§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)
in the Chair.
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."
§ (2.40.) MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)
said 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,) Manchester, E.
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 FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
said 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 FOSTER
said 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 (Greenwich)
Is the hon. Gentleman in order in discussing now the Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs?
SIR WALTER FOSTER
said 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 FOSTER
said 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 LEESE (Lancashire, Accring on)
said 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. BALFOUR
said 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 POWELL (Wigan)
suggested 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.
§ (3.0.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
held 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. BALFOUR
did 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. A. J. BALFOUR
said 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-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
admitted 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 ELLIS
said 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.
§ MR. JOHN ELLIS
replied 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. BALFOUR
said 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 ELLIS
expressed 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 (Monmouthshire, N.)
, 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 HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
contended 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 (Stirling Burghs)
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.
§ (3.30.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought 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-GEORGE
asked 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-GEORGE
asked 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 WHITE (Norfolk, N. W.)
said 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 ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said 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 GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
said 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 CHAIRMAN
said 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. BALFOUR
said it was to meet the general wish of the House that he withdrew his Amendment.
§ MR SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)
said 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 CHAIRMAN
said 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 EVANS
said 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. BOND (Nottingham, E.)
said 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. BALFOUR
said 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-GEORGE
said 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. BRYCE
said 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.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said 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,) Cambridge University
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-GEORGE
said 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. PEASE (Saffron Walden)
said 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 EVANS
said 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 WHITE
moved that in line 4 of the Amendment, after the words "school or college" there be inserted "hostel."
Question put, and agreed to.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said 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 CECIL
said 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.
§ (4.6.) LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said 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 CECIL
said 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 FITZMAURICE
said 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. BALFOUR
said 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. BRYCE
expressed 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 PERCY (Kensington, S.)
said 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.
§ (4.25.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said 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. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
felt 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. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
expressed 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 POWELL
said 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 CECIL
said 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 POWELL
said 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 CECIL
said 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.)1117
|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.|
|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 GORST
said 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. MACNAMARA
asked whether the definition of "college" would be sufficient to include a day college and a residential college.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said 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.
§ (5.15.) MR. GEORGE WHITE
said 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. BALFOUR
said 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. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)
said 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 HUTTON (Yorkshire, W. R., Morley)
said 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.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said 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 MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.)
thought 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 GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)
said 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.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT
submitted 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 FITZMAURICE
said 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 ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
said 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 EVANS
recognised 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. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.)
also 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. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)
hoped 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.
|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. BRIGG (Yorkshire. Keighley)
asked 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 GORST
said 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 WHITE
said, 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.|
|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|
|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.|
§ (6.8.) MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)
said 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.
§ MR. MANSFIELD
feared 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. BALFOUR
said 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. BRYCE
said 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. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough)
said 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. CAINE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said 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. WILSON (Yorkshire, Holmfirth)
spoke 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. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said 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 LEESE
said 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. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)
said 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.
§ (6.35.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
agreed 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. LLOYD-GEORGE
wondered 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-GEORGE
begged 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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
did 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-GEORGE
believed 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. LLOYD-GEORGE
said 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. A. J. BALFOUR
rose 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. YOXALL
said 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 SMITH (Northumberland, Tyneside)
said 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 CHAIRMAN
said 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 SMITH
said 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 GURDON (Norfolk, N.)
said 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. PEASE
said 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. MACNAMARA
thought 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. MOSS
said 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-|
|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. WHITLEY
said 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.