§ As amended, considered.
§ (2.35.) MR. SPEAKERThe first Clause, which stands in the name of the hone Member for Dewsbury, is not in order, because it proposes to make it compulsory on the local authority to build—at the desire of any parents —a new school alongside an existing school, which would create a fresh expense, and should therefore have been moved in Committee and. not on the Report stage. The next new Clause stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Elland Division, and it appears to me to be out of order as a new Clause, because 388 it might be moved as an Amendment to sub-Section 1 of Clause 4. It appears to provide for the abolition of religious tests in training colleges. Clause 4, however, already, provides that in such institution no pupil shall be excluded or placed in an inferior position on account of his religious belief. It appears to me an Amendment might be introduced there which would meet the point the hon. Member wishes to raise.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)May I point out that Clause 4 refers only to such colleges as are maintained or aided by the county. But most of the colleges for the training of teachers are at present assisted out of national funds and not out of local rates. The majority of the colleges would not therefore come under this Section.
§ MR. SPEAKERBut I think it would be possible to introduce words which would bring those colleges within the operation of the Clause.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid he proposed to move the next new Clause which stood in his name, which would provide for really free education in all public elementary schools. The Act of 1891, about which the Party opposite had boasted so much, had not nearly provided for free education throughout England. At present about one-ninth of the children in public elementary schools still paid fees, and the majority of these children were in Church schools. In fact, 621,682 children were at the present moment paying fees, and of these 384,000 were in Church schools, and only 72,000, or barely one-ninth, were in board schools. This showed that the real reason for the maintenance of the fee system was to provide additional support to the voluntary schools. The total amount of fees received was £;231,000. of which £;121,000 came from Church schools. Only £41,000 came from board schools. When the Bill of 1891 was under discussion the hon. Member for Northamptonshire attempted to insert a proviso which would have made all board schools practically free —he in fact proposed that where a fee grant was given, the schools should necessarily be free. The right hon. 389 Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division, who was then at the head of the Education Department, said the immediate result of having free schools everywhere would be the absolute destruction of private schools. No doubt at that time that was a perfectly intelligible policy for those who supported voluntary schools, as, had fees been abolished, many of those schools could not have been continued, or would have had to be handed over to the School Boards. But the situation had been entirely changed by this Bill. The voluntary schools would be maintained out of the rates, except in respect of the fabric. The sum required for the maintenance of the fabric would be enormously less than the present subscriptions; and from ancient endowments and rent from the teachers' houses the managers would, have an additional fund besides the subscriptions to maintain the fabric of the schools. Why was it that, now that all these schools would be on the rates, a certain section of the population who were fee-payers and ratepayers should continue to be fee-payers? Why should not the whole sum required for the maintenance of the schools be paid out of the rates? There was only one possible reason why the fee-paying system should be maintained: it was because part of these fees as the Bill stood might go in lieu of subscriptions in assisting voluntary subscribers to maintain the fabric. Where the voluntary subscribers were too few or too niggardly to provide sufficient money for the maintenance of the fabric, it was hoped that the amount would be made up out of the fees. Was it worth while to keep up the system of fee-paying which alone stood in the way of a complete system of free education throughout England? They were now granting an additional £;1,200,000 in aid of elementary education; surely out of that they might provide for the abolition of the quarter of a million sterling now charged in fees. In America, education was free from top to bottom, and surely it was time that the lower grades of education were made free in this country. Our poorer classes, if they had to strain their slender resources in order to educate their children, ought to be able to devote them to increasing their chances of higher education.
§
New Clause—
From the first day of January, Nineteen hundred and four, any school where fees continue to be charged shall cease to be reckoned as a public elementary school."—(Mr. Trevelyan).
§ Brought up and read the first time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,) Oxford Universitysaid that the question of fees was discussed in Committee at some length a few days ago. What was proposed by the hon. Member was to take away from the local authorities the option left to them in the Bill to allow fees to be charged, side by side with the obligation to provide free places in the area for every one who wanted them. The objection to the new Clause was on account of the restraint it imposed on the local authority in a matter in which the local authority might fairly be left to use its discretion. Take the case of a school which was supported by the contributions of the parents of the children attending the school in the form of fees. It might be desirable, in the view of the local authority, that this school should continue to be so maintained; that it should not be chargeable on the local authority, but maintained by the managers with the assistance of fees. The Committee, however, were asked to override the opinion of the local authority and the wishes of the parents, in order to obtain a symmetrical system in which no fees need or could be charged. The hon. Member desired to destroy the voluntary schools.
§ MR. TREVELYANI never said that.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONNot in so many words; but I do not think I am doing the hon. Member an injustice by thus construing what he did say.
§ MR. TREVELYANMy point was that denominational subscriptions could easily be found for denominational purposes.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped he had not said anything to suggest that the hon. Member supposed that voluntary 391 subscriptions would not continue to exist, but the hon. Member certainly held out as his ideal a system under which schools were not only maintained but provided out of public funds; and in order to attain that symmetry he was prepared to set aside the wishes and inclinations of the district and of the people who were willing to pay fees, which they need not do unless they liked. He hoped that the Clause would not be accepted by the House.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said there was a great deal to be said for leaving the question to the local authority; but the main point was, what was to be done with the fees if they were retained? He objected to easing off the situation for the managers of the voluntary schools, and to the provision of certain fees in order that the managers should meet the obligation to keep up the fabric.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONI said it would ease the situation generally, not only for the managers, but for the local authority, who might not find it easy to raise sufficient money at once.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he looked on the Government proposal as a distinct breach of an earlier understanding under which the managers were to provide for the upkeep of the fabric. It was not right that parents should be called on to pay fees in order to relieve the managers of the obligations imposed on them. The hon. Member for the Stretford Division, at an earlier stage of the Bill, said the measure cast a heavy burden on the owners of the school, but they were bound to bear it in return for certain advantages which were being conferred on them. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education undertook that the fabric should be repaired and maintained by the owners, and he strongly objected to using fees for the purpose. He did not object to the levying of fees for higher education, but what he did say was that if fees were imposed in the future they should be handed over to the local authorities for the purposes of higher education.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said the hon. Member for the 392 Elland Division had moved a Clause which, if carried, would have the result, in many cases, of so starving the voluntary schools that they would not be able to fulfil their obligations, and would so become chargeable, to the public. He was bound to protest against this attempt to bring about this result which the hon. Member desired, because he represented a very poor constituency which had a great number of voluntary schools to which the people were much attached, and which were only maintained with difficulty, owing to the poverty of the people. In that constituency it was not the case of subscriptions being vastly in excess of the requirements for repairs, it was distinctly the reverse, yet the people were willing, out of their small means, to pay something towards the schools (in which often they had been educated themselves) for the education of their children, rather than send them to the board school next door.
§ MR. WHITE RIDLEY (Stalybridge)said he did not apprehend that many people would quarrel with the principle that elementary education should be free but there were districts, especially near Manchester, where the Clause proposed by the Member for the Elland Division would inflict real hardship. The hon. Member said there was no reason why people in these towns should pay school fees. There was a very good reason. In many cases these fees actually took the place of subscriptions.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)Why should not they be represented as subscribers, then?
§ MR. WHITE RIDLEYAnd those fees would go towards the maintenance of the fabric, as it was only right they should. The Resolution, if carried, would result in the absolute destruction of many of the voluntary schools. Near Manchester, the carrying of this Clause in many cases would result in shutting up many of the voluntary schools for want of funds.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said he had himself raised this question by a similar Amendment to the Free Education Bill in 1891. Then he had been met by the hard case of many 393 schools with high fees in the North. But now all these schools were to have, not merely the fee grant, but the rates, and the case was already different. Both the previous speakers had dwelt upon the extreme poverty of the districts which they represented, but that only added to his surprise that they should have been so anxious that these people should have been put into an almost compulsory position with regard to the payment of fees. Whatever might be said as to the feeling of the parents, whether these parents voluntarily contributed these fees to keep up this type of school or not, the House knew perfectly well that these schools had been built by persons not in that position of extreme indigence to which the hon. Member had alluded. These schools had been built by clergymen and Churchmen living in these districts and possessing ample incomes. It was absolutely ludicrous to talk of the poverty of the Church people of Lancashire, who could perfectly afford to pay for the repairs. The Roman Catholics were poor, no doubt, and out of their poverty they had maintained their schools with credit. The two hon. Members who had just spoken were among those who, if he remembered aright, a few days ago, had refused to give free representation to the parents of the children attending the schools by way of votes for the election of the managers of the school; and it was monstrous that the parents should be treated as a pawn to be pushed first this way and then that just as it suited the game of hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even if the parents had such a spirit of devotion to the Church that they preferred to pay fees, the Church ought to have the manliness not to levy contributions on these poor people for the purposes of a building fund, which they were quite able to provide.
§ (3.15.) SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)pointed out that this was not a question merely of voluntary schools. There were a great many fees paid in board schools, chiefly in the North of England. The policy of the Board of Education had always been to prohibit the opening of fee-paying schools by School Boards, but they bad been unable to carry out that policy because School Boards had demanded such schools 394 in deference to the strong wish of parents Hon. Members could easily conjecture the reasons which influenced parents in that desire. One strong reason was that by paying fees they were able to get a more advanced education for their children. This class of school in the North of England were extremely good schools, and they were greatly valued by those who sent their children to them, and it would be a misfortune if anything were done to interfere with a system which had worked so well. The moral he drew was that it would be much better to leave the question to the local authority, who would understand the needs and wishes of the people, and would not charge fees unless the population served by those schools so desired. Under the law every parent who wished for free education for his children had a right to it, so that no harm would be inflicted on the parents by giving the local authority power to charge fees.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that although this was not entirely, it was, in the main, a volunary school question, as out of £;240,000 charged in fees only £;40,000 was charged in board schools. It was not a question of the freedom of the local authority. As Parliament was now making a large additional grant, the House was entitled to insist on the schools being free. The cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University were not at all applicable. The board schools in which fees were charged were usually called "higher grade," and some parents preferred to send their children to them because they thought a better class of pupils were found there. If the local authority insisted on a quid pro quo in the way of a superior education, something might be said in favour of this freedom being given, but it was simply a question of class distinctions which ought not to be encouraged. Moreover, these schools were the exception. The schools really concerned were those in the poor districts mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge, who had said it was a hardship that these parents should not be allowed to pay fees. Why a hardship on the parents? In the poorer districts the fees were paid out of the food of the children. Where was the hardship of a rich County Council 395 like that of Lancashire, when a large I additional grant was being made, refusing to allow these schools to be subsidised at the expense of the poorest classes of the community? It was no hardship to the parents. To whom was it a hardship? Prior to this Bill, it had been a hardship to voluntary schools, but now the whole cost of maintenance was to fall on the rates. The hon. Member for Stalybridge had thrown considerable light on the whole situation. He had said that in these districts there were no subscribers in the ordinary sense of the word, but that these parents who paid fees were really the subscribers. Then why were they not given the voice in the management of the schools to which subscribers were entitled? They were subscribers merely for the purpose of paying out of their poor pittance, and not for the purpose of any of the privileges of subscribers. In 1891 a large sum of money was given with the object of wiping out fees. Fees were not wiped out. That, to begin with, was a distinct breach of faith with Parliament. The money, according to the hon. Member for Stalybridge, was used as subscriptions to keep the voluntary schools together, and now a further sum of £;1,200,000 was to be drawn upon for the same purpose.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)said he approached the question from a standpoint of impartiality, because, so far as his co-religionists were concerned, fees were charged in very few schools, and his argument was not at all based on their case. The assumption had been prevalent that by giving this power to the local authorities a new present was in some way being made to the managers of voluntary schools, but this assumption was wholly unfounded. The question really affected only a certain number of Church of England and Wesleyan schools. To some it was not a matter of importance, but to a great proportion it was a serious and burning question. In a large number of cases the schools had been run practically at the cost of the Government grant, plus fees, and if the fees were done away with the managers would still be saddled with the burden of repairs, but would have to find some 396 entirely new source of income to meet it. He instanced schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire which, if fees were abolished, would annually be worse off under this Bill to the extent of £;24, £;19 10s., £;22, £;42 10s., £;30, and £;43, respectively. Formerly it was possible to pay the rent out of the aid grant, but that would now be impossible. The question of enlargements, which would be a serious item in the future, was not taken into consideration at all. The wealth of the Church of England had nothing to do with the question. Of what use was it to a struggling parson in the slums of Manchester to know that a parish in the South of England had large endowments? The individual case had to be considered. Under the Bill many schools would be in a worse position than before, and the only hope of some was that they should be allowed a portion of the fees, which in the past had been freely paid, and in the future would be cheerfully continued by the parents for the sake of the education they desired.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)said if there was not a bargain, there was, at any rate, a balance of consideration that if the managers did certain things the State would undertake other things. If they did not call that a bargain, it was fair to at least call it a balance of consideration. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division had given an extraordinary balance sheet about one or two schools in Lancashire. In order to make out the severity of the burden of repairs upon the managers, the hon. Member estimated the cost of repairs at 2s. 6d. per scholar. Upon what authority did he state that the cost came to 2s. 6d. a scholar?
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the cost under the London School Board was 5s. 3d. He had deducted 1s. for repairs to furniture, and a very liberal and ample reduction on account of the increased expenditure in London. If, therefore, he had put it at 3s. instead of 2s. 6d. he would not have been over the mark.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that the question of how 397 fees are to be dealt with does not arise under this Clause. I perhaps allowed the hon. Member who has just sat down to go a little further than I should have done, but the discussion must not be continued.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he thought that the statement was exaggerated. Respecting the charging of fees by School Boards, so far as the North of England was concerned, fees were charged in higher grade schools. But this Clause would not prevent fees being charged in such schools, because it did not apply to them. It was also said that a parent could secure free places for his child. Very great demands had been made for free places, and refused, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was responsible for the Education Department. He was pretty certain that in one Church of England school in Southport free places were asked for and refused.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI can assure the hon. Member that no parent was ever refused a free place when he demanded it during the time I had the honour of being the Vice-President of the Board of Education.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONThe right hon. Gentleman always refused to grant free places in a particular school if he thought that accommodation could be had in another school of another religion, and which might be miles away from the residence of the parents.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI must correct the hon. Member. The idea was, on the part of some parents, that they had a right to acquire free places in a particular school, but parents have no such right. What they have a right to is this—free places for their children in schools most convenient and available for the purpose.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONWhat is meant by a convenient school? Is there any regard for distance?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTOh yes.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONBut convenience does not cover the word "suitability." Surely that is a matter that should enter into the consideration of every parent in regard to education. I remember another place near Hyde.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not see how this bears on the question.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONAt any rate, whatever the law may be, it is the practice of the Education Department to make it practically impossible for parents to secure free places for their children in these schools. There has been a great amount of friction and difficulty, almost insurmountable, for parents to secure free places where they want them. The Clause would only secure the rights of parents to send their children to any school where they wished to send them.
§ (3.38.) Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 575.)
399| AYES. | ||
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) | Crombie, John William | Horniman, Frederick John. |
| Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Atherley-Jones L. | Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea |
| Bell, Richard | Duncan, J. Hastings | Kitson, Sir James |
| Black, Alexander William | Dunn, Sir William | Lambert, George |
| Brigg, John | Ellis, John Edward | Langley, Batty |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Maurice |
| Burt, Thomas | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Lloyd-George, David |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lough, Thomas |
| Caldwell, James | Fuller, J. M. F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cameron, Robert | Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Mansfield, Horace Rendall |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Helme, Norval Watson | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Middlemore, John Throgmort'n |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Holland, Sir William Henry | Newnes, Sir George |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Wason, Eugene |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Sloan, Thomas Henry | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Price, Robert John | Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Rea, Russell | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Rigg, Richard | Tennant, Harold John | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Robson, William Snowdon | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower | Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersfd |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Tomkinson, James | |
| Schwann, Charles E. | Toulmin, George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Shackleton, David James | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Runciman. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gardner, Ernest | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Garfit, William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts | Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Gore. Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Arrol, Sir William | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Purvis, Robert |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Hain, Edward | Rankin, Sir James |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Rasch, Major Frederic Came |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Higginbottom, S. W. | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Bond, Edward | Hogg, Lindsay | Robinson, Brooke |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex) | Horner, Frederick William | Rutherford, John |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Hoult, Joseph | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A(Glasgow | Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm | Seely, Maj. J.E.B(Isle of Wight |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside |
| Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Kemp, George | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Chapman, Edward | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Knowles, Lees | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Lawson, John Grant | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Tully, Jasper |
| Crossley, Sir Saville | Long,Col.CharlesW. (Evesham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Long, Rt. Hon Walter(Bristol, S | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G. Ellison | Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Macdona, John Cumming | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart | Malcolm, Ian | Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.). |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks. |
| Fellowes. Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Maxwell, WJ.H (Dumfriesshire | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath) |
| Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Meysey-Thompson Sir H. M. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow | Wylie, Alexander |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Morrison, James Archibald | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Younger, William |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute | |
| Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Flower, Ernest | Myers, William Henry | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Forster, Henry William | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
§ (3.50.) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)said the Clause he rose to move consisted of two proposals—a proposal to give the right to parents to take their children out of any public elementary school and have them taught their own religion outside — a right which it was only proper to give to parents; and a proposal to give the right to the local authority to allow the parents to procure special religious instruction inside the schools. He wished to emphasise the latter point, because he had seen this Clause referred to as giving what was called the right of entry. Strictly speaking it did not do that. Strictly speaking it gave to the local authority the right to secure the right of entry, but it did not give that right outright in itself. It did not give the right to send a minister of any denomination into the school to give religious instruction. The other portions of the Clause were merely intended to safe-guard the Conscience Clause, and to give to the Board of Education the power of interpreting the meaning of the word "reasonable." What were the arguments used for and against a proposal of this kind? First of all, it was said that such a proposal would be unworkable. He could not conceive why there should be any difficulty whatever in working a proposal to allow children to be taken out of school during the religious hour. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had what he thought was a reasonable Amendment on the Paper which would remove any possible objection by procuring a register of attendance, so as to prevent the Clause being used for juvenile enjoyment, which of course was not intended. He believed that a provision of this kind bad actually been used in certain School Board districts. He understood that Orpington was one of the places where this provision was in operation. The London School Board had been repeatedly asked to adopt such a provision, but they had always refused. He might say that so long as there were medals for attendance, so long would they have a strong and laudable spirit among children to secure the medal for attendance. It was very difficult to work the Conscience Clause if parents were not permitted to take the children out of school, and it was difficult to induce the children to withdraw if they forfeited the merit of good attendance. In a large 402 number of cases the parents were satisfied with the teaching given in the schools. But if a child was withdrawn from the school and sent to a church or other convenient place for religious instruction, the religious hour should count as if the child had been in the school. In respect to the other proposal, to allow special instruction inside the school, he believed the objection that it was unworkable was equally unfounded. The fact was, as everyone knew, that in the great majority of the schools two forms of religion would satisfy the demand that was at all likely to be made by parents. In the case of a small South of England rural parish, if they had the Nonconformist special instruction, or such Bible instruction as met the views of the Nonconformists, given in one class room, and the Church teaching given in the remaining rooms of the school, it would be found that every one in the parish had practically the religious teaching which was desired. There were practically only three religious denominations—the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Nonconformists. In some cases they found Jewish children, but they were already provided with special instruction, for all intents and purposes, by the School Boards where they had to do with Jewish populations. At any rate, the Clause he proposed met the difficulty of unworkability by leaving complete discretion to the local authority They were to have regard to the suitability of the buildings, and they were not obliged to set up separate religious instruction unless they properly could do so. The Clause would not force on the schools any particular system whatever, nor did it force any system on the local authority. It was left open to the local authority to take that course which they believed, having regard to the rights of conscience and the suitability of the schools, was, on the whole, best calculated to meet the exigencies of the occasion. There was a third argument. It was said that no proposal of this kind was wanted. He believed that to be a mistake. Surely it could not be argued that the great system of denominational schools, supported by more than one denomination in the country, had been kept up for years, and yet that there was not in the mind of a large proportion of the population a desire for that great system of denominational instruction. He was sure that hon. Members opposite 403 would be the last to say that there was no desire among Nonconformists for a denominational system of instruction, or a Nonconformist system, in cases where they were obliged to attend Church schools. The House had heard at great length, and with great vigour, the grievances of the Nonconformists in connection with what were called the single - school areas in different parts of the country. He did not in the least believe that there could have been so much stir about religious teaching, if, after all, the agitation was a sham. The theory that the stir was all got up between ministers of religion on one side and another was profoundly untrue to human nature. They could not stir up a community in that way unless there was something behind. Therefore he always had believed that there was reality in the religious difficulty. He believed that such a Clause as this was wanted. Suppose it was used as little as the Conscience Clause itself had been used, it would still be of value. People might be content with a form of religious instruction not exactly to their taste, if they knew that they had the power to remedy this if they chose to exercise it. He remembered that the late John Stuart Mill once said that, if he did not leave London from one year's end to another, he would yet consider it a hardship if he were confined to London by law. In the same way there were a great number of people who might acquiesce in the teaching of the Church schools who would feel it a grievance to be obliged to do it. He thought, therefore, this Clause would be of real value if never used at all. It would be of value in the same sense and degree as the Conscience Clause, which, as was well known, had been used in only a very small number of instances. Another objection to this Clause was that it was said that it would introduce the sectarian spirit among children, and inspire them with feelings of religious animosity which were not suitable to anyone, but particularly to those of very tender age. He thought that that argument did injustice to the Christian teaching whether of Churchmen or Nonconformists. He had read the Church Catechism and the Free Church Catechism, and there was nothing uncharitable or hostile in them to any other denomination. The views of these documents were 404 set out as the truths of religion. What was taught was taught as a positive religious system, not polemically or in any uncharitable spirit. A child was dull indeed if it did not soon become aware that every one in the country was not of the same religious belief. A child could not go along the street without seeing more than one place of religious worship, and if he had any observation he would come to ask why one set of people went to one church, and why another set went to another church. It was hardly possible to walk along the streets of our towns or on the village green without seeing more than one place of religious worship; and any child of observation and intelligence would soon begin to ask why that was so. A child to be religiously brought up must actually undergo that very process of ear-marking which was supposed to make the child a bitter sectarian. It seemed to be thought that that system had a mysterious polemical effect on a child's mind, and that the child for the first time, plunged, with an evil joy, into the theological whirlpool. He was entirely incredulous of that objection. He was persuaded that those who put forward that objection were taking up a position which was in a high degree intolerant and narrow. They were trying to urge on the people of this country the view that they ought to be satisfied with some form of undenominational teaching, and that if they were not so satisfied they were bigoted and narrow-minded persons. That consideration brought him to ask the House to reflect what the alternatives were to adopting a proposal such as that which he put forward. Suppose they left the matter as it stood in the Bill, then they had a system of compensating injustices. No one denied that there was a hardship to Nonconformists where there was only a Church school to go to; and there was also an injustice to Church children if they had to attend a board school. But there was a kind of doctrine that, because Nonconformists suffered in one district and Churchmen in another, that was a sort of compensation, and that A, who was aggrieved as a Churchman, ought to find consolation in the fact that B, a Nonconformist, suffered analogous treatment in the next parish but one. That had always seemed to him a profoundly 405 illogical view. He thought that was the system which, if the Amendment were not carried, would be continued. There would be two sets of schools, each inflicting injustice on a particular set of victims. He could not help thinking that as long as that system were maintained there would be no end to the religious question, which would still continue to be a thorn in the foot of educational progress. If they did not have the existing system, they must have a universal undenominational system which, he thought, they were beginning—some hon. Members opposite included—to understand was a system which worked a great injustice both to Roman Catholics and the Church of England. The main injustice was that the system of religious teaching which was given omitted from its sphere all those matters which Churchmen and Roman Catholics considered not indeed intellectually fundamental, but most essential to the vital practice of religion. These matters were left out altogether or treated as if they were of secondary importance, and by an inevitable tendency the children were led to believe that they were of secondary importance. He had suffered so severely from using metaphors, because they afforded such an opportunity to some critics of representing his meaning differently from what he intended, that he almost trembled at the idea of venturing on another, all the more especially as he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire in his place. Yet he wished to say that to offer people undenominational teaching instead of denominational, was like saying to a person who wanted a particular kind of tree—an oak or a beech—"We cannot give you that; we will give you another kind of tree, but we will strip off the bark and leaves so that you will not know what it is, and you can add the bark and leaves afterwards." The answer would be that, however fundamental the wood of the tree might be, the life of the tree ran through the bark and the leaves. So the life ran through the very heart of the religious system about which denominations differed. There only remained universal secularism, which was repulsive to the religious instincts of the people. It would lead children to believe 406 religion a less important matter, and in many cases the parents who were not specially active would in fact bring up their children without any religion at all. The only other alternative was the plan contained in his Clause—the plan of trying to bring up children, as far as practical considerations would allow, in the beliefs of their parents. This was plain justice. He thought it was also a matter for the peace of the schools and the peace of this House if this principle were once established, and they should have solved, he thought for ever, the religious question. They should be able to point to a principle which everyone would understand and appreciate, and whether to Churchmen or Nonconformists it would be an answer against any complaint or cause of grievance, and they should have founded their educational system, not on an abiding sense of injustice, but on the conviction that the State was treating all religious beliefs fairly and impartially, and having regard only to the natural principle of the rights of parents.
§
New Clause—
(1) In all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, any scholar may be withheld from the school by his parent during any time set apart for religious observance or instruction in religious subjects for the purpose of his attending other religious observance or receiving other religious instruction outside the school, and the local education authority shall require that the times set apart in the school for religious observance and instruction shall be arranged so as to facilitate such withholding of scholars.
(2) In all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, where a reasonable number of parents of scholar attending the school desire that by religious instruction other than that provided the managers should be given to their children, the local education authority may require that the managers shall (whether the religious instruction is regulated by any trust deed scheme or other instrument or not) make such arrangements as may be practicable, having due regard to the suitability of the buildings and the discipline of the school, to allow such other religious instruction to be given in the school.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive a parent of any right he possesses under Section 7 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.
407
(4) If any question shall be raised by the local education authority or by the managers of a school as to what is reasonable within the meaning of this section, every such question shall be decided by the Board of Education, and their decision shall be final."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
§ Brought up and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ (4.7.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said that he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman desired to know with what feelings they on that side of the House regarded this Amendment. He had tried to ascertain what was the general feeling of his hon. friends near him. Of course it was inevitable that a clause coming from such a quarter should excite a certain amount of suspicion in certain quarters. But he thought that such feelings ought to be put aside, and the proposal be regarded on its merits, and without any reference to any view which those who were most favourable to it had quoted. He thought the speech of the noble Lord had been eminently fair and conciliatory, and had found an echo in every quarter of the House. Everybody respected his sincerity, and those who differed from him felt that in the long run and in the main they desired the same ends, though they did not reach them by the same road. As to the last part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he dwelt on the necessity for denominational education, that was a subject so large that he would pass it by in the fewest possible words. He sympathised with the noble Lord's desire that the children should be brought up to be good Christians, to be good religious men and women, whatever their creed might be. But there were three remarks he wished to make in regard to the noble Lord's speech. The first was that the noble Lord had attributed to the Church of England, as a whole, a theological view and a doctrine with regard to the attributes, powers, and rights of the Church, and the position occupied in the Christian field by a certain few, which was not shared by the Church of England as a whole. That seemed to him to be at the bottom of a great deal which had been said by the noble Lord and his friends. He had read with a great deal of 408 interest a pamphlet by Canon Moberley, in which he tried to get at the bottom of a distinctive Christian theology and the special rights and functions which attributed special powers to the sacerdotal class—theories touching which were not only not held by the Nonconformists of England generally, nor by the Presbyterians of Scotland, but also, as he believed, by the large majority of the Church of England. He admitted that the view of Canon Moberley and the noble Lord had been, during the last forty years, a growing view, but he did not believe that it pervaded the laity generally; and he was inclined to think that the difference between that view and that of the majority of the Church of England was, greater than the difference which separated the laity of the Church of England, as a whole, from the Nonconformists of this country. He must not pursue this fascinating subject, but he desired to enter a caveat against the view the noble Lord took when he talked of the Church teaching in respect to the right of the laity of the Church of England. His second observation was that the noble Lord attributed a far greater power of comprehending abstract propositions to children of tender years than experience had proved to be the case. He might tell the noble Lord that when he was a child in Scotland he was brought up on the Shorter Catechism, which was a more abstract document than the Church of England Catechism. They learned it with the greatest possible care, and verified the questions with Scripture proofs. They were taught to distinguish between a variety of abstract processes, and in that way they learned a good deal of dogmatic theology. But he really had never been able to think that that had produced any substantial difference in their subsequent lives. He thought, however, that when they came to years of discretion they formed their theological opinions for themselves, mainly from the Scriptures, theological reading, and sermons, and what they had read themselves; and that the small acquaintance they were able to make with the forms of theology before the age of fourteen had not had any effect on the future conduct of their lives. The noble Lord seemed to consider that the genuine religion, the test, the true essence of 409 religion, should consist in a desire to be united with God, to love Him, and to revere Him; and in an endeavour to apply the precepts of religion to the conduct of their daily lives, and to live as Christians all their lives. True; but he did not think that that belonged, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, to the points on which different denominations of Christians differed from one another. There again he was touching upon delicate and almost sacred ground; and therefore he would pass on with the sole remark that it was upon the reason and the relations which the Scripture set of belief in the presence of Christ and the existence of the attributes of God, that the conduct of life depended, and not upon the abstract dogmatic propositions of which the noble Lord thought so much. He would pass on to the practical working of the Amendment. His duty was very much simplified by the fact that the third sub-Section would not be moved.
§ LORD HUGH CECILOnly in obedience to the ruling of the Chair. I am anxious to point out that I am still in favour of it in my own mind†.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he understood that. No doubt the noble Lord regarded the Cowper Temple Clause as anathema maranatha, and desired to have it expugned from the schools; but he understood the noble Lord was only moving the first two and the last two sub-Sections, and he was therefore relieved from the necessity of dealing in any way with the third sub-Section. His objection to that sub-Section would have been even stronger than it was to the other sub-Sections; and he was even prepared to say that for the Government to accept it, and indeed not to oppose it, would have been a distinct departure from what was said by the First Lord of the Treasury in introducing the Bill, when he stated that the Cowper-Temple Clause would not be disturbed. With regard to
†The sub-Section not moved was as follows: "Where a reasonable number of parents as aforesaid desire religious instruction for their children other than that provided by the managers of the school. the local education authority may, if they think fit, make provision for the giving of such other religious instruction, whether inside or outside the school, and if outside the school for such accommodation for the purpose as in the circumstances of the case may appear to be reasonable.410 the first two sub-Sections, the first objection taken to them was that they would very much disarrange and disturb the working of the schools. He had taken the opinion of those who had a more practical acquaintance with the matter than hon. Members could have—schoolmasters and school inspectors—and they thought that these sub-Sections would disorganise the schools; and that nothing worse could be proposed for the organisation and the daily working of the schools and for discipline than that children should be continually taken out at a time when the schoolmaster would not be able to follow them. How was it to be known whether the children went to these external places; was there to be a register, and was a continual report from the chapel or the church where the instruction was given to be brought to the teacher to be checked? He thought that the noble Lord passed too lightly over that practical difficulty, in which, no doubt, his hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham and his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell would be able to throw further light. But there was another difficulty. The proposal of the noble Lord would not only disorganise the working of the school, it would weaken the position of the teacher, and even imply a certain reflection on the teacher, who was the head of the school and at present responsible for all education, denominational and undenominational. The teacher knew the child through every part of his work; but if the child were to be put in charge of a curate or a Nonconformist minister for some part of his work, it would be a reflection on the eacher, by implying that he was not to be trusted to do that part of the work. He was told teachers thought that that would weaken their hold over the children, as the children would ask themselves why they were forbidden to receive this part of their instruction from the teacher, was he removed from or opposed to them, and why had they to go elsewhere to get one kind of instruction, getting another kind of instruction from the teacher? Moreover, the teacher might think that he was debarred, by this provision, from inculcating a moral precept or from giving teaching which in one aspect 411 was moral and in another aspect religious, in the course of the ordinary lessons. Was the teacher to be allowed to point a moral by applying morality to religion, or to assume a knowledge of religious facts in the teaching of history? If the teacher was precluded by a provision of that kind from having anything to do with the whole subject of religion, the teacher might feel that it was a forbidden sphere, and that he must not, in other parts of his work, venture on it.
§ LORD HUGH CECILasked, what about the Conscience Clause?
§ MR. BRYCEsaid that the Conscience Clause had worked because the teachers had the good sense to observe it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated that if there were no religious difficulties it was because the teachers had the good faith and the good feeling not to touch them. The reason why the Cowper-Temple Clause had worked was because it was understood by the teachers as preventing them from trespassing on ground it was not desirable for them to enter on. Having regard, therefore, to the importance of the place which the teacher held, they all agreed that he might as far as possible have a free hand, and not feel himself cut off from any particular kind of moral teaching; and that it would be a pity to break through the existing system in that way, by sending children outside or bringing other persons in. As to evils of segregating children, of cutting them into little distinct blocks, and marching them off, at an early age, as the sheep and the goats, such a course could not fail to injure this real religious sense. The noble Lord said that if they went to the Church Catechism they would not find any spirit of hostility or want of charity inculcated in its doctrines. That was perfectly true. They were not to be found in the doctrines themselves; and they all hoped that the Nonconformist minister on the one hand, or the curate on the other, would not teach the children to hate one another. At the same time, the mere fact that the children were drawn asunder, and that it was represented to them that they could not have religious instruction in common at a time, 412 when they were not alive to the reasons, was, he thought, an injury to the children's lives, and an enemy to that sense of common citizenship, which they all wanted to inculcate. It would be a great pity if the children were to learn, any more than could be helped that religious differences went so deep. The noble Lord said the child would see on one side of the street a church, and on the other a Nonconformist chapel. But why emphasise the fact of these differences: why carry the separation of the Sabbath into the days of the week? That was aggravating the evil. If, as the noble Lord admitted, it was an evil, there was no gain at all comparable to the loss which was involved in endeavouring to emphasise in the minds of children the differences which separated their parents. The parents were not separated for purposes of friendship, marriage, and social intercourse, and why should social separation be introduced among the children? The noble Lord said that they, on that side, alleged that the scheme he proposed was no wanted. He listened with particular interest to that part of the noble Lord's speech, because they had felt from the very beginning of the debates that, whereas it seemed to be assumed on the other side that there was a strong demand on the part of the laity of the Church of England for denominational teaching, they on this side never had the smallest evidence as to the existence of such a demand; and he was therefore curious to know what evidence the noble Lord would give. The evidence of the noble Lord was that the voluntary schools had gone on for the past thirty or forty years, and that there must surely be a desire for sectarian education if the voluntary schools had been kept up all these years. There was a very much simpler explanation, which was that there had been on the part of a numerically small but very active and energetic section of the population, an active force working for the keeping up of the voluntary schools—the force of the clergy and the small section of the laity that worked with them. He did not in the least complain of that zeal, as it was accompanied by conscientious motives which he respected; but it was zeal on the part of a small number of persons. The only force of the general body of the laity was vis inertice, the disposition to acquiesce, to let things go on, and 413 not take the trouble to change them. Further, it was common knowledge that the main reason why voluntary schools existed was because people did not want to rate themselves for School Boards. The noble Lord had said that two injustices did not make justice, and he admitted it was an injustice that the Nonconformist child should be compelled to go to a Church school, but he also said that it was an injustice for them to go to a board school. The Nonconformist parent did not want his child to be taught something that he did not approve of, but in the board school the child of the Church of England parent was not taught anything that the parent disapproved of There was thus a great difference between the two cases. A very large number of Nonconformist children were obliged to go to Church of England schools because there was no other school available; but in the board schools there were at least a million children belonging to the Church of England, although by far the larger number of the schools were in populous districts where voluntary schools were equally available. The evidence was overwhelming that the bulk of the Church of England parents were not sensible of any injustice, and there was no evidence whatever of a demand for any alternative to the existing system as far as the board schools were concerned. Why then should they disturb a system which, in the words of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, had worked well and smoothly for so long, and against which there were practically no complaints, in order to introduce a system fraught with very great difficulties?
§ LORD HUGH CECILsaid if the right hon. Gentleman looked at the next sub-Section he would see that was safeguarded.
§ Mr. BRYCEsaid it might be so but it ought to be safeguarded here. As the Clause stood, a child could not be withdrawn except for this particular purpose, and, so far as the inside facilities were concerned, the difficulties of that system were well known. It had been tried at Birmingham and had had to be dropped 414 because it did not work. Bringing ministers into the schools would be most embarrassing and disturbing to the daily work of the school. The noble Lord said they had only to provide for two types of religious instruction, but that was not so. In the Church of England itself there were two types which differed fundamentally from one another, and it was just as necessary to protect the parent who belonged to the Evangelical type from the teaching of the Romaninsing type, as the Nonconformist parent from either.
§ LORD HUGH CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman proposed nothing to protect either one class or the other.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, on the contrary, they proposed local popular control. They believed, and they were confirmed by the experience of Scotland, that where they had such control these things would work properly. If they were allowed to try that experiment they would promise that there would be religious peace. He sympathised with the main objects which the noble Lord had in view, but believed that he was taking the wrong road altogether. He thought that if the changes which the noble Lord proposed were introduced it would end in landing them in a purely secular system. He dared say that would happen in any case after a lapse of years, for if they looked abroad they saw that that was the solution at which democratic countries like the United States and the British Colonies had arrived. He did not believe that it was the general desire of the people of this country, but if they emphasised denominational differences, and put religious teaching into the hands of ministers of religion instead of the teachers, he believed it would end in religious teaching being relegated either to the Sunday school or to other times and places.
§ (4.35.) MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman's opening sentence suggested that his silence after his noble friend sat down was an indication of some perplexity as to the course he ought to follow in regard to the Second Reading of this clause. He did not at all deny that some perplexity existed in 415 his mind, though probably the right hon. Gentleman mistook its character and origin. On the general merits of the scheme proposed by his noble friend, and on the side to which the mere argumentative balance fell, he had very little doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, had a passage which filled him with amazement. He said "Only adopt the Scottish system, and we on this side promise you religious peace." When had they made this interesting discovery as to the methods by which religious peace could be secured? He had read many speeches, pamphlets, and observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially of the Nonconformist element, but he had never seen it suggested that what was desired by the Nonconformists and by hon. Gentlemen opposite was the adoption of a denominational system in public provided schools.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he was not advocating the Scottish system at all. He thought that system a great deal better than this Bill, and if it were offered in exchange for this Bill he would take it immediately. What he had said, in answering the noble Lord, was that the difficulties now arising with regard to religious teaching in the schools would not exist under the Scottish system.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that he was in some doubt, which was not wholly cleared away by the explanation, as to what it was the right hon. Gentleman wanted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that denominational schools would be satisfactory to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican minority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAt all events, that was the kind of education that was given in a large number of Scottish public elementary schools. He was a great admirer of the Scottish system, but he never heard that it had reconciled Roman Catholics or Anglicans to the Shorter Catechism, and it was absurd to say that that system, with all its great merits, produced universal religious peace; on the face of it could not. He thought 416 there were in it many superiorities over the English system, but neither the English nor the Scottish system produced that universal religious peace which they all desired, although he thought that even the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to secure it. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, made a very unfair attack upon the motives which induced his noble friend to move this Amendment, and on the speech which he made in introducing it. His noble friend's opinions on theological subjects were not shared by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by the great body of Nonconformists, or by a large number of the English Church. But he did not hear a single word fall from his noble friend in the course of his extremely interesting and moderate speech which had the smallest reference, direct or indirect, to the theological and religious views which, as everybody knew, he held. He recommended his Amendment on grounds absolutely independent of any particular religious belief whatever, and his speech might have been made by any member of the Church of England, by any Wesleyan, by any Roman Catholic, and it would have been just as appropriate in their mouths as it was in his mouth. He did not wish to go into that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he touched, in a manner which nobody could object to, on some of the deeper things of religion; but he was astounded when he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman's idea was that religious teaching should be undogmatic. The right hon. Gentleman alluded in specific terms to the central doctrine of the Christian religion, than which nothing in this world was more intimately, inevitably, and necessarily bound up with dogma. He almost, for the moment, believed that the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into the vulgar and too common error of using the word dogmatic only in regard to those religious doctrines with which he happened to differ. He now came to the immediate question of the plan proposed by his noble friend. In principle he thought that plan a good one, and that in theory it was very difficult to find any conclusive argument against it, and he thought so the more after having heard the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. One of 417 his principal arguments was that it was a great injury to the children to segregate them into different religious camps, and that they ought not to teach children that they could not learn religion together. That was a very good sermon against the sin of schism; but let it be remembered that every Nonconformist body in this country, and the Church of England as well, if they liked, owed its separate existence to the fact that adults, at all events, thought they could not worship together. That was the very basis on which Nonconformity rested, and he could not understand how what was an obligation upon a very large number of the adult population should be regarded as highly inexpedient when they were dealing with the younger generation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that Christians were apt to exaggerate their differences. He wished to say nothing offensive, and he was sure he would not be suspected of saying anything offensive, to the great Nonconformist bodies, but his opinion was, and always had been, that many of the causes which brought these separate religious organisations into existence were insufficient causes, and it had been a great national and religious misfortune that the segregation of the population consequent upon these divisions had ever come into being. But they had to take facts as they unhappily found them, and, deeply as he deplored these religious divisions, he did not see that they made things much better by saying—"Let us admit that everybody when they grow up must differ, but so long as they are children let us assume they can agree." He saw no answer to that at all. He was sorry these divisions had come into existence, he believed many of them were wholly unnecessary, but if they existed and were to be maintained, he did not see how they could be maintained only in regard to persons of mature years, and the pretence made that the evils to which they had given birth could not affect those of tender years. He so far agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that he believed his noble friend exaggerated the difficulty of educating, at all events of Protestant children of various denominations, together. Then the right hon. Gentleman appeared to 418 think that he (the First Lord of the Treasury) was bound on behalf of his colleagues to resist this Amendment because it interfered with the Cowper-Temple Clause, and when introducing the Bill he had stated that it did not interfere with that Clause. That was a mode of interpreting Parliamentary pledges which was absolutely new and, if he might say so, utterly absurd. If his introductory speech had been inconsistent with the Bill, no doubt the First Reading would have been secured on insufficient grounds and false pretences. But the idea that because the Bill as originally introduced was not to be modified in any direction contrary to his introductory speech was one which hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to resent if he had used it as an excuse for not adopting some Amendment which they themselves had suggested. No such pledge was made. He would take the House so far into his confidence as to say that he had taken a great deal of trouble to prepare an Amendment, not indeed covering all the ground of his noble friend's proposal, but covering the particular subject of single school areas. That Amendment was taken through all the preliminaries short of being placed on the Paper and brought to discussion. He frankly admitted that he did not proceed with it for two reasons—each of some force separately, but which taken together, were of great practical force. One reason was that he felt perfectly confident that any such Amendment moved by the Government would create an enormous amount of controversy and friction inside and outside the House. It was perfectly true, as his noble friend had said, that there was a great body of opinion—of very highly instructed opinion—in the country which deserved to see some such solution as this of our religious difficulties. That was absolutely true, but he was convinced that when the great body of people whom the Amendment concerned, and whom his Amendment would have concerned—the country clergy and the Nonconformist ministers all over the Kingdom, and the great body of the teaching profession— considered the proposal, they would unite in the strongest opposition to it. They all knew the happy gift of imagination 419 which enabled, or indeed seemed to require, every man who considered how this Bill would affect him to imagine the extremest and worst possible case. What would happen? Every Nonconformist minister would immediately say, "The Church of England will invade the board schools; she is a great and wealthy body, with a vast staff of competent teachers at her command; she is wealthier than we are, and will flood the board schools; we have not the same command of teaching machinery, and a provision which nominally puts us on an equality will really act in favour of our rival." That was the picture the Nonconformist would draw. What picture would the country clergyman draw? He would say, "Kenyon-Slaney may be bad enough, but if the Nonconformist minister, who, unfortunately, is not on good terms with me, is to come into my school, and interfere with the teacher and the teaching, and persuade the children who are perfectly content with my teaching to be content with it no longer, the position will be extremely embarrassing and difficult, and there will be all sorts of quarrels in my parish." Just as the Nonconformist minister regarded the board school, so he would picture the worst possible case for himself. The picture would come before him in the darkest colours and the deepest outline, and he would say, "This may be a very good way of administering theoretical Justice, but I find it extremely inconvenient." And what would the great body of the teaching profession think? He believed that every public elementary teacher in the country would object to it. They would probably follow the example of the Nonconformist minister and the country clergyman and call up the worst possible picture of what might happen? They would say, "We have the task of disciplining our schools, of bringing order out of chaos; we have a very difficult task, and if our position as teachers is to be interfered with by every meddling minister of religion, Conformist or Nonconformist, within two miles of the schools, our position in the schools will be intolerable!" It was very hard to struggle with these great imaginative powers which they always found raised against any proposal of this kind. He had given a great deal of 420 most anxious thought to the Clause. It had, in fact, given him as much anxiety as almost any other problem connected with this Bill. After framing his Amendment, he saw that the practical difficulties in engrafting it upon the educational system were so great that nothing but the most absolute security for carrying out the object for which it was designed could justify him in throwing this burden upon an already overburdened Committee. Could they say that the Amendment would actually work very successfully in practice? They had not had much experience, but they had had some, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in the debate was justified in his reference to the Birmingham School Board. But the Birmingham School Board tried not precisely the same experiment but something like it, and which, for the purposes of this argument, was indistinguishable. They tried in the early days of their existence this experiment, and he imagined that the School Board would have preferred purely secular education, leaving the religious teaching to the ministers of religion. He thought that by universal consent the plan did not carry out either the intentions or wishes of its framers. He had not refreshed his memory, but he thought he was not wrong when he said that the School Board which finally put an end to the experiment was the School Board in which denominationalists had a majority, and which had a Bishop of the Church of England in the chair.
§ MR. MIDDLEMORE () Birmingham, N.It was not a denominational school. The school was the one at Coventry.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think he was going too far when he said the existing School Board in Birmingham was a denominational one, that it had a Bishop of the Church of England in the chair, and, as far as this School Board was concerned, they would not desire to repeat the experiment which was tried and abandoned by their predecessors. When they remembered the enormously bitter hostilities which an Amendment of this kind excited in the country, and, secondly, the very doubtful prospect of it producing any sound practical result, 421 he felt constrained to come to the conclusion that he could not be responsible for suggesting it to the Committee even as regarded singleareas, and therefore, afortiori, he had to abandon a plan upon which he had much set his heart for the whole of the educational area. He had told the House exactly where he stood. He did not believe it was possible to add an immense controversial problem like this to the Bill at that stage. He did not see that it was now practical at all. If this were embodied in the Bill and they were now engaged in a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill he would go with the noble Lord without scruple; but if any vote of his in favour of reading this Clause a second time was to be taken as a pledge that the Government were going to make themselves responsible for any proposal of that kind, he thought they would be greatly misleading the House by adopting any such suggestion. Under these circumstances he could not vote against the Clause, but he should abstain from recording his vote on the question.
§ * (5.10.) MR. YOXALL () Nottingham, W.said the experiment suggested had been tried for many years by the Birmingham School Board under circumstances very favourable to it, and had proved to be a failure. The experiment tried by the School Board lasted over many years, and a most earnest effort was made to ensure its success, because there were many men in Birmingham who were not antagonistic to the teaching of religion in schools, but who held that the proper solution of the difficulty was the adoption of secular instruction by the State. They took special care to provide every possible facility for this teaching in Birmingham Board Schools, and it was tried under very favourable circumstances. It broke down: in the first place, because it became difficult to secure a sufficient supply of voluntary teachers; in the second place, because many of them could not teach; and, thirdly, because many of them could not maintain a decent show of order in the schools. Gradually the Birmingham Board was driven to see that religious teaching in board schools, within the limits of the Cowper-Temple Clause, was the proper solution of the difficulty, and that was the position of 422 the Birmingham Board Schools today. He denied that there was any effective demand throughout the country for the plan proposed. He would give to the House an example to show that there was no effective demand for this kind of teaching in the country. The only locality where this demand once assumed a practical form was in them Metropolis, when Mr. Athelstan Riley brought forward upon the London School Board a modification of the religious teaching syllabus, in order to give it a more direct sectarian meaning. It was only the addition of a word or two, but it was held by the Board, by the teachers, and by the parents that the addition of those two or three words would unduly dogmatise and sectarianise the syllabus of the Board. The next London School Board election turned upon the question of direct dogmatic teaching, and the proposal was so defeated that it had never been entertained since. He believed that Churchmen as well as Nonconformists were opposed to it. He suggested to the noble Lord that he was entirely wrong in supposing that if his plan were demanded and could be brought into practice it would produce the result he desired to secure. The noble Lord desired to have religious teaching in the day schools, and he did not seek it for one Church alone; he put forward a demand which, in his view, would satisfy and appease religious quarrels and promote a higher type of religious life throughout the country. He (the hon. Member) did not think the proposal made by the noble Lord would have that effect. It was impracticable to make children understand theological distinctions expressed in theological terms, which, no matter how much they were simplified, remained terms of art. To endeavour to impress theological terms of art upon the children would leave no impression upon children's minds which was comparable to the broad religious teaching which could be give by a skilled teacher. Because he believed that, so far from improving the religious level and the real moral tone of the schools, this proposal would damage and even lower them; because he knew from his own experience as a teacher that it would interfere with the general working of the schools; and because he believed there was no effective demand on the part of the parents for this kind of teaching, he was opposed to the Clause.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT () Monmouthshire, W.asked leave to call attention to the position in which the House stood in reference to this proposal—a position which in a long Parliamentary life he had never had any experience of before. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, at the eleventh hour, said that he had given most anxious attention to this subject and had endeavoured to find a solution of a similar character. But he had come to the conclusion that it was utterly impracticable; that it would load this measure with a controversy of the most bitter kind; that, in his opinion, the Nonconformists would be against it; that the Church of England would be against it; and that the schoolmasters would be against it. And yet he would not vote against it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said I would not vote against the Second Reading.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the House by encouraging the Second Reading of a Clause which would have the results which had just been described. The course the right hon. Gentlman had taken was to abandon the charge of this Bill, and to hand over to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the task of dealing with the religious difficulty in a Bill for national education. That was the net result of the speech of the First Lord. The First Lord would not cross swords with the noble Lord. He had said that this proposal was impracticable, and that, consequently, it would be mischievous; that it would introduce the religious difficulty in its worst form into this Bill; that everybody would be against it, and yet—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is correctly quoting me, he is quite mistaken. He is not representing me in the smallest degree.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for believing that attempts of a similar character were impracticable was that every one would look at this Clause 424 in its worst possible light. He described how the Nonconformist minister would think the clergy were invading the board schools; how the clergy would dislike the Nonconformist minister's going into his school; and how the schoolmaster would dislike both the Nonconformist minister and the clergyman going into the school. And yet he would not vote against the proposal. Was not that a most extraordinary conclusion for the responsible Minister in charge of a Bill of this description to come to? If a Clause that would have these consequences was carried, every class responsible for education would determine to destroy this Bill, and yet the right hon. Gentleman washed his hands of the transaction. A more remarkable situation for the head of a responsible Government he had never heard of. He believed no such example could be found in the history of the House of Commons. He did not know what was going to happen to this Clause, but he knew what was going to happen to the Bill if the Clause was carried. For his part, he should vote against a Clause which would have the consequences described by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that this Clause, which would be like putting two game cocks into a room to fight our their religious difficulties, was one of the most mischievous proposals that ever was made to a responsible representative Assembly. It had been tried before and it had failed, and these game cocks were no longer allowed to fight in the place where they fought before. What sort of thing would happen? He read the other day something which shocked him. A child was brought to be buried, and the curate asked whether it had been baptized. The parents said "No," and he said, "Then it cannot come into the church." Then at the grave the consolatory sentences of the burial service were omitted because the child had not been baptised.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN () Kent, TonbridgeWhat has that to do with this Clause?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was giving that as an illustration of what they had to deal with. By leaving 425 the decision of a question which went to the root of the religious difficulty in the hands of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, whom they greatly respected, but from whom they profoundly differed, the Government were not casting oil upon the waters of religious difficulty, but rather oil upon the flames. That the religious difficulty should be left in the hands of the noble Lord, and not in the hands of the Government, did not, in his opinion, promise well for the ultimate success of this measure.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that it was no part of his duty to answer the personal attack on his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. He had always understood that there were two stages of the proceedings on Report in regard to a new Clause. The first was the Second Reading of the Clause, when the principle on which the Clause was based was confirmed; and the subsequent proceeding was the adding of the Clause to the Bill, which was an entirely different proceeding, when the House might come to a different decision. He had not any official responsibility for this Clause. He would support the principle of the Clause by voting for the Second Reading if it went to a division, but he must insist on explaining that he did not consider himself in any way bound to vote for the addition of the Clause to the Bill unless it could be made workable, and one which would really operate in the interests of education. There was no more remarkable phenomenon in our educational system than the contrast between the profound peace that reigned in all the schools on the religious question and the violent tempests which prevailed on platforms, and, to some extent, even in this House, Why was that? The fact was that the managers of voluntary schools seconded by the teachers managed, notwithstanding the trust deeds, and notwithstanding the Cowper-Temple Clause, to give that religious instruction to the children which was acceptable to the parents of the children in the school. He did not insist that that was saying very much, for he must admit that a very large number of the parents of these children did not care what particular religious instruction their children were 426 taught. No doubt there were very devout parents who had strong views on religious matters, but, as a general rule, the parents of children in the elementary schools were not very anxious or careful as to the particular religious instruction given to their children. But the managers of the voluntary schools not only gave religious instruction which was satisfactory to the parents, but also not objectionable to the particular denomination to which the parents belonged, even in districts where there was only one school. And the reason was that the sort of religious instruction given was not of a controversial or dogmatic character; it consisted, for the most part, of the simple teaching of the facts of Christianity directly from the Old and New Testaments. He supposed that the Parable of the Good Samaritan, if it were taught to a child by a nun, would not very much differ from that given by a sister in a Church of England Sunday school. Nor was the Church Catechism a very controversial document. A very large part of the Church Catechism was not very distasteful to many of the Nonconformist bodies. [Some cries from the OPPOSSITION Benches of "Oh, oh!"] He knew that many Wesleyans did not object at all to the statements in the Church Catechism as to baptism or the Lord's Supper; and the teachers managed to teach even the Church Catechism in such a fashion in thousands of schools as to give no offence whatever to the parents of Nonconformist children. He understood that the Clause of the noble Lord was merely intended to carry out in all schools that which managers and teachers managed to carry out in thousands of schools all over the country now. It would be a slight improvement on the existing Conscience Clause. He had always thought the existing Conscience Clause defective, because it only allowed the children to be withdrawn from the religious teaching during the hour that that was given, and the children so withdrawn had to do sums or writing exercises while the religious instruction was going on. As to the second Clause of the noble Lord's Amendment, he did not read it at all in the sense suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—that interlopers were to come into the schools for the purpose of giving religious instruction, which would be the Birmingham case 427 revived, and which, he thought, was an extremely bad system. What he understood to be the meaning of the Amendment of the noble Lord was that religious instruction should be given to the children by the teachers of the school in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and a very large discretion was left to the local authority as to how that was to be brought about. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen said that that had not succeeded; but it had succeeded in hundreds and thousands of schools. In the great majority a Church schools teaching was given to which nobody objected, and which was accepted by not only the parents, but by the ministers of Nonconformist bodies. There was also a very large number of broad schools in which religious teaching was given of the most admirable kind which was accepted, not only by churchmen, but even by Roman Catholics. He had gone into schools in London where the children were receiving religious instruction to which no objection was made either by Churchmen or Roman Catholics; and he must say that he had never heard better religious instruction given them than by nonconformist teachers, under the Cowper-Temple Clause and the rules of the London school Board. But there was a certain number of country schools in which, no doubt, there was a desire on the part of nonconformist parents that their children should not be taught the church of England Catechism, or the doctrines of the Church of England contained in the English Prayer Book. He did not know whether it was a violation of the trust deeds or not, but there were hundreds of schools in which one set of children received Bible lessons while another set of children, in another class room, were taught out of the Catechism and the Prayer Book. He could assure the House that that was done with the greatest possible good effect. It was for that reason that there was such profound peace in the schools in regard to this religious question. He did not deny that there were isolated cases in which zealous school masters, or managers, had given instruction which had caused a great deal of disturbance and difficulty, but these cases were rare. He should say that there were not more than two 428 or three in a year, while he was at the Education Department. He understood that the Amendment of the noble Lord meant that it would be the duty of the local authorites to provide, in cases of that kind, for the separate teaching of those children whose parents did not like the religious teaching given in the schools and required some other religious teaching. That would work perfectly well with the good will of the managers, and would conduce to religious peace, and the termination of religious strife on public platforms. Holding these views, he should vote for the noble Lord's Proposal to amend the Bill.
(5.45.) MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire) South Moltondesired to call attention to the extraordinary position in which the House was placed. The Question had been put from the Chair that this Clause be read a second time. The First Lord of the treasury had no idea of supporting it in the division lobby, but he had supported it in his speech. what would the position be if the Clause was read a second time? He supposed it would then be amended, and after Amendment the Question would be put that the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill, when the Government would reject it. Such a course was treating the House with contempt. Every one knew the Closure would fall on the debate at eleven o'clock, and it was not right to waste all this time over this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had spent a good deal of time and thought over this Clause, and had abandoned it because he found everybody was against it, yet now this was a Clause upon which the First Lord had no mind, and he was going to run away when the division took place. He had not intended to say anything upon the Clause itself, but as it was left an open question for the House, he might say he had no hesitation in voting against it. He thought they had no right to ask the State to contribute towards teaching dogmatic religion. If the people were called upon to contribute to the maintenance of these schools, the teaching should be such as that given in the Board Schools, and should not be distinctive of any 429 denomination. He did not wish the children to be brought up little bigots, as they would be under such a Clause In the West of England the "Bible Christians" were a very large sect, and he held in his hand an advertisement by a clergyman for a gardener, which read as follows—
Wanted a gardener who understands green-houses and fruit growing; good wages and comfortable home to a first-class man.And then it says—No Bible Christian or other incompetent person need apply.What would be the state of affairs in such a parish as that if the parents were allowed to bring in different religious teachers to teach their various beliefs? It was surely ridiculous in this twentieth century to attempt to set up a system which would widen the religious differences among children. It would create the greatest confusion—a sort of theological Babel — in the rural school.
§ MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was right when he said there were different types and different forms of Church teaching in the various schools, because while the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was speaking he had received the following telegram — "Please oppose the Cecil Amendment. — Church Association." He opposed this Motion, however, not because the proposal before the House was radically bad, and would import confusion and bitterness into the schools. The main object of this proposal was that all denominations should have a right of entering into the schools and teaching their special form of religion; but there were both spiritual and practical objections to that. Those who favoured this proposal were those who looked at the schools from the outside; and those who opposed it looked at the schools from the inside. How was this sectarian canvass to be conducted? The only result could be to create wishes on the part of the parents which did not at present exist. Those who represented the Anglican Church were not very sincere in saying that they desired to consult the wishes 430 of the parents, or, at least, it was very late in the day for them to be so solicitous of the wishes of the parents after having ignored them for the last thirty or forty years. In the 5,000 districts where there was only a Church school the wishes of the parents had been ignored. The proposal contained in the Clause could only be carried out by grace and favour of the teacher; for every one of the volunteer instructors in religion would have to have a school-master beside him to maintain order. No teacher worth his salt liked the proposal. They all preferred to give the religious teaching themselves. There could be no smooth-working system if those who were hostile to it had to stand aside and keep order. He thought that it would injure the school and the children, who after all counted for something. The Committee was being asked to supersede he head teacher very frequently. Did they not think that it was a bad thing to lower his status? Did they not think that the whole furure of the school and of the children depended on the opposite process—on exalting him, on making him a man of influence and of prestige among the children of his school? He also thought that they were going to divide the school against itself, to destroy the religious unity of the school. They would have the children meeting together for some common lesson and then filing into separate class-rooms to worship God apart as if there were several gods. By this Amendment they were emphasising the divisions, obscuring the radical concurrences; and in his judgement it was rather a terrible thing to obscure these great and vital concurrences. He did not know in whose interest this Clause was proposed, but he felt sure that it was not in the interest of the children. The Dissenters would not have it, and although he did not know what the Roman Catholics thought about it, they would certainly not allow any Dissenting interlopers to come into their class-rooms and proselytise their children. They would repudiate it with indignation and talk of "atmosphere." He did not think special treatment in regard to Roman Catholic schools was either practical or feasible. All voluntary schools must come into the same plan. If special facilities were given to the Roman catholic schools, the Roman 431 Catholic religion would be more eatablished in this country than that of the Church of England. The noble Lord wanted to enter the board schools, and he and his friends had taken what was called, ratherabsurdly, Cowper-Templeism, as if it were a system of religion. It was not a system at all; it was not a religion; it was not a system of imparting religious instruction which was in some respects like the Scottish system. Members of the Church of England could enter the board schools now and teach their own doctrines. They did so now in Birmingham. The Church of England sent their teachers round, and lately they had been giving a set of discourses on the doctrine of the Trinity. This fact proved that the noble Lord's Clause was unnecessary. Anything could be taught in the board schools provided that a formulary was not used, and he could not see what the noble Lord was fighting for, unless it was for a formulary. If they abolished every formulary in Christendom he thanked God that Christianity would remain. Whether board schools or Church schools were good or bad, the religious teaching did not depend on the formulary, but upon the man. He might mention that there was one school whose services he recently attended, at which he heard a most beautiful prayer. He asked the head teacher where he got the prayer form. The reply was "I once taught in a board school, I found it there, and I brought it into this Church schools." Here they had the case of a board school without a formulary exalting and spiritualising the teaching of a Church school with a formulary. what was the essential difference? The teacher believed what he taught, and that was the whole thing. No parent had asked for his experiment to be tried—the system of Christianity by compartments. The noble Lord and his friends wanted to break up the religious unity of the schools, to make them sectarian, to make the poor little children sectarian, each with his own label, a label that no angel in heaven could read. Again, they would impoverish and secularise the teaching of the headmaster, abase his calling—he upon whom only the whole tone and atmosphere of the school depended, he who on some occasions must have mute lips and could not say a word for the faith that was in him. Oh! shame on you. He listened to many speeches of the noble Lord with 432 personal advantage, and could not see how any one with his delicacy of apprehension could support a scheme that struck him as being so monstrous and really so irreligious.
(6.15.) SIR WALTER FOSTER () Derbyshire, Ilkestonsaid he could not express in sufficiently strong terms his pleasure, as an old Birmingham citizen, at hearing Birmingham once more articulated in the house of Commons. During the School Board struggle in Birmingham they went through the various phases which had been discussed on this Bill. First, they had a School Board with a Church majority; then they had a majority whose object was to have no religious teaching whatever in the schools; and finally, they came to a compromise which had been the basis of the teaching so well described by the hon. Member for North Birmingham. The views expressed by the hon. Member were those held by a larger number of people in Birmingham, because they had had practical experience of the proposals that were made. When the difficulty arose as to how religious teaching should be continued in the board schools of Birmingham, a worthy citizen carried on a campaign in favour of a scheme almost identical with that of the noble Lord. The scheme was discussed in the Press and on the platform. At first sight it was received with general approval because it seemed to provide a means of getting rid of the religious difficulty by giving an equal field and no favour to all denominations. It was tried, but had finally to be given up as great city, with all its wealth of enthusiasm for education, with the various sects primed up to the highest pitch of energy, the scheme was found impracticable because sufficient teachers could not be found to carry on the work. In addition to that practical difficulty it was found that it would create a confusion and disturbance in the management of the school which would be fatal to the general scheme of education. He deprecated Members supporting the Amendment from a desire to heal religious differences. It would not heal them, it would accentuate and embitter them. It would place before the coming generation in every school the worst object-lesson they could have in religious differences. At an age when their minds were most 433 susceptible to such impressions there ought above all things to be an attempt made to put before them a common basis of religious teaching which would not be embittered by differences between one set of children and another. He asked the House to imagine a school divided into little sects, each sect trooping off to its separate room, to receive their religious teaching from a special teacher! Anything more likely to cause differences between sections of children could not be conceived. Religious differences would be forced into the minds of the children, to become a source of religious difficulty and schism in later years. He was convinced that this system, no matter how earnestly or on how high grounds it was advocated, would accentuate the religious difficulty and cause future religious strife, rather than provide a solution which in the common interests of education and Christianity all were anxious to find.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid it seemed to be the impression of some speakers that his noble friend the Member for Greenwich and those who supported this proposal wished to recreate or to make worse the religious difficulty in the schools. Nothing was farther from their intention. The Amendment was put forward with the simple desire to get rid of that which. over and over again, had been declared in the House to be a great religious difficulty. How many times had there been put forward the hard case of the children of Nonconformist parents in parishes where there was only one school, and that a school connected with the Church of England, in which the children received religious instruction according to the doctrines of the church of England or none at all. The number of these schools had been greatly exaggerated. As a matter of fact there were 7500 single school districts. Of those schools, only 5600 were Church of England, in which he admitted the Nonconformist grievance existed, but there were 1326 single board schools, in which Church of England parents, and those of every denomination had an equal grievance in that their children could get only 434 undenominational religious teaching, which did not satisfy them. The contention he put forward, simply with the object of arriving at a just and common understanding, was that it was only fair in all these cases that some separate provision should be made if the parents demanded it, so that the children might obtain religious instruction in the doctrines held by their parents. He was certainly disappointed that the proposal had not met with a more liberal response from hon. Members on the other side. At the sametime, he was to bound to admit that the difficulties which had been urged were chiefly of a practical order. Over and over again it had been said that the Amendment would not work. How was it that in Ireland, where religious differences were greater and more acute than in this country, a similar system had been in existence for many years and was working with absolute satisfaction? He preferred the proposal with regard to facilities outside rather than facilities inside the school, because it would interfere less with the children in the school. It was said that various people who had a right to be consulted would oppose the scheme. He did not think that would be the case as far as the great bulk of the energy were concerned, as the Prime Minister seemed to fear. Some would disapprove of it, but he believed the bulk of the country clergy, and certainly the majority of the town clergy, would be perfectly willing to make such arrangements in their schools as would enable the scheme to be carried out. Then they were told that Nonconformists would oppose it because they might have a poorer staff. His noble friend and himself had tried to meet these difficulties by a proposal which they thought was perfectly fair, and which would enable the local authority to give these separate facilities.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER () Wolverhampton E.What sort of facilities?
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was afraid that he went would not be in order in discussing that. Separate rooms might be hired, and certain teachers inside the religion of the minority. He ventured to think that the real reason why hon. Members opposed this proposal was to be 435 found in one short sentence which occurred at the end of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for south Aberdeen, when he said, "If you will only give us popular control the whole thing will be settled." If that were so with popular control, would the right hon. Gentleman accept the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause? He would not object to complete popular control over all schools alike, provided that the Cowper-Temple Clause was abolished and the majority were allowed to decide what religious instruction should be given in every locality, coupled, of course, with such provisions in the interest of the minority as were contained in the new Clause of his noble friend.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEHear, hear!
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that if they were agreed on that point they might arrive at a compromise. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] But he observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen shook his head.
§ MR. BRYCEI do not approved of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I think it would be better than the Bill and I would accept it before the Bill, in my view, schools which receive grants from the State should give no denominational instruction.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid be was in favour of popular control in the fullest sense. He objected to the Cowper-Temple Clause because it limited popular control, by preventing the people of a locality from giving in the schools of that locality the religious instruction they desired. He regretted that the two sides could not come to some agreement in the matter. For his part he would go very far indeed to get rid of the religious difficulty. But no doubt it was too late to reconstruct the Bill at this stage; and taking the Bill as it stood it seemed to him that the only way to meet the grievance of those who did not believe in the religion taught in the one school of a district was to accepts the new Clause of his noble friend, which would give to the minority, whether Nonconformist or Anglican, the chance of obtaining for their children instruction in the religious doctrines which they professed.
436 So far from wishing to intensify religious differences, he had no object, except as far as possible to mitigate those differences, and allow the schools, untrammelled by any restrictions, to carry on the great work of education.
§ (6.35.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member for Tunbridge, who had just made an important suggestion, had confined his appeal to hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House. Why did he not appeal to the Prime Minister, and to hon. Members sitting around him, who were in a majority? It did not rest with the Opposition to dictate terms upon this question, for they were in a minority, and a very small minority. He should like to know what the answer of the Prime Minister would be to the hon. Member's suggestion. He could only speak as to what happened in Wales. In Wales they did not regard it as an ideal system, but they were ready to accept what the hon. Member for Tunbridge had suggested as a good working compromise, and they were willing to proceed to act upon it. He knew it was impossible to obtain an ideal system in education or in anything else. If the Prime Minister was in the same frame of mind now he did not think it was too late for him to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tunbridge. A great many Government Amendments had already been put down, and why could they not put a few more down to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Tunbridge. As to the new Clause, the Prime Minister had come to a rather lame Conclusion in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised it very severely, but he had given no guidance to the House as to how he desired his own supporters to act with respect to it. For all the House knew there might be a majority of hon. Members opposite who were prepared to carry it through. In that case, was the Prime Minister prepared to embody it in the Bill? He thought the Prime Minister was trifling with the House in not giving it definite guidance. If they only knew that the Government were going to resist this proposal they would not need to oppose it, and they might consider the matter at an end. The declaration of the Prime Minister meant that he was not going to take any step to get this proposal thrown 437 out. He should like to know how they would stand if the discussion upon this Clause was kept up until eleven o'clock.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe only Question to put to the House will be that the Clause be added to the Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had understood that nothing but Government Clauses could be put. He understood from the ruling which had just been given that if an Amendment to this Clause was under discussion, assuming the Second Reading of the Clause was carried, at eleven o'clock it would be competent for Mr. Speaker to put the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill. It so, he thought the Parliamentary situation was a veery serious one indeed as far as this Clause was concerned. They might be adding to the Bill a Clause of the very greatest importance, without a word of guidance from the Government, who were responsible for the Bill. He frankly confessed that he did not understand the position of the Prime Minister. He had seen a report of a diocesan conference where they discussed this question, and where a resolution was moved in favour of the noble Lord's Clause. Once of the speakers said, "It won't be any use, because the Government will not accept it, and what is the good of wasting out time." Another ecclesiastical dignitary said, "Don't forget what happened with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, upon which the Government changed their minds:" and the same speaker further stated that the Government had only got to be squeezed and they would give in. What they wanted to know was whether the Government were going to be squeezed into accepting this Clause in the Bill. For his part, he took a different view with regard to the general principle of this Clause from that of many of his hon. friends. He did not say that in no circumstances should they contemplate the giving of facilities to religious communities to have their particular doctrine taught in the schools. Such a system was in operation in Canada and in New South Wales, and it worked well, because in these cases there was popular control, and that made a great difference. Was the noble Lord prepared to go as far, with regard to popular control, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge?
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENProvided you abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was prepared to go as far a s that, because it made a considerable difference. If he was, he had beem wondering why they had been arguing at this for six or seven months, for whatever might be said about it, the plan suggested by the hon. Member or Tunbridge was a much better solution than the one contained in the Bill. He thought that even hon. Members on the Opposition side who objected to these facilities would admit that the suggestion put forward by the hon. Members opposite was a much better solution than that which was contained in the bill. He observed that the noble Lord opposite preferred to remain silent upon this point, and he thought this silence showed that he held a more extreme view than his hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge. He was afraid that the noble Lord was rather moving this Clause more in the interests of the sectarian schools than for a settlement of the religious difficulty. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had shown, at any rate, that he was in favour of something that would make for peace in this matter. But the noble Lord opposite was moving this proposal from a totally different point of view, because he did not suggest any proposal of the kind put forward by the hon. Member opposite. Popular control was the very essence of this matter. He would point out how it would make a difference in the working of the noble Lord's Clause. Supposing these facilities were granted to various religious denomiantions under the present system. What would happen? Let them face the facts of the situation, and let them consider actually what would happen. He was speaking for that part of the country which he knew best, and what would happen in Wales would be that both parties would use these facilities as a weapon to destroy one system or the other. He did not hesitate for a moment to say that in wales they would use it as a weapon. Did the noble Lord mean to say that he and his friends would not use it as a weapon in the English 439 counties where they had a majority, or in every Church school through out wales? The hon. member did not hesitate to avow that it would be used as a means of destroying one system or the other. There was nothing wrong, or anything that any one needed to conceal about it. Let the noble Lord not press this without knowing exactly what he was preparing for himself. Suppose that in wales there was a parish where eighty of the children were those of Nonconformist parents, and only twenty were the sons and daughters of Anglican parents. In that case the facilities provided by the Clause would be used in the way he had indicated. That was a very bad thing for the schools and they could only justify it as a means of bringing to an end the present dual system which he thought was most disastrous to education all round. As long as the present dual system was in existence, it worked unequally. What did it mean? As far as majority of the schools were concerned, the teachers maintained by the ratepayers would be giving instruction which would be purely sectarian. Therefore, if the Nonconformists wished the dogmas of their sect to be taught, they would have to make provision and do organise for the teaching of their dogmas in the whole of the elementary schools of the land. They would not start on equal terms with the denominational schools. A good deal had been said about the theological bitterness that would be introduced. That was perfectly true. He would put this to the House as a practical matter. There were a large number of children who belonged to no sect at all. It was a mistake to suppose that all parents desired to bring up their children in the dogmas of any particular sect. The fact was, that the majority of parents were outside of all sects. Who was to take charge of that class of children? They would have disputed territories, and disputes about spheres of influence. They would have hundreds of little theological Fashodas all over the country; one theological sect saving "That boy belongs to us," and another saying "He belongs to us." In these little theological Fashodas they would have one sect fighting with another. They would have endless squabbles, and there was 440 nothing so bitter as a quarrel about a thing of this sort. They would have at one time a child belonging to one sect, and in another week or a fortnight there would be a successful Jameson Raid, or there would be some local Major Marchand who would have the child taken away. That was exactly what would happen. It was not a question of superior dogmas, it was a question to superior buns. As a matter of fact, it was all a question of bribery and corruption in those cases. The noble Lord talked as if all those children were thirsting for Church dogma. There were simply ravenously greedy for buns. It was a question of blankets with the parents. This was the sort of thing that would go on. It would create wrangles and bitterness. It might be said that these things were trivialities. It was a great mistake to suppose that theology exalted people above these trifles. Quite the reverse. Theology rather exaggerated them. There would be bitterness and wrangling and jealousies—one sect saying, "We are only getting Tuesday. Monday is the best day, and you give that to the Methodists." Another would say. "Look at the Congregationalists, they have had the best class-room. We Anglicans have only got that miserable little apartment round there." The noble Lord was very anxious to spread the spirit of religion. He could assure the noble Lord that strife was not the atmosphere in which religion prospered. This sort of strife and squabbing would go on with the facilities given for this, what might be called, lamb-stealing—one sect crossing the boundary and taking sheep from the flock of the other. He knew that the noble Lord wanted some sort of cattle-branding process whereby they would fix on the children these marks. Although the noble Lord believed in Canon Moberly and his doctrines, these things did not divide the children. He had read Canon Moberly religiously, and he gave the noble Lord Dr. Clifford. He ventured to say that the noble Lord had the better of the bargain. These things were so abstruse that although he had been trained at a Church school he did not understand them. The idea of reading all these abstruse things, all this mysticism, and that they should read Canon Moberly in an Oxfordshire rural school to a lot of children! They 441 would not understand it. Children did not worry about these things. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said they had perfect peace in the the schools. Of course they had, and the children knew nothing about these theologies, and they cared less about them. Why on earth where they had peace should they introduce discord? They were proposing to bring these differences and these sects face to face. They would bring the children into physical conflict in some of those cases. There were some people who thought it was much more important to train children in some of the elementary ideas of the duties of citizenship. If they gave theological discourses, why should they not have political lectures? Why not bring them up in their views of politics? In a rural district they might have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford taking the children into a class-room and discussing the virtues of pure beer. That was a dogma the right hon. Gentleman believed in much more profoundly than anything else. If they were going to have the dogmas of the parent, what right had any one to dictate the lines on which they were going to proceed in these matters? The only successful way was that which had been followed in all our colonies and in America with no harm to the theology or dogma. Let not the noble Lord forget that there was much more dogma, much more doctrine, in America than in this country, and that more people in proportion attended the churches there. Yet their dogmas were not taught in their schools. They taught there what were called the Christian virtues. The noble Lord did not seem to think that these were of much importance compared with Canon Moberly. After all, the Christian virtues were undenominational, and the most important of them, charity, was certainly undenominational. The noble Lord made use of a very curious expression. He said that the real life was in those things about which the denominations differed. What an extraordinary proposition! The Christian virtues were the tree with the bark stripped off, the branches lopped, and the leaves gone, and the true life, according to the noble Lord, was in those things which enabled a man to quarrel with his neighbour about them. What a notion 442 of Christianity! All the rest was absolutely nothing. All he could say was that any other country but this could teach Christianity without introducing all these differences into the schools, and that was what we ought to do in this country. The noble Lord said that the children knew of these differences already, and could not cross a village green without seeing that there were churches and chapels. He could assure the noble Lord that he knew of villages where the children could cross the village green without seeing any chapel; where the chapel was put in the background, and there was no outward and visible evidence there, at any rate, of any of these differences. But there was a great distinction between the children seeing such evidence and bringing the differences into the schools with sectarian doctrine. What was wanted was to train the children as common citizens, not to give facilities for the introduction of these sectarian squabbles and wrangles into the schools, but to place every difficulty they could in the way of such introduction.
§ * (7.5.) MR. TALBOT () Oxford Universitysaid that he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon who it was that was responsible for these religious squabbles and religious differences. It was not the supporters of the voluntary schools that were responsible for them. There was nothing about which they need squabble. Would the hon. Member say why it was alleged that there was a religious grievance? It was not they in the Church of England who wanted to raise religious difficulties.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman wished him to answer at once, he certainly would. The Church of England had 12,000 schools supported at the public expense, and 60,000 teachers exclusively appointed.
§ * MR. TALBOTsaid it was quite right that hon. Gentlemen opposite should throw off the mask, and show that what they wanted was to eliminate all the voluntary schools in the country, and establish universal board schools. This was now the avowed policy of hon. Gentlemen 443 opposite, although they had, for a long time, refrained from coming to close quarters, and professed their willingness to do justice to the voluntary schools. By this Clause his noble friend did not create all this religious controversy. He and those who agreed with him had tried to meet the Nonconformist grievance by offering to give facilities which they thought would satisfy the Nonconformist conscience. The supporters of the Amendment had derived a very considerable accession of strength that after noon from the very remarkable speech delivered by the Leader of the House, who had disclosed the workings of his mind and had told them how he had come to his present condition of mind as to the effect of his noble friend's Amendment. The Prime Minister had said that if he were free to do what he liked, he would support the Clause moved by his noble friend, but that he did not think the Clause would work in practice. But all that they asked was to give them a chance to try whether it was workable or not. He believed that if the Clause were put in operation the anticipated friction prophesied would not arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, in the course of his speech had used language which had lifted them into a high and pure atmosphere, and that right hon. Gentleman, he believed, was in favour of the principles he and his friends were advocating, though he would not avow it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not see how the Clause of his noble friend could be practically worked. It had been practically worked in Ireland and in Scotland and why should a system which worked well in Ireland and in Scotland not work in England if fairly tried. He had heard of a case in the Western Highlands of Scotland where the inhabitants were partly Roman Catholic, and partly Presbyterian. The children in the school were divided into two separate divisions—the Roman Catholics going to one side of the school, and the Presbyterians going to the other side of the school, where each got their own particular religious instruction. No friction occurred, and the religious difficulty was solved.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he imagined it was the general wish 444 of the House that they should not delay long in coming to a conclusion on this matter. He had only one or two observations to make in regard to the merits of the Clause itself. He was content to accept as the expression of his own opinion the most admirable speech of his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen at the beginning of the debate but there were one or two things he wanted to point out. In the first place, the noble Lord, the author of this Clause, talked in a feeling way, and with great effect, of a double in justice, and had the idea that the one injustice could be set off against the other in justice— the injustice of the Nonconformist, or other man, outside the Church of England, who, in certain parishes, found that his child must be instructed in a faith not his own, while, on the other hand, there was a corresponding injustice inflicted upon the Church parent having his children in the school under the dominion of the School Board. There the noble Lord made the mistake, which was a very common mistake, of assuming that the School Boards were necessarily Nonconformist. As a matter of fact, that was not so. In the only part of England with regard to which he had seen an analysis of the membership of the School Boards there was a majority of three to two of Anglican members over all the other members of the School Boards. There was this further matter of fact, that in the majority of School Boards in the large towns, the Chairman was a bishop, or a canon, or some other dignitary of the Established Church. It must be remembered that these clergymen might or might not be placed on the Board by the operation of the cumulative vote; but the significant point was that, after being made members of the Board, they were elected to the Chairmanship by their fellow members. It was, in these circumstances, ridiculous to talk of a Nonconformist religion being foisted on the Church children by the School Boards. Yet, that was the common talk among the supporters of the Bill, and the common view taken by a large number of people in the country, even if the noble Lord himself did not use language so strong. There was no foundation for it whatever. He believed that that neutral representation of the fundamental 445 principle and doctrines of Christianity, which might be called the religion taught in the School Board schools, was eminently representative, at any rate, of the Protestant feeling of the people of this country, and therefore could not be antagonistic to the Established Church, because if the Established Church was not a Protestant Church it was time that the people of this country knew it. That was the first point that he wished to make against the argument of the noble Lord. Then it was said with regard to the alleged fair and equitable arrangement between the two parties in this matter, that, while the Anglican clergy would have access to the School Board schools, in order to see that their doctrines were duly taught to their own flock, the Nonconformists would have equal access to the denominational schools in the country parishes. The two cases were not on the same footing. In the one case there was a Church which was rich and great in influence and with any amount of staff—clergy and others—on whom it could draw to undertake this duty in all the schools. What provision was there in the country villages for the teaching of the different classes of religious opinion which might be found represented among the children of these schools? There was no equality at all in the matter. On that ground the provision seemed to him to be objectionable as it stood. But it seemed to him that the merits of the Clause were almost overshadowed by the extraordinary character of the position in which the House of Commons was invited to discuss this question. It must be borne in mind that the House was discussing this matter under the immediate prospect of the guillotine. This day was allotted for the discussion of all the new clauses and of all the Amendments upon the first four Clauses of the Bill. and the greater part of the time was to be occupied in discussing a Clause that had been on the Paper for weeks, as to which everybody's mind must have been made up; yet the mind of the Government was not made up. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government had taken a course which he believed had never been taken by any one in the right hon. Gentleman's position before. Here was a most 446 important Clause, which he said would be impracticable, and which might therefore cause mischief to the working of the educational system, and he stated that he approved of it in theory, but disapproved of it in practice, and that he would not vote either one way or the other. The House was to be left without his guidance—or, rather, with this double guidance—to find its way in this complicated, most vital, and most important matter. The right hon. Gentleman had conducted the discussion of the Clauses of this Bill in all its stages in a way to attract the sympathy, respect, and admiration of all who had attended the debates. But when it came to this important point, and there were other Clauses and Amendments which greatly demanded the consideration of the House, and which would not be reached because hour after hour was occupied in this discussion, the right hon. Gentleman had not had the courage to do what his words would lead the House to believe he ought to do—namely, to oppose the Clause. If he had done so, a division might have been taken two or three hours ago, and all this time might have been saved. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if this Clause were introduced into the Bill he could not be responsible for the Bill. At any rate, whatever the other words were, be used the phrase the he could not be responsible for the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, I said I could not be responsible for introducing it.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman was responsible whether he liked it or not. It might be open to any individual Member to say he would not be responsible for introducing this Clause, and therefore he would not vote; but the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the Bill. He trusted that the House would reject the Clause, because he felt certain that the good object with which it had been introduced would not be accomplished, and that it would do a great deal of harm to the education and even to the religious interests of the country.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 576.)
| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Grenfell, William Henry | Rankin, Sir James |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn) | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lawson, John Grant | Tully, Jasper |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Welby, SirCharles G. E.(Notts.) |
| Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r | Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose- | Malcolm, Ian | Younger, William |
| Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | |
| Flower, Ernest | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | |
| Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. | Morrison, James Archibald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. Talbot. |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) | Myers, William Henry | |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Maxwell. WJH(Dumfriesshire) | Robinson, Brooke | Toulmin, George |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Robson, William Snowdon | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Milvain, Thomas | Roe, Sir Thomas | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | Runciman, Walter | Valentia, Viscount |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Rutherford, John | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Murray, Rt. HnA. Graham(Bute | Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland) | Wallace, Robert |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Schwann, Charles E. | Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S. |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Shackleton, David James | Wason, Eugene |
| Newnes, Sir George | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Norman, Henry | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durbam | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, George (Nerfolk) |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Whiteley, George(York, W. R) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne |
| Pemberton, John S. G. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Perks, Robert William | Simth, HC(North'mb. Tyneside | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Pilkington, Lieut. Col. Richard | Spear, John Ward | Williams, Osmond(Merioneth) |
| Plummer, Walter R. | Speneer, RtHnC. R. (Nothants | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W. |
| Price, Robert John | Stevenson, Francis S. | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Stewart. Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Purvis, Robert | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
| Rattigan, Sir William Henry | Strutn, Hon. Charles Hedley | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath) |
| Rea, Russell | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Tennant, Harold John | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Renshaw, Sir Charlews Bine | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr | |
| Renwick, George | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings | |
| Rigg, Richard | Thomas, JA(Glamorg'n, Gower | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Colonel Sandys and Mr. Middlemore. |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eition) | Thornton, Perev M. | |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomkinson, James |
§ It being half-past Seven of the Clock, further proceedings on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned until this evening.