaining to education. This was an extraordinary instance of the new development which education had taken, and nowadays it appeared to be a greater recommendation, in applying for an assistant mastership, if the candidate was a good cricketer or footballer than if he were merely first in classics. He did not think that overcame his hon. friend's objection, because he understood

1133
that coaching in cricket and other recreation, and giving the boys encouragement for playing games was now considered as part of their education. Although the grievance might not be one which they had had experience of in the past, it was one which would probably arise, and his hon. friend was quite right in bringing the mutter before the Committee.
MR. LEVYsaid he had a similar Amendment lower down on the Paper. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury rather minimised the difficulties that were likely to arise, for there was a large number of teachers in various parts of the country who believed that trouble would arise, and that they would be called upon to perform duties for which they were not paid. He thought the First Lord might apply the principle, "Six days shalt thou labour, and the seventh day rest." With regard to secondary and technical education, he could see no reason why the First Lord of the Treasury should not accept such an Amendment, which would not impose hardship upon anybody. He was perfectly certain difficulty would arise unless they had some such safeguard as was provided by the Amendment. The First Lord spoke of the teaching in boarding schools being the same as in Sunday schools, but he hardly thought the Amendment would necessitate any relinquishment of teaching in boarding schools. He earnestly hoped the First Lord would accept the Amendment and afford the teachers of the country the safeguards they were entitled to, and which they so much desired.
MR. CAINEsaid he was sorry that none of those hon. Members representing the school master element were present to speak up for the grievances which undoubtedly existed amongst that body of men. He knew that schoolmasters dreaded in more than anything else the imposition of these extra pieces of work given to them in denominational schools. It should be made absolutely clear in the Bill that when teachers were engaged it should be for their teaching only, and the imposition of other duties should be mad quite impossible. It was a notorious fact amongst those who took interest in educational work that the inferiority of
1134
the teachers in denominational schools was due to the fact that the best teachers greatly preferred the board schools, be cause these extra duties were not imposed upon them. Therefore the best men went into the board schools, and the denominational schools had to take the leavings of the profession instead of the picked men. It was extremely hard upon a man after teaching all through the week that he should be asked to work in the seventh day. Six days' work was enough for anybody, and it was most unfair that they should have these extra tasks thrown upon them. He trusted that the Leader of the House would accept this Amendment.
MR. HENRY J. WILSONspoke of numerous complaints from teachers. Quite recently he had had a long letter from a schoolmaster, who authorised him to state his name if necessary, in which he complained in the most grievous manner, and cited all the parishes round in which this difficulty was constantly raised, and in which denominational school teachers suffered the greatest possible hardships as compared with board school teachers. This man was obliged to constantly play the organ, and he had never had one Sunday off for twelve years, and for all this he got £10 per year. He thought they should have some assurance in the Bill that this persecution should not be extended to the schools they were dealing with. If there was no fear about it, this Amendment would do no harm, and the teachers would be protected against the disabilities which they laboured under.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had objected to this Amendment on the ground that it might apply to elementary education but not to secondary education. He wished to point out that by this very Bill he was transferring from primary to secondary education a large number of schools which would be governed by this clause. The whole of the higher-grade schools would be affected, and it was not at all an unusual thing that in districts where voluntary schools covered the whole field of elementary education, the voluntary school managers ran higher-grade schools as well as

1135
strictly elementary schools, so that there was already existing, the moment this Bill was passed, large spheres in which teachers would require the protection of this Amendment. That, he thought, removed one of the main grounds on which the First Lord had declined to accept this Amendment; on the larger ground he would appeal to him that it was not good for the teachers or the managers of the schools that they should have the power to require certain other duties from a teacher different from the educational function that he was really supposed to perform. It was really in effect the Truck Act under another guise. There was nothing that that House had been more careful about in its legislation than to see that the Truck Act was not avoided. He yielded to no man in his estimation of the importance of having the best men in the teaching profession, which he considered was the highest of all, but, nevertheless, there remained in this profession an anomaly which long ago they had driven out of every other form of employment. They were imposing a test which was in some ways worse than a religious test. He knew many cases where teachers had left Church schools because they would have greater freedom in the public schools. They could not submit to the petty tyranny which was carried on in the way, very often, of imposing on them duties which were extraneous to their school work.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid this was really a matter of contract. The contract of the teacher was to teach, not to attend church and Sunday school. He therefore thought the teachers should receive legal protection in this matter.
MR. TREVELYANsaid a clause of this kind would not be necessary in secondary schools. There was no reason to fear that it would interfere with the work of the secondary schools as they at present existed. He suggested that the First Lord of the Treasury might accept an Amendment which stood lower down on the Paper in the name of the Member for Halifax, to the effect that no teacher should be required, as a condition of his employment, to make a declaration of religious belief.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed that probably at the present moment this was not a grievance of any practical importance; but the Bill changed the whole situation. It was setting up a system of State-aided secondary education substantially for the first time. That system would develop and grow until probably secondary education would be aided to the same extent as primary education was at the present moment. What was the situation with regard to primary education when we had the old Education Acts? Even sectarian schools were aided to some extent, just as the secondary schools were now. The grants by the State were comparatively trivial; they were just little aids to help them along. That was exactly the case now with regard to secondary education. The bulk of the expense came out of denominational endowments, subscriptions, and fees, and it was only a comparatively small amount that came out of the pocket of the State. Now the primary schools were maintained almost exclusively by the State, and that was what would happen with the secondary schools. Year by year the proportion from the State would increase, and the proportion out of the pockets of the denominations would grow less and less. They ought to introduce proper principles at the start. There was nothing to prevent a private venture school being converted into a higher-grade school under this Bill. What did that mean? Three-fourths of the expenditure of the school would come out of the funds of the State. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that a large sum was for the first time to be devoted by the State to secondary education in this country. He thought, therefore, they were entitled to ask for the protection of teachers in schools which would really become State schools, He knew of cases in primary schools in which the teacher, as a condition of his employment, had to engage himself to play the organ on Sunday and teach in the Sunday school, and became practically church secretary or a kind of under curate. That was perfectly unfair to the teacher himself. He had received a letter from a teacher, who mentioned the circumstances in connection with two adjoining parishes.

1137
In one parish there was a board school, and the teacher was perfectly free on Saturday and Sunday. The organist there, not the teacher, was engaged at a salary of £90 a year. The teacher was perfectly free to recruit himself, in order that he might bring a fresh mind to bear on the work of teaching the children on Monday. What about the adjoining voluntary school? There the teacher was a poor drudge. On Saturday he had to pre pare the work for the Sunday—he had to consult the parson and the parson's wife as to the work for Sunday, he had to train the church choir, and on Sunday he had to play the organ. He got £5 for the job—that was for the work in. respect of which the other man got £90 a year.
MR. WOLFF: Hear, hear!
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwondered whether the hon. Gentleman opposite would care to work for that sum. Was that the principle on which he entered into the great "combine" with the Americans? He did not think the hon. Gentleman's views were so small as to the remuneration he should receive there. Probably the hon. Member would defend that on the ground of freedom of contract. Why should not these poor teachers be in a position to make their bargain for themselves?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the question of teachers in elementary schools is not before the Committee at all. The hon. Member seems to be going rather far from the Amendment now before the Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEbegged pardon. What he was pointing out was that what was formerly primary education was transferred to this part of the Bill, and the cost to the State would be £200,000 or £300,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: £500,000.] He was understating his case, as he generally did.
SIR JOHN GORST: That is not correct.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not think figures really mattered. The great thing was that important branches of education which were formerly characterised as elementary, were transferred now to secondary education. What he contended was that a system which had been allowed hitherto in connection with primary education ought not to be imposed in regard to secondary education in future. He was simply giving a case.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the case which the hon. Member refers to that of a teacher in a higher-grade school or a continuation school?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEbelieved it was a secondary school, but he could not say at the present moment. He was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for straightening his argument on that point. It might happen in the future that a teacher in a higher grade or evening continuation school, both of which were transferred by the Bill to the domain of secondary education, might be called upon to perform duties similar to those he had described as a condition of his employment. If the right hon. Gentleman said that no such case now existed, would he have any objection to preventing a case of the kind occurring in the future? He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had no objection on principle to preventing conditions of that kind being imported into contracts in the appointment of teachers.
MR. BALFOUR: I have the strongest objection to this Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was putting the matter on a totally different ground. He had understood that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the Amendment as superfluous, but now it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman challenged it on the ground of principle. Well, then, on the question of principle he maintained that it was unfair to ask teachers to devote themselves to anything as a matter of contract and engagement other than school work, and to compel them to do anything outside their educational labours.

1139
The right hon. Gentleman said, supposing that in engaging a teacher the condition was imposed that they were to partake in the athletics of the school. But, as his right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen had shown, athletics was a part of education. That was our English system, which the Germans were always pointing to, and which, they argued, should be copied in Germany from English practice. Athletics were a part of both secondary and primary education in this country, so that the right hon. Gentleman's argument fell to the ground. But there was another reason why athletics did not form an analogous case. A master engaged in the athletic field on a Saturday afternoon was indulging in a healthful recreation; he was improving his own health, and it made him all the better in mind for the discharge of his scholastic duties. But if they compelled him to play the organ, to train the church choir, to teach in the Sunday school, and organise all the church service, he was perfectly worthless by the Sunday evening, his energies being depleted. It was their business to get a good sound system of secondary education, and not to get a good organist for the Anglican parish church. It was for that reason that he supported very strongly the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. YOXALLrose to continue the discussion, when—
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Question again proposed.
MR. YOXALLsaid he hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would not think that the case for this Amendment depended entirely on what took place in primary schools. He wished to point out to the Committee that the matter went further, and that the Amendment was perfectly related to the case of secondary schools. In the majority of the great public schools and principal grammar schools, the head masters were
1140
men in Holy Orders. It was an obnoxious and undignified rule that the masters in these schools' had to put on the livery of another profession before they could get on in their own. The denominational test went almost further in the secondary than in the primary schools. It extended to the ushers, house-masters, and second masters, who were required to be members of the Church of England. They might not be required to take Holy Orders in the Anglican Church, but they must go to church; it might not be to Sunday school, but to the Sunday morning lectures on theology. It was, against the extension of that principle which this Amendment was directed. Proposals have been made for the development of secondary education in rural districts, by adding in primary schools what was called a "secondary top." That system had been adopted in the north of Scotland with great success, especially in Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. It followed that the head master was head master of both the schools—the primary and the "secondary top." Now, in England many of the primary schools might be denominational schools—Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Wesleyan, and as it was desirable that the head master of the one branch should be head master of the other, the danger might arise that the head master would be required to take part in Anglican denominational practices. That was a circumstance which deserved the consideration of the Committee.
MR. HUGH SMITHsaid he could not allow the statement of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to pass without protest. For the last twenty years he had been intimately connected with a large secondary school in his district. That school had three sources of income—the fees paid by the pupils, the whisky money grant, and the grant from Imperial sources, which, taken together, paid the whole expenses of the school, and not a single penny came out of the purse of the people of the district. He believed that if all secondary schools were established on that basis, there would be no necessity for a subsidy from the denominational sources.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not see how the observations of the hon. Member were relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, which referred to the conditions to be imposed upon the teachers.
MR. HUGH SMITHsaid he was coming to that. The same rule which might apply to primary schools did not apply to their secondary schools. Their teachers had complete freedom of action on Saturdays and Sundays. They were generally University graduates, and the idea of asking such men to take up the ordinary duties of a curate to a vicar was simply ridiculous. So far as this Amendment had to do with secondary schools, it was absolutely useless, because the teachers were too much engaged with their educational work, and would have no time nor inclination to take up curates' work.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had pointed out that if the second part of the Amendment were carried out it would prevent masters from undertaking the duties of athletic instruction, which had become so much the fashion. He ventured to say that if that were the case it would be a very happy thing. The most valuable part of a boy's education was in the playground, where he learnt to control himself, and to manage his schoolfellows. He thought that the practice of masters interfering with the boys outside the school hours was a very unfortunate one. If the second part of the Amendment would stop that practice, it was a consummation devoutly to be wished.
MR. ERNESTGRAY(West Ham, N.)said he considered that the proposal to insert the proviso at this stage was most unfortunate. The proviso should be a Clause applying to the Bill as a whole, and not to one branch of it. It was not his purpose at the moment to instruct hon. Members as to what was the proper place in the Bill for the introduction of this Amendment, but he was justified in saying that this was not the proper place. Although there might be cases of this character in secondary schools, so far as his experience went they were
1142
so rare and trifling in their nature that this Amendment was not required. The point of his contention was that it was wrong to seek to insert this Amendment at this stage, which was applicable to secondary education alone. It should apply to the Bill as a whole, and not to one particular branch of it. It seemed to him that this Amendment, like many others, was moved simply in order that the Bill might be misrepresented in the country.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that they on that side would not make such imputations in regard to the action of hon. Members opposite. They had no opportunity of amending the Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested, so as to deal with it as a whole. The Bill was drawn to deal with secondary education as against elementary education, and many believed with him that there should be no distinction made between the two. They felt that it was essential to guard against an abuse which had undoubtedly existed in the case of the elementary schools.
DR. MACNAMARAthought that up to the present time the cases in which extraneous and undesired tasks had boon imposed on secondary school teachers were practically non-existent. There were, however, a great many capricious dismissals of assistant teachers in secondary schools which wore to be traced to some difficulty in the playing-field, or in connection with the church or chapel. If the words of the Amendment were accepted it would remove any difficulty in regard to this matter in future. He sincerely hoped that, whatever happened to this Amendment, nothing had been done to prejudice the case of extraneous duties imposed on elementary school teachers, which would arise later. If he thought that was the case, he would ask that this Amendment should be withdrawn; but he did not think the Amendment would have any such effect, and therefore he saw no reason why these words should not be inserted.
MR. MOSSsaid so far as he understood the opposition to this Amendment it was not based upon any principle. It was opposed in the first place because the Amendment was said to be a useless one, or if not altogether useless, that it was one that ought to be confined to primary schools.

1143
He quite agreed that the best of the secondary school teachers would not require to be protected by an Amendment of this kind, they would resist any attempt to place these duties on them, but there were people now in the elementary schools who had been compelled to undertake those extraneous duties in the past, and he did not think this Amendment did anything more than guard against things which might happen in lower grade secondary schools when they came to
receive State aid. He could not understand why the Amendment was not accepted, as it could do no harm; it violated no principles of lion. Members opposite, and that being so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
(7.13.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 269. (Division List No. 274.)

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Brassey, Albert

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Myers, William Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hambro, Charles Eric

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld G (Midd'x

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bull, William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Henderson, Sir Alexander

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Charrington, Spencer

Hogg, Lindsay

O'Malley, William

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

O'Mara, James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Howard, John (Kent, F versh'm

O'Shee, James John

Coddington, Sir William

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hntton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Percy, Earl

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Pierpont, Robert

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Platc-Higgins, Frederick

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennedy, Patrick James

Plummer, Walter R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Keswick, William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Kimber, Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Cutitt, Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Reddy, M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Laurie. Lieut.-General

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Delany, William

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawson, John Grant

Renshaw, (Charles Bine

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Leamy, Edmund

Renwick, George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

Richards, Henry Charles

Dillon, John

Leign Bennett, Henry Currie

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

Donelan, Captain A.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Doogan, P. C.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Roberts Samuel (Sheffield)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore-

Lowe, Francis William

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Duke, Henry Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Faber, George Demson (York

Maconochie, A. W.

Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight

Fardell, Sir T. George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Seton-Karr, Henry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Arthr, Charles (Liverpool)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

M'Govern, T.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Finch, George H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Smith, H C(North'mb, Tyneside

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Kean, John

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Spear, John Ward

Fison, Frederick William

Majendie, James A. H.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

FitzGerad, Sir Robert Peurose-

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfresshire

Stock, James Henry

Fletcher, Re. Hon. Sir Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentire

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flower, Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Flynn, James Christopher

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sullivan, Donal

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagn, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Paey

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mooney, John J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gore, Hn G R C Ormsby-(Salop

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Tully, Jasper

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line.

Morrell, George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E don

Mornison, James Archibald

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, Arthur H A (Deptford

Wrarde, Colonel C. E.

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm' nds

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wrelby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murphy, John

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

1146

1147

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

William's, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Young, Samuel

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Younger, William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Wills, Sir Frederick

Wylie, Alexander

Sir William Walrond and

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. WHITLEYsaid that when he put the Amendment which he now proposed to move upon the Paper, he had in his mind the particular case of King's College. Since then, however, a great change had taken place, which had in his opinion strengthened the reasons for the Amendment. For a long time protests had been raised against teachers being required to make a declaration of religious belief as a condition precedent to their employment. Since the short debate which took place on the Estimate for the grant to King's College, the announcement had been made that the governing body had, of their own accord, almost unanimously agreed to do away with the tests which had been so long the rule in that college, on the ground that the college was now playing a more important part in a new system of university education. This reason was peculiarly applicable in the case of the present education scheme. These tests did not achieve their object. The noble Member for Greenwich had spoken of excluding the foreign element from these colleges, but by putting on these tests they simply put a premium on hypocrisy. The majority of men were not born to be martyrs, and many men, rather than see their hopes of a profession dashed to the ground, subscribed to a formula which they did not believe in the least.
It being 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.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee—
  (In the Commiltee.)
  Clause 4:—
  MR. WHITLEY, resuming his speech, said that since the Amendment
  1148
  was placed on the Paper its purport had received very striking confirmation in the case of the King's College tests. These tests, against which many Members of the House had been agitating for a long period, had at last been removed, on the definite ground that King's College was going now to take its place under a system of national secondary education, and it was just on these very grounds that he made the plea for the Amendment that stood in his name. It was very necessary, if the scheme which this Bill propounded was to be a real national scheme of secondary education, that these tests, which had long been out of date, should at once and for all be removed while they were dealing this question. In the case of King's College the tests were applied to every teacher, whatever subject he wished to teach in the scheme of that college. They had been removed now by the action of the governors of that college in every department except that of theology, and he would point out that they were not requiring that in the case of a college or school which was of a distinctly Anglican character they should not make such inquiries as they might think necessary in order that their theology teaching might be of that stamp which that college had been created to teach. But that, even if his Amendment were carried, would be legitimately within the power of the governors of such a school or college. What he asked the Committee to declare was that these tests were pernicious in themselves. Tests of this kind, which were a premium on dishonesty, which discouraged the conscientious man and encouraged hypocrisy, should of all things be the very last that they should provide for or encourage when they were formulating a great new scheme of secondary education. Tests in such cases wore an encouragement to insincerity, and they had the worst possible effect on the teacher at the outset of his professional career and on the

  1149
  pupils. In some minds they produced the habit of thought termed Jesuitry, and in others free-thinking; they acted as a discouragement to the conscientious man; they encouraged hyprocrisy. He was glad to think that there were not many colleges where tests obtained, arid opportunity should be taken on the initiation of this great national reform to deal a final blow at the system. He trusted that the Government would see their way to follow the example of the governors of King's College, and in the foundation of this great new scheme of secondary education clear away once and for all the mere possibility of the imposition of these tests as a condition of the appointment of teachers in our secondary schools.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'no teacher shall, as a condition of employment, be required to make a declaration of religious belief.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the hon. Member had delivered an interesting address on the subject of religious tests, and probably the great majority of Members present shared his view. Certainly he would not attempt to defend the system. But the question for the Committee was not whether they approved or disapproved of such tests, but whether it was expedient to insert in this part of the Bill a provision that no college subjecting its teachers to such tests should receive assistance from public funds. lie should have thought that the example of King's College was a strong argument in favour of letting things alone and trusting, not to a provision in an Act of Parliament, but to the general good sense of governing bodies and the progress of enlightenment as a sufficient force to secure the disappearance of all such tests. It was clearly not an inconvenience which appeared to him to require the intervention of Parliament at all. If the Amendment were passed, it would cut off from aid institutions which were doing excellent educational work. He might instance the case of a Roman Catholic institution, the students in which were subjected to extremely rigid tests, and had to take solemn vows. The body
  1150
  to which he referred had a most excellent secondary school, attended by Protestants as well as Catholics. The Technical Instruction Board of the London County Council had provided it with the means of establishing a chemical laboratory, and good work was being done by it. Was it desirable to put a stop to work of that kind? On the ground, first, that the system of tests was generally a system which was dying out and did not. require to be killed by an Act of Parliament, and, secondly, because there were cases in which, notwithstanding the existence of religious tests, it was most desirable to promote the spread of real secular, education by means of persons who were subject to such tests, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment, and if he did, that the Committee would support the Government in resisting it.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCERsaid he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his declaration that he was in favour of the abolition, or at least of the reduction, of religious tests.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not say that. What I said was that I was not in favour of religious tests, but that I thought it was a pity to make an attempt to abolish them, as they are dying out of their own accord.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCERsaid that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman was not in favour of religious tests, and he was glad to think that the Minister for Education in that House was aware that they were dying out of their own accord. No doubt the governing bodies of many institutions did display good sense and toleration, but speaking for himself, he thought it was the duty of that House to safeguard, as far as legislation could safeguard, any test from being imposed on members of the community who might not profess the same religious views as some of the governing bodies. Religious tests were an anachronism which ought to be done away with. He trusted that the Amendment would be pressed, and that the right hon. Gentleman in his individual capacity would go into the lobby in support of it.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that, taking the country all over, probably the feeling against religious tests was rapidly growing, and what they were asking the Committee to do was to use Parliamentary power to hasten the tendency which practically everybody agreed was desirable. A generation ago nobody would have dreamt of appointing as head master of a public school any one who was not a clergyman, but now a very different view prevailed.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONdeplored the attitude taken up by the Vice President in suggesting it was not the business of Parliament to express approval or disapproval of religious tests. Unfortunately the Bill, if passed in its present form, would stamp their approval of such tests, and he thought it was really regrettable, when they were trying to put their secondary education on a satisfactory basis, that this system of tests should be allowed to continue. Schools which insisted on retaining such tests for their masters ought not to receive financial support from public funds. No doubt if they were left to chance such tests would die out, but this Clause declined to leave them to chance. Although this might be a direction or merely a piece of advice, it was extremely mandatory in its terms, and no Town Council could fail to consider the wording of the sub-section. It was an extraordinary thing that while the new and the old universities had gradually abolished these tests, the Committee should be asked, when overhauling the secondary education system of the country, to pass this provision.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid the speech of the Vice President was characteristic of most of his deliverances upon education: he was in favour of the principles advocated by the Opposition, but he always voted against them. So far as the right hon. Gentleman was personally concerned, he was in favour of the abolition of tests; here was an opportunity to give practical effect to that view. The Amendment was said to be unnecessary because the tests were dying a natural death. The object of the Amendment was to give thorn the happy despatch, and ought, therefore, to be supported by those who
  1152
  favoured the abolition of tests. Every denominational school or college was at liberty to impose any tests it pleased upon its teachers or pupils as long as it was carried on exclusively out of the funds of that denomination, but the moment State aid was accepted it lost the privilege of denominationalism and ought to open its doors freely to every citizen of the country. Oxford and Cambridge wore open to Nonconformists; why not the secondary schools? This was a matter which might very well be settled apart from Party issues, and he felt confident that if the First Lord would allow the Committee a free hand the Amendment would be carried. What would the Vice President or the Duke of Devonshire say if they had to sign a declaration of religious belief before taking office? But while those two great men wore free from theological restrictions, a teacher in one of these schools would be bound to say that he believed in this, that, or the other, before he could secure his position. That was a gross injustice, and he hoped the Committee would take this opportunity of removing it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Committee had heard the view of the Vice President on this point, and it was now time for them to hear what the First Lord thought on the matter. The debate had proceeded mainly on two points. It had been urged that when these schools came forward for an additional amount of State aid, it was only fair that that aid should be conditional upon no religious tests being imposed upon teachers. To that no answer had been given. The second point was oven more important, and would appeal to those who had had experience of this question in the universities. The great objection to these tests was that they were absolutely useless for the purpose for which they were intended. He could cite the highest authority in his own university in support of that statement. Such tests produced insincere professions of belief in men in whom sincerity was the first essential.
  MR. BROADHURSTadmitted that the assertion of the Vice President that this question of tests was a dying and diminishing one might have boon true prior to the introduction of the I present Bill, because many of the schools

  1153
  were dying schools, and were being crushed out of existence, by the superior intellectual teaching given in the higher grade schools, to which many scholars wore sent in preference to the secondary or grammar schools. Some of the higher grade schools earned from '20 to 30 per cent, more in Government grants than the grammar schools.
  SIR JOHN GORST: They can obtain grants only if they become Schools of Science.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that was exactly what numbers of them had done, and, in consequence of the competition of the higher grade schools, the grammar schools had materially improved their own teaching capacity. Under this Bill many of those dying institutions would be resuscitated by public money, and their influence revived. It was, therefore, highly important that the Amendment should be carried.
  SIR JOHN GORST: These grammar schools do not have tests.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he had never known a Nonconformist master of a grammar school. Whether the lost was by law or not, it existed, in so far as only one particular religions section obtained the appointments. If an instance to the contrary could be given, his case would fall to the ground.
  AN HON. MEMBERpointed out that at Newcastle-on-Tyne there was a Wesleyan head master of the grammar school.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that was the one swallow, but it did not make a summer; and that if an inquiry was made into the circumstances, probably good reasons would be found for the exception. Why should the possibility of a religious test be maintained in these institutions when there was no test of efficiency or fitness as regards teaching capacity? None of the masters in these schools held certificates of efficiency. The agitation of the Association of Head Masters of recent years against the higher grade schools had been because the latter had beaten them in open competition in their capacity to
  1154
  teach and fit boys for the life of commerce or trade, and the burden of their song was that no educational certificate was required from their masters. Why should there not be imposed upon every school receiving aid from public funds the necessity of each master therein having a parchment certificate of efficiency? To satisfy a religions test was one of the easiest things in the world for a man with an elastic conscience. There were many men in the House of Commons, as in every other Assembly, who, although they could pass a religious examination without difficulty, would be unable to pass a higher grade examination. The religious examination in the institutions ought to be abolished.
  SIR JOHN GORST: There is none.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that earlier in the afternoon the First Lord delivered a splendid lecture on the difference between theory and practice. This test might not exist in the book, but it certainly obtained in practice. Many of these ancient, rusty, and fossilised grammar schools would be revived under this Bill; and, with them, all their bad old practices, and it was necessary to ensure that they should not have the opportunity of putting those practices into operation.
  MR. PERKSsaid that this was a very reasonable Amendment, and one which it was the duty of all who were opposed to sectarian tests to support. He thought the country did not yet appreciate that one of the main objects of this Bill was to subsidise denominational middle - class schools all over the country. He did not agree that the practice of applying sectarian tests was quite as moribund as had been suggested. An accomplished friend of his, who was the head master of one of London's most famous schools, and one of the few who were laymen, had told him that two of the tests or qualifications of a modern head master were that he must be in holy orders and slightly bald. Another friend of his, a Balliol scholar, who had failed to obtain a head mastership, told him a few years ago that he should enter holy orders in order to comply with the religious

  1155
  tests imposed in these institutions. He did not think that was satisfactory for the progress of true religion in this country. The other day he noticed an advertisement from a little town to which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had addressed his attention, the town of Sandhurst. It was issued by a colonel, and it was stated in the advertisement that a head master was wanted who must be a "determined Churchman." He thought it was far better that these tests should not be imposed at all. They had in connection with the Wesleyan Methodist Church a large number of middle class schools, and he might be asked, "Do you propose that the great Methodist middle class schools at Folkestone, Canterbury, Har-rowgate, and elsewhere shall be relieved from any religious test?" He should be very glad indeed to remove those tests imposed on teachers in all the denominational schools of the Church to which he belonged. Probably, consideration might be paid—indeed, it would certainly be paid—to the theological tenets of the applicants in the selection of teachers for the schools connected with his Church, but he preferred to have no tests, and even run the risk of having an Anglican head master or one connected with some other denomination. Having regard to the risks they would run of having the practice of imposing religious tests developed all through the country, he thought it far better that they should put on the face of the Bill a direct prohibition against exacting religious tests from head masters and other masters of public schools aided under this Clause.
  MR. LEVYsaid that the Vice President of the Council had, against all reason, decided not to accept the Amendment, arid had given four reasons for so doing. The first reason adduced by the right hen. Gentleman was that religious tests were dying out. That proved that these tests were not in harmony with the wishes of the people, and was surely a reason why the Government should accept the Amendment. The second reason was that King's College had abandoned tests. But why? Because there had been twenty-two years agitation, during which time the Member for Islington had
  1156
  resigned his scat on the Council in consequence of the Governors maintaining religious tests. Another reason advanced was that one institution in London would be deprived of some benefit or aid or grant. That might be an injustice to one particular institution, but, after all, was it not a greater injustice to the great body of Nonconformists of this country that they should, for the purpose of maintaining aid to one institution, impose this test? Of the two evils, they should certainly choose the lesser. Auother reason advanced against the Amendment was that this was not the time or stage of the Bill to insert it. The self-same argument was used when the previous Amendment was before the House. These reasons, put forth by the Vice-President were arguments in favour of the Amendment, and, he submitted, went to show that the great majority of the people of this country, and, he believed, the majority of the House, were in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid that in his opinion these tests were absolutely contrary to public policy. The man who would subscribe to them would be of a feeble, vacillating, character, whereas the man who would stand out would be a man of firm and sterling character.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid there were two classes of schools which would be affected by this Amendment. First of all there were the old endowed schools, which were to a certain extent under public management from one point of view, and under private management from another point of view, and they were not established by the County Council. What was the position of those schools now? When his hon. friend the Member for Leicester stated that there were a great number of grammar schools where there were theological tests, he was met with contradiction by several hon. Gentlemen opposite, but his hon. friend was perfectly right. Ther6 were many of these grammar schools where there were tests, and they were exempted from the Act of 1869, because the Liberal Government of that time was met with strong opposition, and they had to make exceptions in order to pass the

  1157
  Bill through Parliament. Since 1869 there had boon a great advance in Liberal ideas in the Church party, and there had occurred the famous instance of King's College. Therefore, to say that the grammar schools were entirely undenominational in regard to the tests supplied to the teachers was to say something which was entirely incorrect. It was only because this point, which was raised by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, had been met with a flat contradiction that he had deemed it right to state exactly how the matter stood. He wished to remind the Committee that they had to consider not only the old endowed schools but also the case of the new schools. In regard to these schools he claimed that they had an unanswerable case, and the local education authority ought not to be able to hand over money to institutions of this kind unless they were willing to throw open their doors to all who wished to undertake the honourable post of teachers. This contention was the same as that which was put foward by the Liberal Party in 1869 in regard to the ancient endowments. It might be argued that those endowments were given by persons who lived long ago, and that from their point of view it was right to maintain those trusts, but that was not the case in regard to the now schools, and if these schools desired to receive assistance from the rates and taxes, they ought to be obliged to throw open their doors, and all tests should be abolished.
  MR. MOSSsaid that he had heard no argument from the other side which appealed to reason or common sense against this Amendment. Was it not light that where a grant was made for educational purposes they should at any rate take steps to secure the best men for teaching in those schools? No one could say that in the past education had been the loser by the abolition of religious tests. He did not think Oxford or Cambridge was any worse today for the Act of 1871, from whatever standpoint they cared to look at it. He was quite sure that the concensus of opinion was that both Oxford and Cambridge had gained from an educational standpoint by the passing of that Act. Let the Committee consider what the effect of the Act of 1889 had been in. Wales. Ill the Welsh
  1158
  schemes there were no religious tests at all, and the money was distributed in various ways amongst all the schools in the different counties established under the scheme. He defied any one to show that the provisions of the Act of 1889, which instituted the schemes in the different counties of Wales had not met with the most remarkable success. Education in Wales had suffered nothing by the abolition of tests, and they were now doing remarkably good work, the quality of which no one, either inside or outside the House, could challenge. They were told that this system was dying out, but did that fact not condemn the existence of the system? If so, why did they want to perpetuate such a system? Why did they not boldly say that this system should terminate, and be made impossible in all schools assisted by the State under the provisions of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that there was no grievance to relieve; but was it not a grievance that in a college one of the qualifications was not an educational but a religious one? Was it not a grievance that Nonconformists should have to pay towards the salary of a headmaster in an institution where it was made a test that he should belong to some other religious persuasion He held that that was a grievance which Nonconformists would have to contend with if this Bill became law. He contested the assertion that there was no grievance to relieve, and maintained that one exceptional instance in which difficulty had been avoided by a display of high - mindedness and liberality did not exonerate the Government from the duty of applying all round a sound general principle. It appeared to him that there was a grievance in this matter which the right hon. Gentleman, with all propriety, might relieve. If the grievance was dying out then the insertion of this provision could do no harm, and he hoped that before the end of this debate the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept, in some form or other, the principle of this Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not see why the Government objected to this Amendment. Upon this point

  1159
  he could speak from their own experience in Ireland, for when a demand was put forward in Ireland for a denominational university the representatives of the Government insisted as a primary condition of discussing the matter that there should not be any test. Anyone who would take the trouble to read the extraordinary and interesting evidence given before the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland would find there some singular and interesting facts highly creditable to the Irish Catholics. Those facts were given before the Royal Commission in order to support the claim of the Irish people to have a university for Irish Catholics. He would take as an illustration the Blackrock University College. A professor from that college gave most interesting evidence before the Royal Commission, in which he stated that although he was a Unitarian from Belfast he had been the senior professor of classics in the Blackrock Catholic College, which was under the control of Catholic priests, and to which not one penny of public money was contributed. That gentleman was now the President of the Unitarian University College in Belfast, and for seven or eight years he held the position of Professor of Classics in the Blackrock Catholic College. He wanted to know why, if a Catholic College in Ireland which had never got a single penny of public money, did not find it difficult to entrust the teaching of its pupils to a Protestant, there should be such a difficulty in abolishing the test in Church colleges in this country. He instanced the case of the college in St. Stephen's Green in connection with the Jesuit Order, where several of the professors had always been Protestants. As he understood the Amendment there was no compulsion put on the governing bodies of the colleges to appoint any particular man. They would still have absolute power, if they were so disposed and were so intolerant, to appoint nobody but men of their own religion. He should be astonished if they were to be told that in Protestant England the governing bodies of colleges which received support from public money were not to be left free to appoint men of great ability to be masters because they
  1160
  were of a different complexion of Protestantism from the governing bodies. The situations appeared to him to be an extraordinary one, and so far as the Irish Party were concerned, they would heartily support the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEconfirmed the statement of the hon. Member as to the attitude of the Roman Catholic church by quoting a similar case from the United States. Hon. Members on this side were surprised that no argument against the Amendment had come from the Ministerial side of the House. It was not easy at this time to get up an argument in favour of theological tests. It was not easy, above all, to get up an argument against an Amendment which did not perhaps abolish all theological tests, but only proposed that public money should not be paid where theological tests existed. They fought and won this battle in 1871. The university tests were a superannuated absurdity, which narrowed the field of choice of competent men, laid a trap for weak consciences, and gave no guarantee that after all the choice made would be the man wanted. The Opposition would certainly renew this contest on every occasion, because nothing would do more for secondary education than the extinction of these tests.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid that on the Opposition side of the House they had reason to complain that, notwithstanding the unanswerable case they had made out for this Amendment, they had practically attempted no answer to it. The Vice-President of the Council had said that he did not believe in religious tests, but he was going to vote for their continuance.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I said nothing of the sort.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid he was glad to hear that, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be found in the lobby in favour of the Amendment. If the Government attitude was that they did not like religious tests, it was hardly consistent that they should continue them. The question was whether these tests existed or not. They had heard that there was one grammar school in

  1161
  which a Nonconformist had been appointed as headmaster, but that was one of the reformed grammar schools which did not come in the category referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester. He knew a case in which a young man who had all the educational qualifications necessary for an appointment was told that he could not have the post because he was not a clerk in holy orders. If there was only that case in the country, he considered a case was made out for passing the Amendment.
  MR. EDWARDSsaid he thought the Government had no objection to the principle of the Amendment, but he was sorry to say that they were inconsistent in not accepting it, inasmuch as the Bill provided that no scholars in these schools were to be liable to tests. How, then, could they subject the masters who were to teach in the schools to tests? If the scholars were to be free from tests the masters ought to be in the same position.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this was really a very important Amendment. The principle of the Amendment had not been assailed at all by those who refused to accept it. The Government did not defend the principle of tests; on the contrary they deprecated it. The only speech made on the Amendment from the Ministerial side had thrown over tests. The Vice President had declared that he was opposed to the imposition of these tests. Then why on earth did the Government not accept the Amendment, and so save any further waste of time? He would like to ask the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich whether, if he were the manager of a school, he would not prefer a competent teacher who might not be a Member of the Church of England to an incapable teacher who was a Member of that Church?
  LORD HUGH CECILasked the hon. Member whether in any circumstances he would appoint a Roman Catholic teacher in a Nonconformist school.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said: Certainly, if he were the better man; and if the noble Lord only knew what was happening in Wales he would never have asked
  1162
  that question. In the very parish in which he (the hon. Member) lived, the whole of the members of the School Board were Nonconformists until recently, when one Churchman was elected, and yet the whole of the head teachers in the schools were members of the Church of England. Why were they appointed? For the simple reason that when the applications came before the Board it was found that the Anglican applicants were by far and away the best equipped, and no one asked a question about their creed or faith. It had strengthened the undenominational system there, and he ventured to say the same thing would happen in the denominational colleges if tests were abolished.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he heartily hoped that this Amendment, which had nothing whatever dangerous about it, would be accepted. No compulsion was proposed, no one's hands were to be tied, no one was to be compelled to go in a given direction, and perfect freedom was to remain with the managers and trustees of these schools. It seemed to him that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were frightened of a shadow. He should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORreally hoped they might not have to go to a division on this question. It was not a tolerable position to maintain that the heads of schools should not be free, on a question of educational efficiency, to choose the best candidates irrespective of creed. There were certain subjects on which it was desirable that the teachers should be of the same creed as the heads of the school. If he were at the head of a Roman Catholic college he would not be inclined to give the professorship of history to a non-Catholic, but in the appointment of teachers of mathematics, French, and many other subjects, he would choose efficient Protestants as against inefficient Catholics. He could not understand why the hon. Member for Oxford University did not get up and say that, after all, there were some other sections besides the bigoted obscurantist section

  1163
  who seemed to wish to keep everything in the hands of one branch of the Christian Church.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he had waited to hear from the Leader of the House the reasons against the arguments which had been advanced on the opposite side. So far he had waited in vain, and his object in rising was to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, should state the ground on which the Amendment was opposed. He sat for many years on a Board of Guardians, and he regretted to say that a certain section of the Board introduced religious tests in an illegal and improper way Anyone who applied for an office of any kind had to undergo a certain amount of questioning as to the particular section of the Christian Church to which he belonged, and according to the answers he gave, his candidature was supported or opposed by those particular members. It was useless to deny that religious tests were not so completely abolished as had been suggested. There had been many instances where these practices had been carried on, and which would be stopped by the adoption of this Amendment. Unless he heard better reasons advanced against the Amendment he should feel himself compelled, however reluctantly, to vote in its favour.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid he believed that almost the whole of the Conservative Party would vote in favour of the Amendment if they were allowed to do so; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would gage thoroughly the spirit of the Committee on both sides of the House In a matter of this kind educational efficiency should first of all be considered. The object of those who supported the Amendment was to emancipate education from the thraldom of the old worn-out system of test, which struck at the root of educational efficiency. When by this Bill they were, for the first time, establishing a system of secondary education, it was important that there should be removed from it all those remnants of a dead past; and he ventured to hope the First Lord of the
  1164
  Treasury would give way and accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had been reluctant to speak on this Amendment, not because his opinions were not perfectly clear on the subject, but because he was sorry to say that he felt, after some of the proceedings of the afternoon, there was such a desire to prolong the discussion —[HoN. MEMBERS on the Opposition Benches: Oh, oh!]—that any intervention on his part really made matters worse. What the House desired was not argument, but to find in anything said from the Government Front Bench the subject of further debate. As he had been challenged from his own side, he thought it necessary to state what his view was and to support his right hon. friend the Vice President, who had already expressed the view of the Government on the subject. There appeared to be a profound misconception of what this Amendment, if carried, would effect. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had both appealed to the Government in behalf of their co-regilionists, to accept this Amendment. If it were accepted it would at a stroke of the pen deprive a great many Roman Catholic and other denominational schools of the assistance which they now got from public funds. No school in which a teacher was required to make a declaration of religious opinion would be eligible for assistance from public funds. And that was the Amendment actually supported by the hon. Members for East Mayo and the Scotland Division on behalf of their co-religionists? After all, they must regard the affairs of their own Church in such manner as they pleased, and he was not more interested in theirs than in any other form of religious education, denominational or undenominational, which was to be given in schools aided by the public authority. Several Members had told them that no business firm would think of imposing a religious test upon any business man whom they were asking to become a partner in the concern. Of course that was true. There was no relation, so far as he knew, between theological belief and business ability. Was that the case with teaching in schools where, among other things,

  1165
  religion was taught—not necessarily; denominational religion, but some religion where Bible teaching took place, where what was called the general truths of Christianity were taught? Were those schools, or were they not, to be excluded from any assistance from public funds? He believed the whole House was of opinion that they ought not. He believed it would be perfect madness to lay down a rule that a school in which religion of any kind was taught was a school which ought not to receive any assistance from public funds. He maintained that there was no body of opinion in this House which would say that no public funds should be given to schools in which the beliefs of the Roman Catholics, the Wesleyans, Bible Christians, or Jews were taught. If they once admitted that the teaching of religious matters was to be allowed, were they to deprive those who had got to select the teachers of the right of saying whether those teachers could teach the religion they were expected to teach? They talked of business. Was that business? Was it not raving lunacy? The truth was that the House in this Amendment as in many others oscillated inconsistently between two different ideals, one of which was gradually led up to by a certain section, but when the House came face to face with it it shrank back in horror. If they chose to have secular education, and nothing but secular education, then of course this Amendment would be accepted unanimously; but directly they admitted, as they must, that religious education was to have a place in these secondary schools, then he did not use too strong an expression in describing the folly of those who said that these things were to be taught, and that they were not to inquire in the competency of the people who were to teach them. He did not say that any teacher should be required to sign the thirty-nine articles or any other articles, but it would be right to find out whether he was not only an extremely competent teacher to teach secular matters, but also competent to teach religious duty. He earnestly hoped the House would not commit itself to an Amendment which made this part of the scheme utterly ridiculous.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had nothing to regret in the proceedings of that afternoon. On the contrary, all that had happened that afternoon had greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been amazed that his hon. friends the Members for East Mayo and the Scotland Division had announced that they were in favour of the Amendment. But why were they in favour of the Amendment? It was because they had some belief in the doctrines they held and that these doctrines could hold their own in spite of all tests. But in resisting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had fallen back upon all the old arguments which had been used again and again long ago against the abolition of tests in the universities. To listen to the right hon. Gentleman one would think that we were living thirty or forty years ago. He not only suspected, but he knew very well, that the right hon. Gentleman did not believe in the efficacy of tests, and was well aware of the benefits which had accrued to the country by the abolition of tests; and yet the right hon. Gentleman wished to continue the tests in the case of those schools. They on that side of the House wished to remove them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if a master was to be appointed for the purpose of instructing in religious doctrine, there ought to be some check on the religious views which he held. Without assenting even to that theory, he admitted that in the universities where tests had been abolished the theological faculties had been exempted; and if it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's scruples, perhaps his hon. friend would agree to alter his Amendment so that it might run that no teacher of a secular subject should be required as a condition of employment to make a declaration of his religious beliefs. It appeared to him that those words met all the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the Committee on the subject. For his part he objected to religious tests for whatever purpose they were employed. They were futile, insulting, and useless for the purpose. The very latest instance they had was King's College, which, finding what harm tests were

  1167
  doing to the institution, had voluntarily abolished them. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman a golden bridge, viz., that tests should not be required on all subjects in which there was no flavour of religion about them.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the First Lord refused the suggested compromise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that compromise, if he might say so with all respect, was utterly illusory. What value was there in it? All the manager of a school would have to say was that the

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Perks, Robert William

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ambrose, Robert.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Denegal, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Lay land-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Brigg, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Runciman, Walter

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Leng, Sir John

  Sandys, Lieut.'Col. Thos. Myles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Levy, Maurice

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Macnanmara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Spear, John Ward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Govern, T.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants

  Davies, M Vanghon-(Cardigan

  M'Kean, John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Delany, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dillon, John

  Mather, Sir William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Middlemore. Jno. Throgmorton

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. Edwards

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Edwards, Frank

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, John Edward

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, John

  Tully, Jasper

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds. S)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk. Mid.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Mara, James

  Young, Samuel

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. William M'Arthur

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  and Mr. Canston.

  subject for which the teacher was about to be appointed had something to do with religion. Then they would have to settle and define all subjects in which religion arose, and they had only to remember that the hon. Gentleman tin Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had declared that history was one of those subjects in which theology was involved, to guess what a mess that would land them in.
  (11.8.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 275.)

  NOES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fison, Frederick William

  Myers, William Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Nicol, Donal Ninian

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Flower, Ernest

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Garfit, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Godson Sir Augustus Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hon, A. J. (Manch'r

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Renwick, George

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilion, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bond, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Tnomson

  Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bull, William James

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wor'er

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Chapman, Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W. (Salop.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Knowles, Lees

  Stock, James Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Lord

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C.E (Taunton

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Welby, SirCharles G. E, (Notts.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Max well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Finch, George H.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Mr. Anstruther.

  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He uses the words "where authorised." By whom?
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid authorised by the manager in charge of a school. The object of his Amendment was to make it clear to managers of schools that they would not be obliged

  1171
  either to authorise, or to refuse to authorise, religious instruction. As the Amendment stood, however, he admitted it was somewhat unnecessary; but if Amendments which had been rejected by the Committee had been carried, the words would then have a meaning which they did not now possess. He only wished to make it clear to managers of schools, that they had the option of authorising or refusing to authorise religious instruction. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 22, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'where authorised.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he gathered from the hon. Member that the Amendment was conceived in view of previous Amendments which had not been accepted by the Committee. He did not think that the Amendment was one which would add anything to the meaning of the Clause. The language of the section made it clear that religious instruction was to be so arranged that any pupil could withdraw.
  Question put and negatived.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the Amendment he proposed to move was a matter of machinery. The Clause provided that the time for religious worship should be arranged conveniently to allow the withdrawal of any scholar. His Amendment was that religious instruction should be given either at the beginning or at the end of the lessons for the morning or the afternoon, except in cases of special difficulty. The most convenient time for giving religious instruction was obviously at the beginning or at the end of the school period; and, therefore, it was desirable that Parliament should state what was generally found to be the most convenient time. It was not desirable to make arrangements for a convenient time which would not result in that convenience. The words in the Clause were doubtful, and might give rise to a great deal of discussion; whereas, if the matter were defined in
  1172
  the Bill itself, it would relieve managers of a great deal of difficulty and trouble. There was an admirable precedent for the Amendment in the Elementary Education Act of 1870. Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 of that Act enacted that the time or times during which any religious observance was practised or religious instruction given should be either at the beginning or at the end of any school period. That arrangement had existed for over thirty years, and it seemed to him very desirable that it should obtain in secondary schools which would be largely made up of children who had been educated in the elementary schools, and who had been in the habit of observing it. He suggested that machinery which had worked well for thirty years in the elementary schools might also be adopted in the secondary schools.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 22, after the words 'shall be,' to insert the words 'either at the beginning or at the end of the lessons for the morning or the afternoon, except in eases of special difficulty, when they shall be.'"—(Mr. Carrie Grant.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he confessed he did not think the words of the Amendment were an improvement; but he did not attach much importance to them one way or the other. They were now dealing, not with elementary schools, but with schools which might be residential; and he did not see why the time should not be left to be conveniently arranged without any limitation. That would be the better plan.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he toped the Amendment would be accepted, because it was of considerable importance that the ordinary curriculum of a school should not be interrupted by any religious ceremony or service, or even by religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was not of any importance; but he hoped the Amendment would be accepted as it would tend to improve secular education without injuring religious instruction.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the arrangement proposed in the Amendment was in operation in two or three of the Colonies where there were denominational schools, and also in Holland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In secondary schools.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not say that; but the principle was really the same. It was a matter for the convenience of the pupils. Suppose a school opened at nine o'clock, and that religious instruction was given for half an hour, why should the pupils who did not wish to participate in religious instruction be asked to attend before half-past nine o'clock? Again, suppose that religious instruction was taken at half-past three o'clock, why should the children who did not wish to attend it not be allowed to go home. What his hon. friend wished to avoid was the giving of religious instruction in the middle of the school period, which would necessitate children who did not wish to participate walking out in the presence of the other scholars. That would be an offensive thing to compel them to do, and it would subject them to the jeers of their schoolmates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept what was a very fair and convenient arrangement.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid a great deal had been said in these discussions about the Welsh Intermediate Act, and he would therefore point out that the words of the Clause were taken from that excellent Act. Sub-section 3 of Clause 4 said that the times for prayer or religious worship, or for any lesson or series of lessons in religious subjects, should be conveniently arranged for the purpose of allowing the withdrawal of any pupil. They, therefore, had the authority of the Welsh Intermediate Act in favour of the particular form of the words in the Clause.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the whole of the Clause. He wished he had, as it would, make all the difference in the world. Under the Welsh Intermediate Act no sectarian school could be
  1174
  endowed at all, and, therefore, there was no objection to religions teaching in such a school.
  MR. LAMBERTasked why the right hon. Gentleman, having cited the Welsh Act, did not follow it all through. His hon. friend quoted a precedent from the Elementary Education Act or 1870. Surely the two things ran side by side. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there might be a difficulty as regarded residential colleges, but the Committee should remember that the number of such colleges would be very small indeed. If they wanted religious instruction to be conveniently arranged it ought to be either at the beginning or at the end of the school period, unless there was some special difficulty in the way, in which case the Education Department would decide. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, which was taken absolutely from the Elementary Education Act which had worked so well. They had all the argument on their side during the evening; and in the last division they had nearly a majority of the votes as well. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to decide the matter in freedom, they would win hands down. It was quite plain that the beginning or the end of a sitting was the most convenient time. Otherwise children who did not wish to attend religious instruction would have to go out to the playground and waste their time, an arrangement which would cast a slur upon them.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he thought that they might fairly trust those who would be responsible for the administration of the Act, and who would have a knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, to deal with the matter in a sensible manner. In Germany, religious teaching was ordinarily given at the beginning or the end of a sitting; but it was not an inflexible rule, as it was governed by circumstances. All they asked was that the same amount of freedom should be given under the Act. The managers were instructed to make such arrangements as would be most convenient; and he was perfectly sure that

  1175
  if they were left liberty, they would carry out their mandate in such a way as would best servo the interests of education.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the matter was a comparatively small one, and he himself did not think that it was a very large matter. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Committee was dealing with secondary schools, but he thought that they should be even more careful that nothing was done to offend the susceptibilities of pupils in secondary schools than in primary schools. It would be generous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment which he admitted did not raise a serious point. Surely the object of the secondary schools was secondary education; and, therefore, if religious teaching were to be added on, the better plan would be to take it at the beginning or the end of the main object for which the schools existed. If it were put into the middle, it would be like saying grace in the middle of a meal. The commonsense plan would be to have religious instruction either at the beginning or the end; and if the right hon. Gentleman assented to that arrangement, it would lessen, to some degree, the opposition to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was not a very large matter, but he thought it was of some importance that they should not arrange time tables by Act of Parliament. What was good for elementary schools which wore day schools, might not be good for secondary schools, which wore very different. Moreover
  1176
  there was a reason for putting in a compulsory time table as regarded elementary schools, because every child was bound to attend. The secondary schools would be anxious to obtain as many pupils as they could, and with that object they would arrange their time tables to suit the convenience of their pupils. That being so, there was every reason to suppose that a manager of a school would not expose a pupil of an exceptional denomination in that school to the necessity of having to walk out when religious instruction was taken.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that if everyone would show as reasonable a spirit as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, there would be no occasion to put in a time table in the Bill. What they desired to prevent was that a time table should be framed to the disadvantage of pupils who did not wish to attend religious instruction. The concession asked for was a very small one, and he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have preferred to concede it, rather than prolong the discussion.
  MR. GODDARDsaid the principal argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Amendment might affect residential students, but it should be remembered that the Bill provided for a number of new schools which would not be residential schools. Many of those schools would be more in the nature of elementary schools than secondary schools; and surely the right hon. Gentleman might well accept such a reasonable Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he would oppose the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place it would fetter the discretion of the managers; and, secondly, it would impose a rigid rule upon all secondary schools where there was no necessity for such a restriction; and would interfere with their elasticity. A uniform system such as that proposed was very valuable in primary schools, but as regarded secondary schools, he thought the managers would be the best judges.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid he did not appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member. The Amendment would not impose a rigid rule. There would be a general rule, but in a case of any special difficulty another arrangement might be adopted by the managers. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other objection, that the Amendment would interfere with the discretion of the managers, every rule must to a certain extent do that. As the Committee was well aware, three out of every four hon. Members were in favour of a general rule; and he wished to ask why the precedent in the Act of 1870, which had worked well for thirty years, should ' not be followed now. He could not appreciate the distinction drawn by the First Lord of the Treasury between primary and secondary education so far

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stroud

  Caldwell, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Black, Alexander William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fergussson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  as the Clause was concerned. Even in the House of Commons they prayed at the beginning of the business, and how very inconvenient it would be, if after an Amendment were disposed of the House proceeded to pray. They were asking very little, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MOSSsaid that they were accused of having all the talk, and none of the arguments on that side; but they did not forget that the right hon. Gentleman broke the contemptible conspiracy of silence on the other side, some time previously, by referring to those who differed from him as raving lunatics. Hon. Members who opposed the Amendment argued that in all cases the most convenient time would be adopted; but that was exactly what the Amendment provided for. It said that the morning or the evening was the most convenient time, and that if that were not found to be so, some other arrangement would, of course, be arrived at. He did not see what harshness or injustice could arise if the Amendment were accepted.
  (11.48.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85 Noes, 213. (Division List No. 276.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Palmer George Wm. (Reading)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Toulmin, George

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

  Price, Robert John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rigg, Richard

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr.

  Mather, Sir William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Goddard.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Moss, Samuel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Delany, William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dillon, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, HughAlex.(Donegal, W.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Leamy, Edmund

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J.(Manch'r

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Durnings Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Loder, Gerald Water Erskine

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants W.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bill, Charles

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Boland, John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bond, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Govern, T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bull, William James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Butcher, John George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, W. J.H (Dumfriessh.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moore, William (Antrim N.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J.(Walth'mstow

  Chapman, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rdG (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Murphy, John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Myers, William Henry

  1180

  1181

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Redley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ridley, S. Forde (B thnalGreen)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louch, South)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  O'Malley, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C.E (Taunton

  O'Mara, James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  O'Shee, James John

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Lof Wight)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Percy, Earl

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H (Renfrew

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Wylie, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rankin, John S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Reddy, M.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stock, James Henry

  Sir William Walrond and

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sullivan, Donal

  It being after midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, whether the closure can be moved on a Question which has not been put from the Chair before 12 o'clock? It was after 12 o'clock when you put the Question, and I submit that no closure can be moved in regard to any Question not put from the Chair and not consequential on the Amendment which has been disposed of.
  THE HAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member is correct. The closure can always be moved on the I interruption of business.
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask you Sir, if it is not the fact that the closure can only be moved after 12 o'clock for the purpose of bringing to a decision a Question already put from the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule does not say so. Clearly on the interruption of business the closure may be moved. If the hon. Member will turn to the Closure Rule he will find that a Motion can be made that the Question that a Clause be added to or stand part of the Bill be now put. That is one of the forms of the closure.
  MR. BRYCE: Is the case you have referred to not a case in which a Question is then pending before the House? In this case there was no Question pending.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Rule he will see it is not so. The Clause is under consideration.
  (11.59.) Question put, "That the Question, 'That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Bayes

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fison, Frederick William

  Percy, Earl

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Randles, John S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bailey James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Renwick, George

  Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bill, Charles

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brassey, Albert

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hoult, Joseph

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Bull, William James

  Howard, John(Kent Faversham

  Seely, Maj. J. E.B. (I. of Wight)

  Butcher, John George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Johnston, William Belfast

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Johnston Heywood (Sussex)

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Smith James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Spear John Ward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc.

  Leigh-Bennett Henry Currie

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stock, James Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Long, Col. CharlesW (Evesham)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Colston Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Martin Richard Biddulph

  Walker Col. William Hall

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Maxwell, W. JH (Dumfriesshire

  Warde Colonel C. E.

  Dalkeith Earl of

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E (Taunton

  Davies SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Denny, Colonel

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morgan, David J.(W'lthamstow

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R.(Bath

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(B'te

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sir William Walrond and

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Finch, George H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 277.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue Stroud

  Holme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Alexander William

  Price, Robert John

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rea, Russell

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Reddy, M.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rigg, Richard

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Aeerrngt'n

  Russell T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Scott, Chas. (Prestwich, Leigh)

  Channing Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soares, Ernest J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Govern, T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Mather, Sir William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Frank

  Moss, Samuel

  Tully, Jasper

  Elibank, Master of

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'r'ry, Mid.

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Malley, William

  Mr. Causton and Mr.

  Hardie, JKeir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Mara, James

  William M'Arthur.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Shee, James John

  (12.13.) Question put accordingly, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bond, Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Bull, William James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 278.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cranborne, Lord

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge)

  Cust, Henry John C

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Denny, Colonel

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Seely, Maj. J. E.B (Isle of Wight

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, H. C.(N'th'mb. Tyneside

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Finch, George H.

  Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriessh.

  Stewait, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stock, James Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S W.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Welby, Lt.-ColA. C.E(Taunton

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Worley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles, John S.

  Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Sir William Walrond and

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Caldwell, James

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Cremer, William Randal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr.

  Elibank, Master of

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Philipps.

  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.
  Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.