Commons Sitting of 26 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Buxton, against; to lie upon the table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petition from New Brompton, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NEW SOUTH WALES (WOMEN'S FRANCHISE ACT, 1902).
  Copy presented, of the Women's Franchise Act, 1902 (New South Wales)

  Name and type of boiler.

  Estimated number of boilers in use.

  Number of Casualties.

  Number of persons killed.

  Number of persons injured.

  Remarks.

  Fire tube

  Water tube (modern)

  Water tube of the Haystack type

  —(Lord Charles Beresford.)

  CASUALTIES TO STEAM BOILERS (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Retuun ordered, of casualties to steam boilers used on shore in the United

  Name and type of boiler.

  Estimated number of boilers in use.

  Number of Casualties reported under the Boiler Explosions Act.

  Number of persons killed.

  Number of persons injured.

  Remarks.

  Types other than water tube

  Water tube

  —(Lord Charles Beresford.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Proposed Re-organisation of the Board of Trade.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the First Lord of the Trea
  [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 382.]

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2915 to 2917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 585 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CASUALTIES TO STEAM BOILERS (MERCANTILE MARINE).
  Return ordered, of casualties to steam boilers in the British Mercantile Marine during the five years ending the 31st day of December, 1901, in the following form:—
  Kingdom during the five years ending the 31st day of December, 1901, in the following form:—
  sury if, when he is giving consideration to the position of the Board of Trade in relation to other Government Departments, and to the expediency of changing the name of its Head to that of Minister of Industry and Commerce, he will direct his attention towards the advisability of placing all functions more immediately relating to industry and
  commerce now exercised by other Departments in the charge of the charge of the Board of Trade, and of increasing its status and dignity rather than towards adding to its executive powers.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) If, and when, any change is contemplated in the composition of the Board of Trade, the suggesstion contained in this Question will receive the fullest consideration.

  Theaty of Upsala, 1654—Stamp Duties on British Insurance Policies in Sweden.
  MR. GUTHRIE (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the treaty entered into between Great Britain and Sweden, signed at Upsala on the 11th Aprile (9th May) 1654, and renewed by Article II. of the Treaty of Orebro, 1812, wherein it is provided under Paragraph X. that British subjects shall, in matters of commerce, be placed in Sweden upon the same footing as Swedish subjects is still in force; and, if so, whether his attention has been called to the fact that a stamp duty is levied upon insurance policies of British insurance companies, while no stamp duty is payale by Swedish fire companies; and, if so, is he prepared to take steps to place the British offices operating in Sweden upon the same footing as their Swedish competitors.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The treaty of Upsala is still in force, but to which stipulation my hon. friend refers I do not understand. Article X. of the Treaty contains no such provision as he quotes, nor is any such stipulation in any other Article of that Treaty. There must be, I think, some misapprehension.

  Central Telegraph Office—Operators' Grievances.
  MR. CREMER (): To ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that in October, 1900, the staff of the Cable Room, Central Telegraph Office, forwarded a petition to him dealing with inadequacy of pay, he can say if an answer can be given now.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No answer has yet been given as, although it is clearly impossible to grant the eneral increase of pay asked for by
  496
  the petitioners, some modification of the present arrangements in the Cable Room seems desirable, and the subject is therefore still under consideration.

  Stafford Postal Staff—Allowances.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a petition, dated early in April last, from the staff of the Stafford Post Office respecting the allowance of 3s. per trip paid to officers performing duties on the Tamworth and Hereford sorting carriage; and whether, in view of the fact that the present allowance is insufficient to cover their expenses, he can give them a favourable reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir; this petition has been broutht to my notice, and I hope soon to be in position to answer it.

  Extension of Railwys in Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. HUDSON (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state if any, and, if so, which railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony are bing extended at the present moment, and which lines it is proposed to extend in the near future.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Lines are in course of construction from Bloemfontein to Ficksburg and from Vereeniging to johannesburg. Surveys are also being or have been made for lines from Harrismith to Vereeniging, from Sannah's Post to Wepener, from Springs to Machadodorp, and from Krugersdorp to Rustenburg, and other lines are under consideration as to which the information at present avaliable is too incomplete ot make it possible to arrive at a decision.

  Importation of Dogs—Rabies.
  MR. CHANNING (): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there have been any case during the last five years in which rabies has been proved to have been introduced into this country by dogs imported from the Continent; and, if so, how many such cases have been estab-

  497
  lished; and whether in any such cases the dogs have been purchased abroad, or have been dogs which have been taken away by their owners from this country and brought back under the regulations of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) There have been two well-established cases of rabies in dogs imported from the Continent since the passing of the Importation of Dogs Order of 1897. In one case the dog was purchased abroad, and in the other it had been taken abroad by its owner and brought back with a licence for its landing. In both cases the disease for its landing. In both cases the disease was detected during the period of detention prescribed by the Board of Agriculture.

  Cruelty to Children—Penruddocke Case—Suggested Alteration of Law.
  MR. PEEL (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the punishment imposed in the recent case of Rex v. Penrud-docke: and whether he proposes to make any alteration in the penalties that can be inflicted in cases of cruelty to children.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The penalties that can be inflicted in the cases mentioned are prescribed by The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, and could only be altered by legislation. They are fixed with wide limits so as to allow, at the discretion of the court, a suitable penalty for every case. The penalities, on conviction on indictment, may be a fine of any amount up to £100, or a sentence of imprisonment for not more than two years, either as an alternative for, or in addition to a fine. The only alteration which would appear to be suggested is to the effect of prescribing a fixed or minimum penalty for all cases. Not only would this be sure to operate most unjustly in certain cases, but the principle of fixing minimum penalties is contrary to the whole tendency and practice of modern legislation.

  Penruddocke Case—Suggested Removal of Mr. Penruddocke's Name from Roll of Magistrates.
  Major EVANS-GORDON (): To ask the Secretary
  498
  of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the censure passed by the jury upon Mr. Penruddocke at a recent trial; and whether it is proposed to take steps to remove that gentleman's name from the roll of magistrates in the county of Wilts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) After consulting the Lord Chancellor in the matter, my answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  Committee on Ventilation of Factories.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the First Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the v entilation of factories and workshops; and what steps he proposes to take to carry out the recommendations made therein.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This Report is receiving very careful consideration; and, as a preliminary to deciding what action shall be taken on it. I am having further trials made of the proposed new method of testing the atmosphere in factories.

  Central London Railway—Vibration.
  MR. H. D. GREENE (): To ask tha President of the Board of Trade if he can state when arrangements will be completed for stopping the annoyance and damage from vibration arising on the Central London Railway; and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to compel the adoption of the suggestions of their Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Company have recently informed me that, in view of the suggestions made by the Committee, they decided to substitute motor cars for the present locomotives; that tenders for the construction and equipment of the cars were let in May last, and that the contractors assure them that delivery of the cars will commence in the early part of next year.

  Annual Leave and Free Passes Home for Men on Active Service.
  MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Secretary of State for War Whether he

  499
  will consider the advisability of arranging that soldiers and sailors on active service may be allowed a free passage to their homes once a year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am afraid that there is no precedent for the grant of leave to soldiers to come home during active service, and operations in the field would necessarily suffer. Further, the cost of the passages would be quite prohibitive. As regards sailors, the question should be addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Discharge of Workmen—Output on Small Arms Ammunition.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that workmen are being discharged from certain departments in Woolwich Arsenal at the rate of about 300 a week, while at the same time work is being done overtime in other Departments, and whether he will consider the advisability of so distributing the work as to obviate the working overtime in some Departments whilst hands are being discharged in others; whether he is aware that contractors are supplying the same amount per week of small arms ammunition as they supplied before the war, whilst the Royal Arsenal is supplying 50 per cent. less; and will he state whether any of the men now being discharged from the Royal Arsenal are reservists lately returned from South Africa; and, if so, how many.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The pressure due to the war having now relaxed, it is inevitable that some discharges should be made from the ordnance factories. Men have recently been discharged at the rate of 100 a week (not 300), and the total discharges for the last six months amount to about 800 men. Further discharges will have to be made at the end of the financial year. There is practically no overtime worked now, except such as is absolutely necessary in continuous operations, etc., and, owing to the different natures of operations, it is impossible to prevent discharges by any redistribution of work. The weekly output of small arms ammunition from the ordnance factories has been reduced to three-quarter million
  500
  rounds a week, but it is not possible to interfere with orders already given to contractors. It is not known whether there are any reservists among the men discharged. Instructions will be given to avoid such discharges wherever possible. The policy of keeping a considerable reserve of power of output in the ordnance factories available in time of war has been deliberately adopted and will be adhered to.

  Education Bill—Voluntary School Teachers.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, with reference to the Second Schedule of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, teachers in a voluntary school transferred, under the operation of the Bill, to the County Council will be treated in precisely the same way as teachers in a board school are to be treated when transferred; and whether, with reference to Clause 19 of the Second Schedule of the Bill, teachers in a voluntary school who suffer any pecuniary loss under the operation of the Bill when passed, by the abolition of office or by diminution of or loss of fees or salary, will be treated in precisely the same way as teachers in a board school.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Teachers in a voluntary school are not transferred under the operation of the Bill to the County Council. The Schedule does not give any greater security of tenure to either class of teacher than was possessed before.

(2.15.)QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Soldiers Discharged in South Africa—Inducements to Settlement in the New Colonies.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will state how many soldiers have been discharged in South Africa; and whether he will consider any additional inducement, in the shape of reservists' pay, with a view to their permanently settling in the Transvaal or Orange River Colony.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The number of discharges in South Africa is as follows:—Regular Forces, 1,107; Volunteers, 249; Oversea Colonials, 1,236; these figures apply to the period from 1st June to 31st October. Imperial Yeomanry, 2,224; these figures apply to the period from 1st June to 30th September. The number of men transferred to the Reserve was, for the period 1st June to 31st October, 1,770. I cannot hold out hopes of giving additional pay to soldiers settling in the new colonies.

  Provisional Regiment of Dragoons—Case of Ex-Sergeant Leonard.
  MR. BUTCHER (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to make any further statement in reference to the case of ex-Sergeant Leonard; whether investigations have been made into the truth of the statements contained in ex-Sergeant Leonard's letter of 8th October, 1902, as to the condition of the 1st Provisional Regiment of Dragoons; and, if so, whether he can state the result of those investigations, and what further steps he proposes to take in regard to this case.
  MR. BRODRICK: Ex-Sergeant Leonard's case is as follows:—He has on several occasions been in trouble in his regiment. When the Carabineers went to South Africa he was not permitted to embark as not being a sufficiently good sergeant. but subsequently went with a draft. Before embarking he extended his service and was liable to complete twelve years, but after arrival in South Africa he represented himself as due to go to the Reserve, and his papers having been lost on board ship, he was permitted to return home in September last. Since being posted to the 1st Provisional Regiment of Dragoons at York he has three times been in trouble with the authorities. Sergeant Leonard's complaints were investigated by his Colonel, and if he was dissatisfied with the Colonel's decision, he was entitled to appeal to the General. This he did not do, but wrote instead to the Secretary of State complaining of his officers and of the condition of the regiment, and for this offence against discipline he was tried by Court Martial and reduced to the ranks. The general officer
  502
  commanding the district has made an exhaustive enquiry into the state of the Provisional Regiment of Dragoons, and the Commander-in-Chief is considering whether any further measures are necessary. I should add that I have received a petition signed by 15,000 persons at York as a result of a mass meeting demanding a public inquiry into the allegations made by ex-Sergeant Leonard, but the House will realise that this is a matter which must be dealt with by the military authorities, and the course proposed would be subversive of all discipline.

  Tattoo and Roll Calls.
  MAJOR RASCH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Order 211, of September last, abolishing tattoo and roll calls, except reveille, is permissive or compulsory.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only obligatory roll call is reveille. Other roll calls may be held on such occasions as may be ordered by officers commanding stations and units.

  China Squadron—British North Borneo Coal.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the expediency of utilising the coal of British North Borneo for the supply of His Majesty's vessels on the China Station.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): British North Borneo coal is not so well adapted for H. M. ships as the coal used on the China Station. It has been used in small quantities for many years, and it will continue to be so used.

  India—Conduct of 9th Lancers at Sialkote.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will produce the Report of the military reviewing authority on the case of the 9th Lancers.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): I have not received any copy of the Report to which this Question refers, nor am I disposed to publish Papers in connection with the case.

  Indian Customs and Military Accoutrements.
  LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that band instruments for military bands, and articles of military dress, such as spurs, military sword belts, and cap lines, are taxed by the Customs Department when entering the country; and whether, in view of the fact that officers are obliged to contribute to the support of regimental bands, and that the instruments are so far State property that the State contributes towards the maintenance of these bands, which, with their taxed instruments, are essential to ceremonial parades, he will undertake to approach the Indian Government in order that such articles and all other articles imported into India for the use of military officers, provided they are for military purposes, may be exempted from taxation.
  EARL PERCY: Military dress and accoutrements brought into India as personal exempt from Customs duty under the regulations respecting passengers' bonâa fide luggage. I doubt whether the Government of India will be prepared to go further, but I will refer the matter to them. If indents for stores for bonâa fide regimental use are made on the Store Department at the India Office they can be supplied free of taxation.

  Secret Treaties with Foreign Powers.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (West-minister): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether any secret agreement was signed in the year 1844, or at any other time, byt Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, and the Czar of Russia.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): No trace of any such agreement can be found in the Archives of the Foreign Office, nor in the collection of Treaties and Conventions between Russia and Great Britain published officially by the Russian Government. It was stated by Lord Aberdeen in the House of Lords on
  504
  the 13th March, 1854, that the communications which the Emperor Nicholas had had with him and the Duke of Wellington were verbal and that he was not aware whether His Majesty had had any with Sir Robert Peel.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask whether there is any system or custom in the conduct of foreign affairs which would permit such a secret agreement to exist without its being in the Foreign Office?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I think my hon. Friend will see that, above all other Questions, this is one of which he would do well to give notice.

  North British Railway—Tow-Roping at Ayton Station.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report of Sub-Inspectors of Railways on Accidents recently issued shows that on the 30th June last a goods guard employed on the North British Railway was injured while engaged in tow-roping at Ayton railway station; and will he take steps for the discontinuance of tow-roping at this station.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Report in question was made to the Board of Trade and considered by them. In forwarding it to the railway company concerned, the Board invited their observations upon the sun-inspector's recommendation that means should be adopted to put an end to tow-roping and similar methods of working. The company replied that they did not see their way to take this action. The Board pressed the matter upon the further attention of the company, who, however, refuse to admit the necessity of the alteration recommended, and state that the traffic at this place is very limited in amount. The Board must therefore leave the railway company to consider their position under the Prevention of Accidents Rule recently made, which provides that after the 8th of August next tow-roping shall not be allowed except in
  †See (3)Debates,cxxxi.,p.633.

  505
  cases where no other reasonably practical means can be provided for dealing with the traffic.

  Scottish Harbours—Grants in Aid.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the conditions under which applications for grants in aid of harbours in Scotland are entertained by the Committee appointed in 1899 are of such a nature as to cause applications from Portmahomack, Broad Bay, and Valots, Ross-shire, to be rejected, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the regulations to be relaxed so that it may be practicable for grants in aid of harbours to be obtained by the local authorities for places such as the three above indicated.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 22nd April last, in which I stated that the Treasury were not prepared to relax the regulations under which grants in aid are made to harbours.

  Small Holdings Act, 1892.
  Mr. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of owners, and the acreage of land acquired under the provisions of the Small Holdings Act, 1892.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The latest information available as to the operations of Local Authorities under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, is that given in the Returns No. 407 of 1895 (Session 2 and 17 of 1898. At the date of the first-mentioned Return 483 acres had been acquired by County Councils and about 180 small holdings provided. I am obliged to the hon. Member for having put this Question, because although I have no power to compel such a Return, and can only have it by the courtesy of the local authorities, I do think the information ought to be kept up to date.
  Mr. LAMBERT: And you will give us a more recent Return, then?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, I will get a Return up to date.
  †See (4) Debates,civ.,936.

  Admission of Prisoners to Bail.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Somerset Assizes at Taunton on the 4th instant, Mr. Justice Wright commented on the fact that several prisoners awaiting their trial had been kept in prison several months without being afforded an opportunity of bail; and will he consider the expediency of ordering an inquiry on the subject.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): This is a matter which constantly engages the attention of the Home Department, and steps are taken from time to time, by circular or otherwise, to bring specially to the notice of magistrates their powers and duties in the matter of admitting prisoners to bail. I am not clear as to what kind of inquiry my hon. friend has in mind; and for myself I cannot do more than say that I will carefully consider whether some further action in the direction indicated above can usefully be taken.

  Cruelty to Children—Penruddocke Case.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the result of the Penruddocke case, and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: My attention has been called to the case, but it is not one in which I have any jurisdiction, nor can I express any opinion on the course which the Judge thought fit to adopt. The matter was entirely in the Judge's discretion, as the Act prescribing the penalties that can be inflicted in such a case fixes wide limits calculated to allow a suitable penalty for every case. The penalty on indictment may be anything up to £:100, or may be a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding two years, either by way of alternative or in addition to the fine. The only alteration which would appear to be suggested is to the effect of prescribing a fixed or minumum penalty for all cases. This could only be done by legislation; and not only would it be sure to operate most unjustly in

  507
  certain cases, but the principle of fixing minimum penalties is contrary to the whole tendency and practice of modern legislation.
  MR. TULLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is one law for the rich and another for the poor? Why was not the lady sent to prison?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  British North Borneo Mails.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in considering renewed contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails to the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and other parts of the East, arrangements will be made for steamers to call at a port in British North Borneo.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind for consideration when the Eastern mail arrangements are revised; but I may say at once that, in view of the small amount of correspondence involved, the intricate navigation between Singapore and Sandakan, and the distance of over 1,000 miles between the two ports, it seems hardly likely that either a branch line or a diversion of the main line packets conveying the Eastern mails will prove justifiable.

  Illegal Trawling in Broad Bay
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the case of illegal trawling in Broad Bay, Island of Lewis, on the 12th October last, which recently came before Sheriff Squair at Stornoway, and resulted in the master of the trawler "Coquet" (A 390) being fined £50; and, seeing that there have been four convictions in the local courts for illegal trawling in Broad Bay since the 1st January last, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will admit of the certificates of master of vessels engaged in illegal trawling being suspended, and the trawler interdicted for a fixed period from engaging in trawling operations.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the case of the "Coquet." The other cases referred to by the hon. Member were not all from Broad Bay, and the convictions referred to were against separate trawlers. In none of the cases was there a repetition of the offence, and in only one case was the maximum penalty imposed. The Secretary for Scotland cannot undertake to promise legislation on the subject at present.

  Irish Post Office and the Irish Language.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received any complaints from the Secretary of the Navan Gaelic League as to the refusal of the local postal authorities to furnish him with a money order because the name of the payee was in Irish; and what steps he proposes to take to comply with the wishes of a very large section of the Irish people in this matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I have caused the complainant to be informed that, as the names of the remitter and payee of a money order have to be advised from office to office, the writing of such names in Irish characters on a requisition form cannot be sanctioned.
  MR. TULLY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make some concession to Irish feeling in this matter?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the Post Office cannot be used as a seminary for teaching the Irish language.

  Belfast Telegraph Offices.
  MR. SLOAN (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the advisability of putting a telegraph office in the Donegal Street Post Office, Belfast, for the convenience of the district.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I find that my predecessor considered this matter more than once, and came to the conclusion that he would not be justified in establishing a telegraph office at Donegal Street, because the head post office of Belfast was within a quarter of

  509
  a mile in one direction, and there were three other offices at a distance but little greater in other directions. I see no reason for departing from that decision.

  Foreign Prison-made Goods.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total value of foreign prison-made goods excluded from this country under the operations of the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): £183 4s.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): And what quantity of these goods have evaded the regulations?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Solicitors and the Irish Language.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Incorporated Law Society have refused to make Irish an optional subject in the examinations for admission to the solicitors' profession; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have no information on the first part of the Question. The subjects for examination are prescribed by regulations made by the Incorporated Law Society in pursuance of the 8th Section of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898. I have no authority to intervene in the matter.

  Belfast Teacher's Salaries.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, in Belfast, payments described as balance of grade salary for the quarter ending 31 st March, 1901, are being paid to some teachers and withheld from other; if he will state how this balance accrued, and on what basis it has been calculated; and if he will arrange that all money due to teachers may be paid forthwith.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Commissioners of National Education
  510
  report as follows:— In the payment of salary made to teachers in April, 1901, was included the balance of residual grant for the year 1900. In some cases this balance left the portion of "fixed" or grade salary for the quarter ended 31st March, 1901, less than what teachers were entitled to for that quarter, consequent on the division of their consolidated incomes into two portions in 1901. It is in such cases that the balance of grade salary is now being paid. This payment has not been withheld in any case where it was shown to the Commissioners that a balance of grade salary was due. The payments are still in progress.

  Irish Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report by the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools of Ireland, in which the Inspector complains as to the condition of health of the children in the schools and the neglect of his recommendations as to housing, food, clothing, and exercise; and, seeing that the Inspector alleges that children are provided with unsuitable diet, notwithstanding that the cost per child is £20 per annum, will he take steps to investigate these allegations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The condition of things referred to in the Inspector's report existed in comparatively few schools. In some of these improvements have since been effected, while in others preventive measures will be undertaken. The matter is receiving the special attention of the Inspector, who frequently visits the schools.

  Dromore Disturbances.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the district inspector of police was not present in Dromore on the occasion of the riot at the land meeting; why were extra police not summoned from Banbridge, Lurgan, and the adjoining towns; who was it paid for the drink given free in more thatn one public-house on that day; and whether he can state the nature of the protection that will be afforded at further meetings in the North of Ireland in connection with the question of compulsory sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An inquiry has been institued. Pending its result I cannot discuss the circumstances. The nature of protection in the future will depend on the exigencies of each case. It will invariably be ample.
  MR. TULLY: What protection will be afforded to Mr. Russell in his crusade? Surely he is entitled to it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Ample protection.

  Irish Dispensary Medical Officers.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board sanction the payment to a medical locum tenens of £4 per week, which falls upon the local rates, while they refuse their sanction to a salary to a dispensary medical officer of £200 a year, half of which is paid by the Treasury; and what steps will be taken to remedy this inequality.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No proper analogy can be drawn between the remuneration paid to a dispensary medical officer, permanently located in a district, and to his locum tenens, who may be employed for a week or two only. The question of the determination of the respective emoluments of a principal and of his temporary substitute is governed by different considerations in each case.

  Case of Michael Fahy.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Ballyvaughan Petty Sessions (County Clare) on the 13th instant, a young man named Michael Fahy was fined by Captain H. de Vere Pery, R. M., for attacking a dwelling house, although the police sergeant and another constable swore that, as they had Fahy under observation at the time, it was impossible for him to have committed the offence; and whether he proposes to order an investigation into the circumstances connected with this case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sergeant swore that at the time of the alleged attack he was in the vicinity of the house, but he did not swear that he had
  512
  the accused under observation. The latter was identified by two witnesses. No constable was examined in the case.

  Irish Dictionary.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount paid out of the public funds to Professor Atkinson, of Trinity College, for the preparation of an Irish dictionary; and if he can indicate in what stage that work now stands.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No payment has been made to Professor Atkinson by the Royal Irish Academy. On Tuesday of last week I indicated the progress made in the preparation of the dictionary.

  Education Bill—Definition of "Education."
  MR. BLACK (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will add to the Education Bill a definition of the word "education"; and if not, will he say whether the terms "educational grounds" and "grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction" are mutually exclusive.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that the terms to which the hon. Member refers are, taken with their context, mutually exclusive. I should be sorry to embark on such a Herculean task as that of defining "education."
  MR. BLACK: Does the hon. Gentleman then regard religious education as outside the sphere of "education"?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The hon. Member must not extend my answer to cover that general proposition. I am talking of the legal interpretation of a particular Clause, and not of the broader question. He might as well ask me whether I regard the home life of a child as outside the sphere of "education." Of course, in one sense, it is the most important part of education; but it is not referred to in this Bill.
  †See Preceding volume, Page1237

  Education Bill—Position of Teachers.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the scheme of the Education Bill, the consent of the local education authority will be required to the dismissal of a teacher on grounds determined by the Board of Education not to be connected with the giving of religious instruction, even although such dismissal may previously have been ordered or confirmed by a bishop.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the case put the consent of the local authority would be required. I may observe that the hypothesis to which the hon. Member calls my attention presents a case which is, I think, almost impossible, and which, at any rate, could hardly ever arise.

  Education Bill—Position of Welsh Intermediate Schools
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, if the Education (England and Wales) Bill passes in its present form it will operate to abolish the local managing bodies of intermediate schools established by schemes under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The answer is in the negative.

  The Cunard Subsidy.
  MR. SCHWANN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state on what date will the Governmenta agreement with regard to a subsidy to the Cunard Lineof steamers be submitted to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible at present to fix a date.
  MR. SCHWANN: Will it be taken this session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the present state of business, I cannot promise a date in the present session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade
  514
  promised us a data in the course of this session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, if a pledge was given, I will do my best to redeem it, but I hope that the House will have consideration for the amount of labour already imposed on us.
  MR. BRYCE (): I hope that, if this Cunard agreement is laid on the Table, the Morgan agreement will be laid at the same time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I answer I should like to consult the President of the Board of Trade.

  1903 Session.
  MR. CHANNING (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that many hon. Members are making their plans for the winter, he will now state at what date His Majesty's Government propose to call Parliament together for the session of 1903.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The present session is not yet concluded, and we have a great deal of work still to do. It would be premature to discuss when we are to meet for the next session.
  MR. CHANNING: I shall repeat the Question next week.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: It would greatly assist hon. Members in fixing their arrangements for next week if the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what will be the business on Friday in next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Water Bill will be taken on Thursday, and in all probability it will be continued on Friday.
  MR. LAMBERT: May I ask whether, when the new Rules are considered on Monday, it will be possible to discuss the hour of meeting of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall have to refer to the Sessional Order. I imagine the question turns on a very simple principle. It is only the new Sessional

  515
  Orders which come up for discussion. The changes made in the old Standing Orders—many of them of as much importance as the new Sessional Orders—will not come up for discussion; and if, as I think, the hour of the House's meeting is embodied in an old Standing Order, it cannot be discussed.
  MR. BRYCE: As the point is of great importance, I would ask whether, if it were conveyed to the rigth hon. Gentleman that there is a general desire on the part of the House to reconsider the hour of meeting, he would afford an opportunity for discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that this session we can do more with the Rules than make the Sessional Orders Standing Orders. Any continuation of the Government's programme as regards the business of the House must be deferred to next session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the motion for making the Sessional Orders Standing Order, be put simply as one Question, or will each Order be put separately?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As in the case of the 1882 precedent, all the Rules will be included in one Resolution.
  MR. CAUSTON (): Can an Amendment be moved to leave out a particular Rule?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not at all sure that I have not been answering Questions which I had no right to touch upon. Any other Questions as to what can or cannot be done should be referred to the Chair, the only authority in these matters.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALED) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  (2.35.) MR. GERGE WHITE ()moved to leave out the word "secular," his intention being consequentially to move to insert, after the words "not provided by them," the words "subject to the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, Section
  516
  14, sub-Section 2." He said he was aware that the Amendment he had to propose, together with the consequential one which followed, revived the religious controversies of which the House was getting tired; but still this was the first time the question had been raised in that particular form. It was exactly the antithesis of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich which they discussed on the previous day. The principle underlying the noble Lord's new Clause was that the Cower-Temple provision should be abolished with our elementary education system, while the principle underlying the Amendment he was proposing was that the provision should run in all schools, whether provided or non-provided. That principle was fought for very strongly during the education conflict of 1870—the principle that there should be no denominational or dogmatic teaching in rate-aided schools. It was adopted on the Motion of a Conservative Member of the House, and was almost universally accepted. Surely, what was held to be unjust in those days remained equally unjust today. In the interval which had since elapsed such progress had been made in the principle of religious liberty as should make them chary of inflicting the disability upon a large proportion of the community, and additional reasons now existed. There had, for instance, been a remarkable growth of Free Churches, which were now a great power in the country, and, in addition, there had been a growth of sacerdotalism. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that this objection to dogmatic teaching in rate-aided schools was not raised by a few loud-mouthed speakers or mendacious pamphleteers, but it was raised by more than one-half of the citizens of this country. It did not come entirely from those who dissented from the Established Church, and had the Prime Minister realised these facts he would not have acted on the principle underlying the Bill. In a somewhat remarkable novel lately issued, the talented author put into the mouth of the King the words: "I am just now in a humour to satisfy the demands of the nation rather than the demands of the Church." Had the Prime Minister acted on a similar principle they might have avoided

  517
  many religious discussions. Archdeacon Pelham, the son of the late Bishop of Norwich, only the other day wrote:—
  "Let the Cooper-Temple Clause be extended to all elementary schools alike, with the proviso that once a week in all schools alike, denominational religious instruction, according to the wishes of the parents, is given to the children."
  And again, at a meeting in the city of Norwich it was resolved—
  "(1) That religious instruction in all elementary schools alike be secured by statute with a Conscience Clause. (2) That religious instruction be based on the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and shall include the teaching of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, and (3) That the religious instruction be given by the teachers of the school and by them only."
  He could add evidence from other leading Churchmen from all parts of the country which went to show that, as long as dogma was taught in rate-aided schools, there would be a sense of injustice, and he was sure that there were many hon. Members behind the Prime Minister who believed in the principle he was now submitting to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had said, in dealing with a kindred subject, that they could not betray the men who sent them there. But in insisting on dogmatic teaching in rate-aided schools the right hon. Gentleman was betraying the very men who placed the Government in their present position. There were thousands of Nonconformists who supported the Tory Party at the last General Election who felt that they were being unjustly betrayed in this matter. Those Nonconformists were in number equal to the majority which gave the Government its present position, and the Government could have done nothing which would have provoked more determined opposition from those supporters than to impart the religious aspect they had given to this Bill. Simple Bible teaching in the schools would satisfy the great majority of the people of this country. They could not hope, of course, to satisfy such men as Mr. Athelstan Riley, who had asserted that to teach the Bible only was worse than no religion. But it was the action of such extreme men as this that they had cause to fear; they did not want them to have the control of religious education in the schools. He would like
  518
  to submit to the Prime Minister one fact, and that was, that in some 8,000 parishes the people would be in this condition. While they were strongly in favour of the religious teaching of their children, they objected to dogmatic teaching, but the only alternative open to them would be either dogmatic teaching or no religious teaching at all, for if they objected to dogmatic teaching the children would have to be withdrawn from religious teaching altogether. Was it worth the while of the Government to carry a Bill bearing this stamp of injustice upon it? In many parishes in his own constituency two-thirds of the children in denominational day-schools were to be found in Primitive Methodist and Wesleyan Sunday Schools. It might be said that if no Amendment were adopted the raison dêetre for voluntary schools would be abolished. But the teaching advocated by the Amendment was very simple, and it could easily be supplemented denominationally. As John Bright once said, all that was necessary was the teaching of virtue, truth, honesty, and the fear of God. The fact was that the Prime Minister, fearing to anger the priests, had yielded to their demands, and was thereby angering the people. Lord Palmerston, o one occasion, said that legislation followed the conscience of the Nonconformists, and history proved the truth of that assertion. At any rate, half of the community were absolutely determined that they could not, under present conditions, submit to the imposition of a rate for the teaching of those doctrines which they believed to be absolutely erroneous, and if the Bill was passed in its present form he was sure that the country was entering upon a war which would be carried on until justice was obtained. He believed that if the Prime Minister had had his own way and had not been influenced by the clerical powers behind him, he would have imparted a very different character to the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 2, to leave out the word 'secular.' "—(Mr. George White.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'secular' stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE ()said his hon. friend

  519
  had moved his Amendment as if it were inseparable connected with his second Amendment. He did not agree with that, and his own support of the Motion would largely depend on other considerations. The Amendment of his hon. friend, taken with a consequential Amendment, had for its object the imposition of the Cowper-Temple Clause on every assisted school in the country. But this Clause must be read in conjunction with Clause 16, continuing the grant to certain public elementary schools which were not maintained by the authority. He doubted if his hon. friend's Amendment would cover institution schools. He thought that the Government proposal was entirely unworkable, and when hon. Members came to explain to the constituencies at the next County Council elections the meaning of Clause 5, he did not believe that the plain British elector would be able to understand what the House had done. Hon. members would have to tell the constituencies that under this Clause the secular instruction in all the aided schools was in the control of the local education authority, although it was administered by teachers who were not appointed by them. In regard to one part of their duties, the managers were to be the more creatures of the local authority, while in regard to another part they were to be in a superior position to the local authority. In the long run the plan of the Bill, he was convinced, would break down. The first part of the Amendment altered the bargain between the Church and the State altogether, but it was much less violent than forcing the Cowper-Temple Clause on all the denominational schools of the country. The first part of the Admendment would place the general control of all education in the hands of the local education authority, but subject to the trusts of the school. It would place the authority in their proper position as the supreme education authority for the whole of their district, but in regard to the religious portion of the teaching in the schools, they would have to have regard to the character imprinted on the schools by the trust deeds. The Church itself had repudiated the bargain with the State, and used language which would add to the difficulty of working the new system. The Bishop of London, who had distinctly spoken of the "bargain" between the Church and the
  520
  State, had attacked even the foundation managers as regarded their control of the religious part of education in such a way as enormously to increase the likelihood of friction. There would be a much greater chance of peace in the working of the Bill if the local education authority were given a general control over education of all kinds within their district. When Mr. Birrell spoke of the English country gentleman as being in some cases careless of education and no better than "Tony Lumpkins," there was great irritation on the other side. But the Bishop of London had referred to the foundation managers as "Squire Western and his head gardener and farmer." Under the scheme of the Bill, if they had a "Squire Western" managing the education, he would probably have been placed in that position by the present chairman of the managers—by his "Parson Supple." Surely such language did not add to the chances of the smooth working of the Bill. There was a very strong case for the first part of the Amendment, which did not necessarily involve the imposition of the Cowper-Temple Clause on all the aided schools in the country. When this Bill had to be placed before the electorate at the County Council elections, he would rather have an intelligible and workable scheme to explain than one involving litigation and ill-feeling, as he was convinced this limitation of Clause 5 would.
  (3.4.) MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Baronet had added another to the many subjects that had been discussed during the progress of the Bill. It they had not had much education, they had, at all events, had a great deal of theology, with some local government; and now, apparently, a course of literature was to be added to those extensive fields of learning, and the House were to consider by which of the characters in classical English fiction the foundation managers were most happily and accurately described. He would not discuss, either the character mentioned by Mr. Birrell or those which commended themselves to the Bishop of London; they were both outside the scope of the Amendment. He would rather call the attention of the House to the

  521
  avowed inconsistency between the speech of the mover of the Amendment and that of the right hon. Baronet who proposed to support only a part of the Amendment. The mover of the Amendment had based his argument on, amongst other reasons, what he called the "fundamental principle" that rates ought not to be used for the support of schools in which denominational teaching was given. He had never been able to see on what ground that was called a "fundamental principle" either of morals or of politics, but, even if it were, it was entirely thrown to the winds by the right hon. Baronet, because he was prepared to accept a scheme which did indeed remove the foundation managers and the denomination itself from any control of the teaching in the schools, but substituted for them the local authority, who were to be required to provide denominational teaching in accordance with the trust deeds.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that his plan had reference to the present condition of the Bill; it was not the plan he would have proposed if he had had a chance of framing a Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed that possibly it was a counsel of despair, but at all events it was the plan suggested in the present condition of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet would be the first to admit that it was as radical a contradiction of what the hon. Member had described as a fundamental principle as the provisions of the Bill itself. In both cases rates were applied to schools in which denominational teaching was not only permitted, but required in accordance with the character of the trust deeds. The second argument of the hon. Member, on which he relied even more than on his first, was based on the growth of what he described as sacerdotalism in the Church of England. He had declared that an immense change had taken place in this repect since 1870, and that the majority of the population now objected to these denominational schoold—not on the rather abstract. and, as he ventured to think, untenable distinction between the rights of education, but on the broader and more practical grounds that in a large
  522
  number of these schools under the guise of Church of England teaching there was carried on a propaganda of doctrine with which the majority of the Church of England did not agree. He for his part did not at all deny—he was afraid it was the fact—that in a few schools there had been teaching which, if he might express a personal opinion, was absolutely inconsistent with the whole spirit of Church of England doctrine, with its history and its traditions, but he ventured to think, in the first place, that the provisions of this Bill would completely put an end to those cases; and, in the second place, he could not help thinking that the number of such schools had been very greatly exaggerated. Because there were a few Church of England schools where non-church of England doctrine had been, he thought, unfortunately permitted, surely that was not a sufficient reason for attempting to destroy the whole mass of denominational school in this country, which had done, and which he hoped were likely to do, such enormous benefit to the education of the younger generation. The hon. Gentleman had declared that there was a large school of Protestant opinion which denied that the Bible was the common foundation of our religion. He did not believe there was a single individual of whom that could be said. Mr. Athelstan Riley had been quoted, but he should be surprised if Mr. Althelstan Riley would agree to the representation of his doctrine given by the hon. Gentleman. He was perfectly certain that the great body of Church of England opinion in this country would assert as strongly as the hon. Gentleman that the Bible was the foundation of the religion which they professed. The hon. Gengleman laid down two propositions—one that it was absolutely wrong to teach dogma, and the other that it was absolutely right to teach Christianity. Those two propositions were absolutely contradictory.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To teach dogma under certain conditions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the hon. Gentleman is in favour of teaching dogma?
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: The position I laid down was that it was wrong to teach dogma in rate-aided schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that, and he was referring only to rate-aided schools. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was wrong to teach dogma in rate-aided schools, but that it was right to teach Christianity in rate-aided schools. Those two propositions were absolutely inconsistent, and he would defy any man to get up in the House and attempt to prove with the smallest regard for the elements of logic that it was inconsistent with any general principle of morality to teach what was called dogmatic Christianity without every argument which he used being capable of being turned round to deal with what was called undogmatic Christianity. There was no such thing as undogmatic Christianity. Every religion contained propositions of dogma. A religious proposition was a dogma, and a dogma was a religious proposition. They could not escape dogma. They might escape what the courts of law or the Board of Education chose to describe as dogma characteristic of one particular denomination, but when they had escaped that they could not avoid the difficulties that at once met them when they tried to apply the principle all round. Unfortunately, the whole population of the kingdom were not Christians. How were they going to deal with that part of the population which did not believe even in what was called undogmatic Christianity? They had to pay rates for the teaching of a religion which they did not believe in. He could not understand why it commended itself to the hon. Member's view of abstract morality that religion should be taught in the way he and his friends liked, while all the higher principles of morality were violated whenever they attempted to teach religion which differed from the law which the hon. Gentleman laid down for himself and his friends. He was not sure that he ought to have trespassed so much upon first principles on the Report Stage of this Bill. The hon. Member's speech seemed to him to be one which would have been more appropriate to the First, Second or Third Reading than to either the Committee or the Report Stage. He
  524
  was aware that he had repeated many things which he had said to the House on previous occasions, but he thought it was only courteous to remind the hon. Member of the reasons why the Government found it absolutely impossible to accept the suggestions he had made.
  *MR. LUCAS ()said he should like to say a word or two upon this question. He thought the speech made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon yesterday was one of the most important speeches made this session. Speaking for his constituents, the hon. Member for Carnarvon divided the opponents of this Bill into two classes, those actuated by great hostility to the Church of England and those who were not anxious about religion at all. He would leave the hon. Member to settle with his own constituents the general charge that a very large number of them did not care very much whether there was any religious teaching at all. According to the hon. Member a very large number of parents did not care whether their children received any religious teaching whatever, and they left religion severely alone. These were the conscientious objectors to this Clause, and it seemed to him that their consciences were in a very bad condition. From the very beginning of these discussions the supporters of this Bill had not had any desire to injure in the slightest degree the Nonconformists. In the first place they could not have done so if they had wished to, and in the second place they would not be fools enough to try. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had made a boast that if the spirit of this Bill were carried into effect they would use the measure as a weapon—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing a speech made upon another Amendment yesterday which has no particular bearing upon the question before the House. The question before the House is whether the local authority or the managers should have the control of the religious education.
  *MR. LUCASsaid his difficulty was to know upon which Amendments the discussion of religious instruction was out

  525
  of order. No Member of the House of Commons was listened to with more pleasure than the hon. Member for Carnarvon—he did not know whether he was read with so much pleasure in the country.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is continuing a debate on a speech made yesterday, which really has no bearing upon the question before the House.
  *MR. LUCASsaid that he had now said all he wanted to say upon this subject.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that that is hardly a respectful way of treating the Chair.
  *MR. LUCASsaid he did not mean to be disrespectful, and what he intended to say was that he had said all he wished to say before Mr. Speaker stopped him, and that therefore he would not attempt to pursue the subject.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that this Amendment would simply have the effect of making the local authority supreme over all the education given in the school. He thought it would be a great deal better for the working of the Government system if the local authority was made supreme over every kind of instruction. The argument for this Amendment was that they might avoid a certain amount of friction, and although other kinds of friction might arise, they might fairly expect that public bodies would respect the denominational character of the schools if the legislature intended and directed them to respect it. That was the effect of the Amendment which they were now discussing, and he thought it ought to be judged upon its own merits. He thought this proposal would work better than the system contained in the Bill. As for the Cowper-Temple Clause, it was perfectly true, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was not logical. It did not meet the cases of the Jews, the Roman Catholics, and those who did not hold any form of Christianity. It was, in point of fact, a compromise between the two sections of opinion which existed in 1870. It was a compromise between pure
  526
  secularism and pure denominationalism. He remembered very well the discussions which took place in 1870. This was not defended then as a logical system, but as a working compromise. They might appeal to the experience of the past thirtytwo years to show that it was a compromise which had worked fairly well. The reason why it had worked fairly well was because it corresponded—
  MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment proposes to insert a reference to the Cowper-Temple Clause, and the proper time to discuss it will be when that Amendment is proposed. If it is understood that that Amendment is not to be proposed, I shall not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from dealing with the question now; but it seems to me that this line of argument is hardly relevant on the present Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEexplained that he was only endeavouring to put the other side to that put by the First Lord of the Treasury, but of course he would not persist.
  MR. BRIGG (, Keighlay)said that one great object to be desired was that matters should be simplified in connection with the management of the schools. If they took out the word "secular," they would find that therby all the insturction in the school would be carried on by one authority. He spoke on behalf of those who had to carry on a large amount of this work, and he would ask that every opportunity should be given to simplify and make plain work which had to be done under very great difficulties. There was no question that the having of two authorities in the school was an exceedingly difficult position. There must be more or less a conflict between the two parties, and it was therefore exceedingly desirable that there should be entirely one management if possible.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS ()said the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment, while regarding it as unjust to levy a rate for denominational teaching, seemed to think it was quite right to levy a rate for teaching the New Testament. To apply that to the Jews seemed to him a very illogical argument,

  527
  and one that would not bear consideration. He wished to show what would be the logical result of the arguments put forth on this Amendment. A decision had lately been given by the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska, in which they had laid it down that it was unconstitutional for a teacher in any public school in the State to read passages from the Bible, cause the singing of hymns, or to offer prayers to the Deity. That was the logical consequence of the arguments put forward. The hon. Member also stated that such teaching as he recommended was satisfactory to the Nonconformists. Might he be allowed to give the House a statement by a distinguished Congregational minister, the late Dr. Dale of Birmingham? In his "Life," published two or three years ago, there was the following passage—
  "Any explanation of the Bible that could be regarded as 'undogmatic' he has always
  regarded with distrust. In the debate on the scheme of religious education proposed by the majority, he argued that religious reaching which would not be likely 'to attach the children to any particular denomination' would end in detaching them from all. He expressed his alarm at the tendency of modern thought to depreciate the importance of definite religious teaching, and his conviction that nothing was so likely to bring about the destruction of whatever religious faith still survived in England."
  He ventured to suggest that the late Dr. Dale was a higher authority than the Member for North-West Norfolk, and on that ground he would oppose the Amendment.
  (3.36.) Question put,
  "That the word 'secular' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 583.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Kemp, George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenron-Slaney, Col. W.(salop.)

  Arnold-Forster, Hungh O.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kimber, Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Knowles, Lees

  Austin, Sir John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Bagot, Cappt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Egerton, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell. Sir T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

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

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklchurst

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fisher, William Haycs

  Lowe, Francis William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Fletchcr, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W G. Ellison

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Garfit, William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gibbs, Hon, Vicary(St. Albans)

  Moro, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A (Wore.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Champman, Edward

  Greville, Hon, Ronald

  Murry, RtHnA. Graham(Bute)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

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

  Halsev, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Myers, William Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x)

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford)

  Pemberton, John S. G

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins. Frederick

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hobhouse, RtHn H. (Somers't, E)

  Plummber, Walter R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Denny, Colonel

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlest)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spear. John Ward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne)

  Remnant, James Farquhrson

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Renwick, George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

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

  Redley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rutherford, John

  Tufnell, Lient.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tully, Jasper

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Vicount

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir WilliamH.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IslcofWight)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—:Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E

  Smith, Abe!H. (Hertford. East)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n)

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir. Arthur D.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glone., Stroud)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Bell, Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shackleton, David James

  Black, Alexander William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Broadhurst. Henry

  Lambert, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt. Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R(Northants)

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas David Alfred(M'rthyr)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough. Thomas

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Crombie, John William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield. Horace Rendall

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Palmer, SirCharlesM. (Durham)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Partiagton, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pease. J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Rea, Russell

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George White and Mr. Runciman.

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. Sir William

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  MR. CHANNING, who had an Amendment to strikw out the words "School Boards Shall be abolished," said that in view of the two decisions of the House the previous day he did not think it would be desirable to detain the House by discussing his Amendment, and he would therefore not move it.
  *(3.50.) MR. RUNCIMAN (), in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said that he approached this subject of the single-area schools with diffidence because it was one which it was hoped, not so long ago, would
  530
  have been made the subject of compromise by the Government. There had, however, been no concessions made by the Government The Words of his Amendment were practically the same as those moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo some time in July last. The object he had in moving the Amendment was that, in single-school areas, there should be a different mode of control of the school to the extent of allowing that area to have its managers publicly appointed. That Amendment was resisted by the Government, but he noticed, in looking up the reports in Hansard, that the

  531
  First Lord of the Treasury admitted the grievance which the hon. Member or East Mayo was going to cure. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that he was deeply disappointed by the attitude taken up by the First Lord. It was a question on which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would at least be willing to make an effort to meet the admitted grievance of the Nonconformists, and the First Lord replied, "I said I would meet it." Now, they on that side of the House had asked the First Lord to meet it, but up to the present time no change had been made in the Bill which could be said to alleviate this griecance. He believed that the principle involved in his consequential Amendment went much further than that of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and that it would, to a large extent, relieve the grievance in those areas where the schools were a monopoly of one Church, and where the Church alone had the right to appoint the majority of the managers. The single school areas had been stated to be over 8,000 in number, but that had been contradicted by the representatives of the Church who said that they only numbered 6,108; even the latter ought to merit the consideration of the Government. Roughly speaking, there were 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of people resident in the rural villages, and he presumed that nearly 4,000,000 children were entirely dependent for their education on the Church schools. Now, in these rural villages there were great masses of Nonconformists—not only in Wales, which was so often quoted, but in the west of England in the Midlands, in the east, and in the north of England—where the parents naturally objected to have their children educated in what they though was a Chhurch atmosphere. They had no alternative but to send their children to these voluntary schools; and no Conscience Clause could entirely do away with the Church atmosphere. The Attorney General, during the course of these discussions, stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was quite correct in saying that the Government recognised that there was a grievance in these single-school areas, and that the Government proposed to deal with it in the Report stage of the
  532
  Bill. What they asked of the Government was to fulfil their pledges on the Report stage. This grievance was not only admitted even by the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and several other dignitaries had admitted that in single school areas the grievance was so great as not only to be justifiable but to merit a cure. The cure put forward in the Bill was that the Nonconformists should be allowed to build new denominational schools; but it was absurd to expect that poor Nonconformists in the villages should provide from £700 to £1,000 in order to erect a structure in which to secure religious equality. If riches were to be a criterion of religious equality. If riches were to be a criterion of religious equality, he did not think that it would satisfy either the Nonconformists or others concerned. There could be no religious equality for the poor under the new denominational schools Clauses. There was an ideal that every religion should have a school of its own. That was perfectly impossible and would lead to confusion. It was said that the "grievance could be met by permitting religious teaching in the schools such as the Nonconformist parents desired." That, however, would not get rid of what the Nonconformists complained—the Church atmosphere. There was bound to be a Church atmosphere where the teachers were appointed by the Church. Were the teaching profession thrown open and public control given in those village schools, then they might be prepared to accept the proposal that there should be a right of religious teaching outside the school hours, or some other arrangement which would not interfere with the working of the school, but which would allow religious teaching by the various denominations to be given to the children in the school building. But was it not absurd to suggest that any proposal of that kind could be made when the bishop was to be the final arbiter in religious disputes in these schools? Even if two managers of an alien religion were appointed on the board of management, the bishop would still be supreme. He knew that it was frequently pleaded that the position was no better than under the Act of 1870; but he wished to point out that the Act of 1870 had never fully satisfied the Nonconformist claim; and no one could state

  533
  that with more force than the Colonial Secretary if he were there that day. Reference had been made to Dr. Dale, who declared that the Act of 1870 would never satisfy the Nonconformists. The fact was that the Act of 1870 created an intolerable strain under which the Nonconformists lived, and that intolerable strain was no less today than it was then. That feeling was a real and intense feeling. It had developed in its strongest form even amongst the Wesleyans, who had themselves their own denominational schools. At the recent Wesleyan Conference, again and again the complaint was made that "the primary object of Methodist policy in the matter of elementary education was the placing of a Christian unsectarian school within reasonable distance of every family;" and that policy was reaffirmed by them at the meeting of their special education committee which had taken place during the passage of the Bill through the House. Objection had been raised to the word "proselytizing" in the schools, but proselytizing was bound to go on in the Church schools. It might not be visible, but its influence and its effect were apparent. An hon. Member had said that proselytizing was almost unknown in the Church schools, but hundreds of cases could be quoted where proselytizing was carried on; and even if proselytizing was not carried on in its most active form, he ventured to assert that the Church atmosphere itself was sufficient to deserve the Government. Every hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency knew that the parents in agricultural districts for the sake of their children were induced to leave the country and go into towns where there were board schools. Any hon. Member who knew well the county districts, especially in the north of England, would know that the dearest aim of parents in agricultural districts was to see their children well educated without their religious feelings being outraged. The foundation of the settlement was not likely to be very stable if this grievance was not remedied. The hon. Member for East Mayo recognised that, when he moved his Amendments in the interests of the Catholic communion. Nonconformists were not likely to put up with schools which were the monopoly of the Church
  534
  of England. Toleration was all very well in its way. Nonconformists did not like the word. Toleration was a stage they had passed long ago; and the demand they now made was a demand for religious equality.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 15, at beginning of sub-Section (2), to insert the words: 'Except in areas where there appears to the local education authority to be only one school available for children resident in such area.' "—(Mr. Runciman.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)said he understood that the hon. Member's two Amendments should be taken together.
  *MR. RUNCIMANsaid he would be prepared to accept the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he should take the hon. Member's Amendment as he found it. The Amendment proposed that the school in every single school area should be treated as a school provided by the local authority, whatever the previous rights or conditions of the denominations to which it belonged. The hon. Member for East Mayo moved in substance the same proposal as long ago as last summer. That hon. Member admitted that it was a hardship to the denominations concerned; but he said it was necessary in the interests of denominationalism that some sacrifices should be made. It did not concern the great majority of Roman Catholic schools, and therefore the hon. Member was prepared to throw a child to the wolves of undenominationalism, having taken care, in the first instance, that it was some one else's child. He frankly admitted the difficulty of the single school areas. He had admitted it from time to time; it had been admitted by the Prime Minister; and various suggestions had been made, but the hardship was not, he thought, mainly, and certainly not entirely, on the children of Nonconformist parents who had to attend

  535
  denominational schools. He did not think it was a great grievance in practice, and they heard little of it except on platforms and in the course of debates in that House. He could not, therefore, believe that the depopulation of their rural districts, which no one regretted more than he did, was due to the desire of the parents to send their children to schools in the towns. In order to remove the grievance, which was not a grievance of the children, but of the teachers, they had done something in other parts of the Bill by throwing open the teaching profession more widely then it was at present; and they had made further provision in Clauses 9 and 10, which he admitted was not entirely satisfactory, for the supply of other schools. They had extended the term necessary so that it should apply not merely to the numerical requirements of the population, but also in respect to the denominational requirements of the population. The whole question had been most carefully considered by the Government. The Prime Minister spoke yesterday of the time and trouble that had been expended in endeavouring to devise some scheme on the lines proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich yesterday, and supported with much force and eloquence on both sides of the House. He confessed that, enamoured as he was at first with that proposal, he had come more and more to the conclusion that it was unworkable for the reason adduced by the Prime Minister; namely, that it would be unpopular with Anglican clergymen, who would not like Nonconformist ministers invading their schools, and with Nonconformists who would have to journey to the schools, oftentimes at considerable inconvenience; and it would also be unpopular with the teachers, who would find alien persons undertaking the teaching of the children during school hours. The more the solution of the difficulty was considered the more unsolvable it appeared; and he could not admit that the hon. Member had attained anything approaching a solution when he proposed to approach the question with a frank measure of confiscation. What the hon. Member proposed was that schools which had been built and maintained by a denomination for a number of years at great cost and sacrifice should, because they conflicted with the opinions of a number of Nonconformists within the area, and
  536
  of more influential Nonconformists in political circles outside the area, be taken from the ownership and trust under which they existed, handed over to the local authority, and be treated as schools under Clause 14 of the Act of 1870, so that the religious reaching given in them should be under the Cowper-Temple Clause. He could not admit that that was a fair solution. He admitted the difficulty which had baffled the ingenuity of persons abler and with more knowledge than he possessed, but he could not admit that the proper way of cutting the Gordian knot was the appropriation of other people's property and labour, or that it was even a decent solution of the problem, which he was sure hon. Members on that side of the House desired to see solved to the satisfaction of all parties.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER ()said that the hon. Gentleman admitted the grievance. The Government had admitted it over and over again, but had not helped the House to the solution. They criticised yesterday with perfect justice, not only from a theological point of view, but also from a practical point of view, the Amendment of the noble Lord; and no one spoke more tersely and strongly against it than did, that afternoon, the Secretary to the Board of Education. The point before the House was really the most difficult part of the Bill—namely, the separate treatment of a school area in which there was only one school. A great deal of the Nonconformist grievance, he would admit, did not exist in large towns. Practically there was no Nonconformist grievance where there was a choice of schools, and certainly no Church of England grievance where they had their own school.
  *MR. TALBOT ()said there was a very distinct Church grevance in some districts of large towns, where there was an ample supply of board schools, but absolutely no provision for the definite religious education which was given in Church Schools.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that no doubt there were isolated districts in large towns where the school whcih was nearest and most convenient was a board

  537
  school or a denominational school, as the case might be. A parent told a clerical friend of his that she sent her child to the school to reach which he had to pass the fewest crossings, although she was a member of the Church of England and no doubt wished her child brought up in the Church of England. For all practical purposes, however, there was no intolerable grievance in the large towns where there was a choice of schools, but there was an intolerable grievance in the country districts where there was but one school. He admitted that proselytizing did not exist to any great extent. The point was that there was a class of teaching in some schools which was not only offensive, but distressing to Nonconformist parents. He intended to put a question to the Secretary to the Board of Education with reference to a case which had been sent to him, and which had occurred within the last three weeks. He would now ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention had been drawn to a statement that thirty-one children attending the National School in a certain parish in Devonshire were withdrawn by Nonconformist parents from religious teaching in that school on 13th October. They were withdrawn because of the extreme ritualistic teaching in the school, which had reached a point which Protestant Nonconformist parents could not tolerate any longer. The vicar, on his next visit to the school, ordered all the children, eighty-one in number, to stand up and to repeat three times after the school mistress the following statement: "Fifty of us want the Bible, and thirty-one of us don't want the Bible." Was it possible to conceive a more contemptible and childish proceeding? He did not profess to be responsible for the allegation himself, and he would certainly give the hon. Gentleman (Sir William Anson) an opportunity of investigating it. He believed the story was uncontradicted by the clergyman himself, and the case was one in which he submitted that the Education Department ought to interfere and say whether the Conscience Clause had not been violated. It was these difficulties which did the mischief in a few cases, but the strength of a chain was the strength of its weakest link,
  538
  and thestrength of the denominational system was the folly of its weakest members. If the system was liable to this sort of folly, he was entitled to ask the Government to give the public such protection as they legitimately could. The Secretary to the Board of Education had said, "You want to confiscate the property of the denominations." He certainly did not wish to do so. He had no wish in any way to disturb the existing denominational system. He wished Church of England schools to remain Church of England schools; Wesleyan schools to remain Wesleyan schools; and Roman Catholic schools to remain Roman Catholic schools. Where, however, there was only one school in one area, he held that there ought to be exceptional treatment not only for one denomination but for all denominations. What was the solution arrived at by the Government. He was willing to admit that the denominational religious character ought to be maintained. He admitted that. He thought that if the Government had been content to rely in the first instance, or even in connection with what was called the Kenyon-Slaney Clause on the continuance of denominational teaching in those schools subject to the trusts of the deeds that would have been an intelligible proposition. But they would not rely upon that; they had excluded the principle of popular control from those schools. They gave the denominations specifically the majority on the management. They ought to have given the public the majority, in order to protect all sections of the public against causes of complaint such as that to which he had referred. He would substitute the proportion of four for the proportion of two, and vice versa. That would render those acts of petty tyranny impossible. He did not wish to interfere with the town system, that was working fairly well at the present time, but there existed a distinct and separate grievance which would continue so long as there was only one school in a parish, and so long as we maintained that the religious teaching at the school should be under the control of one denomination unless some means of safe-guarding the civil and religious rights of the parents were adopted. This question was left unsettled, and it would be an open sore.

  539
  It would have to be dealt with even by this Government if it remained in office, and certainly a Liberal Government. It only aggravated our existing sectarian differences to leave open this question which the Government, with its huge majority, could settle and might settle even yet. Let them secure to the denominations who had taken part in erecting these schools all their denominational rights, but say to them that where their's was the only school in the district they would safe-guard the rights of the children in religious matters by putting the power, so far as the management of the school was concerned, in the hands, at all events, of the majority of the ratepayers. He would certainly support his hon. friend in this Amendment, although he would prefer that the ultimate solution of the difficulty should be found in putting the schools under effective and real popular control.
  *MR. TULLY ()said he wished to oppose this Amendment as strongly as he could. It related to 8,000 parishes in which there was only one school, and its intention was to put these schools under popular control. This Amendment affected thirty Roman Catholic schools. He had been trapped on the occasion when the hon. Member for East Mayo moved a similar Amendment to this which was written out for him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and he had seen how the thing was misrepresented in Ireland by the untruthful reports which were sent over from this House that it was moved in the interest of the voluntary schools. The action of the hon. Member for East Mayo on that occasion was one that could not be described in any language which the Speaker would allow to be used in the House of Commons. But as he had been trapped on that occasion into voting entirely against his religious convictions, he intendednow to atonefor that by voting solid against this Amendment. The Member for East Mayo had no authority to speak for the Catholics of Ireland, either the clergy or the laity, when he brought forward his Amendment, which, had it been carried, would have given thirty Catholic schools over to secular education, to the exclusion of the religious element. That was the proposition of the hon. Member who had said he voiced the opinion
  540
  of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. The belief of the Roman Catholics was that our Lord, when he commanded the Church to go forth and teach, commissioned the Church as the teaching authority, and not the public or the parents, and when the hon. Member for East Mayo moved an Amendment the same as this he would tear down the Church from its pedestal and give over the education to the public and the parents. He did what he had no right to do, and he wished to protest against such a doctrine going forth as representative of Irish feeling and Irish sentiment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said that the safety of the voluntary schools depended on the folly of their weskest members. But did not the same remark apply to secular schools? If that was to be made the occasion for a threat in the House of Commons, he did not think if was one to which much importance need be attached. The Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would practically mean the closing of thirty Catholic schools in thirty parishes in England. In France, when the Prime Minister of that country proposed his attack upon them, the Roman Catholics said they were prepared to close their schools and convents rather than submit to their secularisation. This Amendment, if carried, would do in England and Wales, as far as the Catholic schools were concerned, the very work which the French Prime Minister had been doing to the Catholic schools and convents in France. He at least stood in the House of Commons as one Irish Catholic representative to protest against any such conduct, and to record his objection to the doctrine wrongfully put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the part of Irish Catholics.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the hon. Member for South Leitrim had been shooting at a distant target rather than directing his fire at the Amendment before the House.
  *MR. TULLY: It was only a sighting shot.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that when the hon. Member produced a list of the thirty Roman Catholic schools that were

  541
  likely to be closed by the operation of this Amendment, the House would be able to see what grievance they possessed. Under this Bill almost the entire cost of the schools in question was to be paid out of rates and taxes, and surely under the exceptional circumstances contemplated by the Amendment—even in the exceptional circumstances of the thirty somewhat mythical schools referred to by the hon. Member for South Leitrim—the State was entitled to insist on certain conditions before it spent so large a sum of money. The grievance this Amendment was designed to meet was admitted. It was one of the weightiest grievances that existed, and it would be one of the greatest practical difficulties in the working of the Act. The Clauses placed on the Paper to meet the difficulty had been shut cut by the Closure, but the present Amendment appeared to raise the point, and to do so without the difficulty of interpretation involved in certain previous Amendments. This was always called a question of "single school" parishes, but it was nothing of the kind. A very common case, indeed, was that of a single civil or ecclesiastical parish—the latter sometimes containing two civil parishes—in which there were four or five schools, but all under the same body of managers, and therefore, for all practical purposes, one; they were all Church of England schools. Things would be worse under the Bill, because in many of these parishes the trust deeds were not strictly adhered to, and in order to obtain subscriptions from the whole population, and especially from the manufacturing portion, Nonconformist managers were appointed. But under the Bill the conditions of the trust would be rigidly adhered to; and these Nonconformist managers would not be appointed, and the system which now might, and sometimes did, work very fairly, would not continue. The Amendment raised the whole question, because the word "areas" would probably be interpreted as meaning the areas served by the particular schools. He regretted the tone adopted by the Secretary to the Board of Education on the present occasion. Previously, when the matter had been discussed, they had, at all events, been met sympathetically, with promises that the
  542
  matter should be considered, and everything done that could be done to meet this admitted grievance. But today the hon. Member had directed a heavy fire into the Amendment, saying that things were working with perfect harmony, and that it was a matter of which much was heard in the House of Commons, but very little in the districts themselves. The reason little was heard in the districts was that the grievance existed mainly in the few parishes where extreme teaching was given. But that was not the case he was putting to the House. His case was that of places where things worked well at present, because the schools were conducted in such a way as to draw subscriptions from the whole neighbourhood. If this Bill were passed, all that harmony would cease, and much would be heard of the grievance—not from the exceptional parishes in which the teaching was disapproved, but from all the parishes in which these so-called single schools existed.
  MR. MALCOLM ()was sure that some of his friends on the Government side of the House would not agree with the taunt levelled by the right hon. Baronet at the hon. Member for South Leitrim, who had, as he humorously said, "fired a sighting shot" into those Members who were away, but who ought to have been sitting on the Benches opposite. Church members at least must have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member. It was not a very dignified position for Members of the House of Commons to be away in America, or elsewhere, looking for the wherewithal to carry on the agitation for Home Rule, while they left the true teaching of their Church to look after itself in Parliament. The Irish people at heart were a most religious people. They were Roman Catholics, but they of the Church England thought none the worse of them for that; they respected them for it. And yet, at a time when their teachers and their schools were in jeopardy, or would have been but for the large majority on the Government side of the House, nearly eighty Members had forsaken their flocks and fled to America or other places. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the

  543
  Member for East Wolverhampton was one of the most moderate from that side of the House to which he had listened for a long time. But with regard to the Devonshire case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, it should be for the bishop to censure that elergyman, as censured, indeed, he ought to be. As many on the Government side objected to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment because it placed the religious teaching under the control of the managers instead of the clergyman, and ultimately the bishop, so he would object also to this Amendment because it took from the bishop the power and responsibility which he ought to have of consuring clergyman who behaved in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman. He wished he could feel that popular control would provide a solution of the difficulty in these one-school areas. He was afraid, however, that that was not possible, because the word "weapon" used by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs on the previous day still rang in their ears. The hon. Member had frankly stated that in the districts in which there was a war between two creeds, and the Nonconformists got the better of it, they would use their advantage as a weapon against the Church in these one-school districts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)explained that what he said was that if the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich were carried, Nonconformists would certainly use that weapon, unless popular control were given.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid that if popular control were given, Nonconformists would have a greater weapon given to them, and a weapon would be taken from the Church. If the Amendment of his noble friend had been accepted, a weapon of equal sharpness would have been given to both parties, but with great astuteness the hon. Member for Dewsbury now proposed to give to his own side a weapon which he withheld from the other. It was really a measure for the confiscation of Church schools in these areas, and as such he should vote against it.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN ()thought the Government
  544
  ought really to be greateful to the Opposition for providing them with a suggestion as to what should be done in this matter. From the First Lord of the Treasury to so advanced a Member as the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, all admitted that in these single-school areas Nonconformists had a very considerable grievance, and yet all the Government would say was that they would give them nothing except Clauses 9 and 10. He should certainly support the Amendment. What he suggested in a new Clause which he had upon the Paper was that the local electors should be allowed to decide every three years whether the school should be taken over by the local authority or not. That was a comparatively moderate thing. It would have done away with this grievance at once in some cases, and later on in other instances. At any rate, the people would have felt that they had a right to have a poll to decide the question. The Government simply presented a non possumus upon this question. He believed that a large number of country clergymen would be willing to accept such a proposal as he put down on the Paper, or of the kind which had been moved by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, but they would not give up the management of those schools, because at the diocesan meetings the clergymen who gave up their schools lost caste. On the principles of justice he should certainly support the Amendment.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON ()said that perhaps the grievance which had been alluded to was the greatest that the Nonconformists felt. The Government had already considered it very carefully, but had they considered it enough? Was it not possible, even at the eleventh hour, to remedy this grievance? He desired that this Bill should work well in the country, and as far as the Church of England was concerned he believed it would be far better that this position should be fully and justly met by some arrangement in regard to these one-school areas. It seemed to him that it would be in the interests of the Church of England that this should be done. It would be far better instead of building another school to make some arrangement by which the management of the Church of England religious teaching should be in

  545
  such a position that Nonconformists would feel that they could send their children there and be in no way interfered with as regarded their religion. In his Division this grievance did not arise, for it was not felt to the same extent in populous towns. It only arose where the population was just sufficient for on school. He knew that this was not an easy position to meet, but he thought it could be met, and if it was too late to deal with it in this House, the Government had a sufficient power and following in another place to see that a suitable and proper way of dealing with the question was introduced into the Bill. He thought that if the Church of England would open their schools more widely and generously and fearlessly, they would make converts by thousands. He spoke as a Nonconformist who had liberally supported Church of England schools in Lancashire. Did they suppose that he would ever let go his interest in the National Church? It was because he believed that an alteration of the Bill in this direction would not only be in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill, but would also redound to the interest and benefit of the Church of England, that he made this appeal to the Government.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,)assured the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education that this was felt to be a very considerable grievance in rural parishes. He happened to represent a constituency in which there were a large number of parishes with single-school areas, and in many of those parishes there was a majority of Nonconformists. It rankled with them when anything cropped up relating to their schools, and he was perfectly certain it would be to the real and abiding interest of the Church of England if it would throw open its doors and admit a majority of managers on the management for those schools where only one school existed for children to attend. The Secretary to the Board of Education had told the House that this was largely a local grievance. He did not believe it. Of course the right hon. Gentleman was not brought so closely in touch with the electorate as most hon. Members. There were scores of villages in his constituency where
  546
  this grievance was keenly felt. He should be only too delighted to chaperone the right hon. Gentleman through his constituency, where he would find this grievance was very severely felt. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Nonconformists in the country parishes were a peaceable race. Naturally they were, because they occupied a rather subordinate position. Very often they were small shopkeepers or labourers, and could not afford to be obstreperous and continually making complaints against the school. In the great majority of cases the rectors and squires were reasonable men, and would not attempt to persecute a man because he expressed his religious convictions; but what could be said of such a rector as he mentioned the other day, who considered a gardener incompetent because he was a Nonconformist? This illustrated the case in Devon of the vicar who compelled the children to say some of them wanted the Bible and some did not. These were the things which the Nonconformists considered grievances, and they would not exist if a majority of the managers were appointed by the local authorities. As a compromise, he would be quite content with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, and allow two managers to be appointed by the Parish Council, two by the County Council, and two by the denomination. That would be a very fair compromise in the country parishes. It might be said that the denomination would suffer a little. He doubted it. Anyhow, it was not so important that the denomination should not suffer as it was that national education should not suffer. He put education far above denomination, and if it were a question between the two, the former should triumph. It was absurd to call the Bill an Education Bill if they allowed the interests of the denomination to override the real interests of education. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the difficulty. The Government was there to meet the difficulty. What difficulty did the Bill really meet except the difficulty of maintaining voluntary schools? What they asked was that in those parishes where there was a large number of Nonconformists, compelled by law to send their children to single schools, that they should be given a majority of the representation on the board of management. The

  547
  grievance would be brought home tenfold when the rate-collector went round, and he hoped at this eleventh hour the Government would do something to meet this grievance in the country districts.
  (5.0.) MR. J. W. WILSON ()said he felt that this Amendment could be looked upon as standing by itself. There was no idea of confiscation. All that was desired by some of them on both sides of the House was that there should be some recognition of the exceptional position and circumstances in which the schools in these parishes were placed. By giving even one elected representative, he believed the position of the schools in those parishes would be strengthened. They could not pretend but to feel that in the removal of subscribers there had been a removal of a great force, which had been for good, in these parishes. They knew that the subscriptions were collected from all alike, not merely from church or chapel people—they had been collected from those who wished to support the present schools, and possibly from those who supported them merely to avoid having a school rate He felt that the plan of the Amendment was much better than that which was suggested in the Bill, namely, the building of a second school. In the interests of education, how could they expect the success of a rival school in a small parish which was only able to support one school porperly managed? He expressed the hope that there would be some recognition of the exceptional circumstances, and he was sure the result would amply repay the concession.
  DR. MACNAMARA ()said that every time the single-school area was mentioned, they were all agreed that there was a serious grievance. That had been universally admitted, and there had been nothing said to the contrary. An equally striking feature was the fact that the Government could find no remedy. The Prime Minister had again and again admitted the grievance. He had heard this Government called "a Government of all the talents. "He thought they might have done more for the grievance of the single-school areas. The issue before the House now was whether they should continue to compel people to send
  548
  their children to a school, the religious instruction in which would be distasteful to them. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had given Clauses 9, 10, and 11 of the Bill. He would ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought that the provisions of those Clauses really consitituted a mitigation of this difficulty. What was the scheme set forth in those Clauses? If people were discontented with the form of religious instruction given in a village school, they were to have the right of applying for another school; then the managers of the existing school might put in a notice of objection; then the ratepayers might object, and the whole matter would go to the Board of Education to inquire whether those who were applying for a separate school were to have one. The Board of Education were to have regard to the interests of secular education and the wishes of the people, and they were to have regard to the economy of the rates. He was quite sure that the application for another school would be rejected. This remedy was quite illusory, and he was very glad it was. He could not view with satisfaction the prospect of setting up these little mushroom schools, which would be largely extravagant and educationally absurd. He did think that it was in the Government's interest to endeavour to do something. He was one of those who were anxious for the harmonious working of the Bill in the localities. He believed it would have a very rough time in many of the localities. If something could be done here, it should be done to remove the difficulties which would be felt in many cases. There was not a great deal of trouble at present in many of the villages. The teachers had been very discreet, and in the Church schools they had not pushed the thing too far in dealing with Nonconformist children. The parents themselves had been—he thought he might say without offence—fairly indifferent. Why? Not because they were not concerned with religious instruction. He was sure the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would agree with him in that. It was because the whole cast had come from some place far away—the Treasury. There was a school in the place, and it was to them a dispensation of

  549
  Providence, like the weather—something with which they had not personal connection. But they were now going to the doors of the people with a demandnote, asking five, ten, fifteen, or twenty shillings. That was the way to create an interest in the schools on the part of those good people who had been unconcerned, and who in the past had not contributed a farthing. He knew that there were nearly a thousand villages in which there were no voluntary contributions at all. They had been living on the Government grants. The interest of those people in the conduct of the schools would be increased manyfold at once by the mere demand for money. The voluntary school teachers in the single-school areas were going to have a rough time of it. Could the Government do nothing to mitigate that? He suggested, in the interest of the working of the Bill, that something should be done to mitigate it—something beyond the appointment of a subordinate teacher. Someone had suggested that they were proposing confiscation. He did not propose confiscation at all. He wanted to treat everybody fairly and reasonably. The proposal which the hon. Member for East Mayo made was one which the Government might very well have accepted, namely, that where there was one school the six managers should consist of two representing the parents, two the public, and two the trust. The Prime Minister said he felt that might upset the denominational character of the school, and that was the ground taken now. If the denominational character of the school was upset, at whose instance would it be done? The parents of the children. They would be the moderating influence, and hon. Members opposite had always said that they ought to have the claim to determine the religious instruction to be given in the school. He still hoped that the Government might see its way to do something. If the character of the school was to be changed, it could only be done at the instance of those who had a right to change it. If nothing was done here, perhaps in another place something might be done. He was sure that in villages where there was only one school, and that a denominational schools, to which people were compelled to send
  550
  their children, there would be interminable difficulties, unless some provisions were made to meet the grievance. He urged that such steps should be taken as would give the parents in those villages a predominating influence in the management of the schools.
  LORD HUGH CECIL ()said it was quite clear that the remedy proposed now was no remedy at all. Either it would make no difference, in which case the Nonconformists would have as much ground of complaint as before, or it would make a difference, in which case the Church parents would have a grievance. The representation of the parents suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell did not correspond at all with the inalienable right of parents. The inalienable right of parents was only over their own children. No parent had rights over other people's children. Therefore, under this proposal, they would shift the grievance from one set to another. There were two kinds of religious opinion, and only one school to go to. There must be a grievance one way or another. The one idea which was constantly cropping up, no matter how often it was dealt with, was that undenominational teaching ought to be acceptable to the members of the Church of England, even if it were not so. That was the question which they had over and over again. It was the very prevalence of that idea which they had now once more presented to them, that they should accept undenominational teaching, which furnished a very great difficulty in the solution of this question. Once the idea was thoroughly understood, he thought that the Scotch system would work very well indeed in this country.
  *MR. FLETCHER MOULTON ()said that the noble Lord was confounding two entirely different things. There could be no doubt that what was at the bottom of the education policy of the Church was an attempt, a desire, to drive the children of Nonconformist parents into denominational schools, deliberately for the purpose of turning them into members of the Church. [MINISTERIAL cries of" Oh, oh!"] Well, a man must be supposed to

  551
  see the reasonable results of the acts which he committed. What was the ground on which the Church party supported the denominational schools at such a sacrifice? Why were they championed as being necessary to satify the conscience of Churchmen? It was openly stated that it was because they had a tendency to turn the children into Churchpeople. The Church party claimed that it was in their eyes a conscientious duty to secure an education for the children of Churchpeople which would have that effect. When that is the reason which is put forward the first thing an honest man should say was that he would never be a party to driving into such a school the children of parents of other denominations. How could they make the provision of an educaiton tending to lead the children to become members of the Church a question of conscience and yet lift one finger to support a permanent system of education which used those schools by the force of law for the children of those who did not hold the same religious views.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid that the hon. and learned Member was making a most unfair representation of his views. The danger of which the hon. Member spoke was merely imaginary. The Clause which he had proposed on the previous day was totally opposed to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  *MR. FLETCHER MOULTONsaid that even with the noble Lord's Amendment of the preceding day it was intended that the schools should remain denominational schools—schools with the two doors. He did not say that the noble Lord personally desired to take the children of Nonconformist parents and force them into Church schools, but the noble Lord was supporting a Bill which made such a practice part of the permanent system of education in England. Various means had been tried to avert the injustice, but they had all utterly failed, because the cry of confiscation had been raised. In other words, it was a question of property and money which was to justify this gross injustice which placed a lien upon the religious education of the children regardless of
  552
  the wishes of the parents. He admitted that hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious that the children should be trained up in Church principles. That was a very good motive for voluntary educational effort. But if it was important that children should have an education tending positively to make them follow their parents in the choice of a denomination it was ten times more important that they should not be forced into schools purposely organised so as to lead them to leave the denomination to which their parents belonged. No one who put himself onto a judicial position and weigh the two against one another could fail to see that the Nonconformist grievance was greater than that of the Churchman. Were they going to allow this Bill to go out to the country with the knowledge which the country would have that the Nonconformist conscientious grievances had not been remedied one iota? [MINISTRIAL cries of "Oh, oh !"] Look at the ninth and tenth Clauses, which, in his humble opinion, were the most iniquitous Clauses in the Bill. They took from the local authority even the power of deciding that a provided school was necessary. It appeared to him that a remedy might be found for those grievances which would go fat to remove the sense of wrong from the minds of Nonconformists, but if they left the crying injustice untouched, an amount of strife would accompany the Bill which would tend to paralyse the work of education.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid he wished to repel, in a very few sentences, the charges made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. To say that no attempt had been made to remedy the wrongs of Nonconformists was really a gross perversion of what had been done. Only yesterday he and his friends had tried to meet these alleged grievances, but their attempt obtained no support from the Opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the grievance of the Nonconformist was not comparable to the grievance of the Church. He should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have realised that a negation was just as much a grievance to the conscience as an affirmation. It was just as much a grievance to Churchmen that there should be a negation of the great doctrines of the

  553
  faith in which they believed, as to Nonconformists that doctrines in which they did not believe should be taught.
  (5.30.)MR. JONH WILSON ()denied that there was any negation of the doctrines of the Church in the board schools. Only the religious truth of Christianity as professed by the Church of England or the Nonconformists could be taught in the board schools. Nonconformists might not believe in the ritual of the Church of England, but there was not a single doctrine in which the right hon Gentleman believed which he did not believe in himself. It was not in itself a direct negation, though it might be a difference in form. The schools should be cleared from this religious controversy altogether. The money to maintain them was to be paid by men of most diverse religious opinions, and they were all agreed that the children should be educated as citizens of this great industrial country. Why should they have this eternal clash of creeds?
  MR. MALCOLM: This is a great religious country as well as a great industrial country.
  JOHN WILSONsaid he was aware of that. He believed in these doctrines as solemnly as the hon. Member did Public money should not be devoted to religious controversy, and that was sure to be the outcome of this Bill. There was a larger Nonconformist conscience outside of the House, so far as this Bill was concerned than hon. Members gave credit for, and he believed that instead of helping to forward the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England this Bill would help its disruption, and would do great evil to denominational teaching in the land.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR ()said he should be sorry to see this Bill law without some serious attempt to redress the legitimate grievance of Nonconformists in the single-school rural areas. He had before he entered this House read with amazement the proposition of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which was a most surprising one to come from a Roman Catholic. He could not see how Roman Catholics
  554
  could be affected by this Bill, for he certainly was not prepared to give Roman Catholic schools preferential treatment. He thought there was an agreement on both sides of the House that the Government should, if possible, find some remedy. But the remedy proposed by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was one which he could not support. There were in the English parishes about 7,500 schools, of which 5,600 were Church of England schools, 1,800 board schools, and the balance voluntary schools of some other character. He should have thought that, if there was to be any differential treatment as between town and country, it was only fair that the whole of the schools in the rural areas should have been dealt with. But the hon. Member only proposed that these 5,600 schools belonging to the Church of England should be placed exactly in the position of the board schools of to-day. But the Amendment would place all these church schools in the position of provided schools, and to that proposition he could not be a party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not seriously advance this Amendment as a solution of this difficulty, so that the position was that while everyone admitted the existence of a grievance, no one had yet come forward with a practical remedy which would commend itself to both sides of the House. He did not believe that the religious teaching in the board schools was repugnant to the majority of Churchmen, If it was not too late, he would now suggest to the Government that the parents should be given some representation in the management of the rural schools, while the foundation managers were not diminished. He was not prepared to move the suggestion as an Amendment at a moment's notics, but such a thing might be done by increasing the number of the managers to seven, four of whom should be foundation managers one a representative of the local authority, and the other two direct representatives of the parents. He thought such a scheme would be an improvement on the present position, but while he desired the parents to be in a position to express their wishes, he was not prepared to give them the right to take away the property of the Church of England.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right of control was the only solution for this difficulty, and although the hon.

  555
  Gentleman who had just sat down complained that no one had offered any parctical remedy for the mitigation of this grievance, the hon. Member for East Mayo suggested exactly the same remedy as the hon. Member himself had just put forward. That suggestion, however, was not accepted. It was a most remarkable fact that although every speaker on both sides of the House had admitted that the grievance existed, it was only from the Opposition that any attempts at a solution of the difficulty had come, until they had this suggestion from the hon. Member, which he would be glad to adopt. How would the Amendment inflict any grievance on Churchmen? It proposed to make these single school areas provided schools, and then to give every facility to the Church for teaching its own doctrines to its own children. It was in fact the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, but with control. It was not true to say that the Nonconformists had rejected any practical solution of the difficulty.
  SIR JOHN GORST ()said he could not allow this debate to come to an end without contradicting the statement of the hon. Member opposite that no suggestion for the solution of this difficulty had come from the Government side of the House. He had himself placed a Clause on the paper which would have given control. It would have made it the duty of the local authority to make arrangements by which the religious instruction acceptable to the parents should be given. That was done in hundreds and thousands of schools now. Hon. Members opposite would lead one to suppose that the schools were the scence of perpetual religious squabbles. But there was not one in a thousand where there was any trouble at all. The agitation raised in Parliament and on the platform was unknow in the rural areas, because the people in the rural districts came together and discussed matters, and as a rule the managers managed to give such instruction that no child was ever withdrawn. As a matter of fact, he attributed the reluctance of Parliament to settle this question to the fact that the religious controversy was a very useful weapon in matters of this sort.
  *(6.0.) MR. TOULMIN ()said he knew of cases where such voluntary arrangements as the hon. Member for Cambridge University reffered to were in operation; and that that which had been given to the people by voluntary arrangement ought not to be swept away, as it would be by the Bill, but converted into a statutory right. He instanced the case of Salisbury School, near Blackburn, in which such a scheme as was mentioned had been arranged, and had worked without the slightest friction. The Committee consisted of the vicar and six members elected by the three parishes served by the school. Upon the arrangement being made, the teaching of the Catechism was discontinued, but the vicar gave instruction at stated times to all who desired it in the vestry of the church. Hon. Members opposite frequently spoke as if they only represented the wishes of the parents. How were they expressed in the case of this school? Not one parent asked that the teaching of the Catechism should be retained in the school. After ten years' experience of the scheme, the vicar had quite as many candidates for confirmation, and the religious life of the district was quit as good as before. The diocesan inspector had reported that the school deserved to be classed as "excellent;" that none of the subjects were below "very good;" that most of them were "excellent;" that the spirit of reverence pervading the whole school was very marked, and that the repetition and recitation of the prayers was excellent and most reverent; while the Bishop of Manchester, who visited the school three years ago, had remarked that he had visited every school in the diocese, but had never seen more reverence in prayer. This was in a school which was managed by six elected managers and the clergyman. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich seemed not to recognise that there was among Christians what might be called a common denominator—something which could be agreed upon to be taught to all the children in the schools. The remarks of the hon. Member for East Toxteth were an evidence of that fact, and also of the feeling of those Members who had most recently been in contact with the constituencies. In view of recent elections, it was rather amusing

  557
  to hear the hon. Member saying that the more the matter was considered the more remote was the prospect of a Liberal Government. The experience of the hon. Member himself showed that the feeling of the constituencies was not so much in favour of every detail of the Bill as the Government desired to think, and the hon. Member would achieve a great success if only he could induce the Government to accept his views with reference to the Amendment under discussion. The Amendment referred not solely to Church of England schools, but to all schools, and the mover would doubtless be prepared to accept any reasonable scheme which would carry out either his own plan or that recently suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He was suprised at the remarks which had been made as to the speech of the Member for East Mayo, in moving his Amendment relating to this question. It appeared to him to be a perfectly honest recognition of an undoubted grievance. In reply to the declaration of the hon. Member for Oxford University that the denominational schools had been there, were there, and would continue, he would say that the Opposition had demanded, did demand, a publicly managed school within reach of every parent who desired to make use of it. Strong and admirable in its wayas was the desire to maintain denominational schools, hon Members would find that there was on the other side quite as strong a determination that the children of other denominations should not be forced into those schools. As for popular control, hon. Members opposite always took it for granted that an elected majority would be hostile to the Church. He thought that an absolutely mistaken nation. The influence of the clergy and the people of the Church of England would have its due effect, and probably in most cases the Church would obtain a majority on the committee. The Opposition did not ask for a statutory right for Nonconformists to be on the Committee; they were willing to accept the result of an appeal to the people, and stood on the principle of public representation. They asked that they might have a constituency to which they could appeal when there was any grievance.
  558
  Let them have that, and they would rely on the general sense of fairness which was always to be found in their countrymen.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY ()said he had studied the Bill as carefully as a layman could, as so far as he understood the matter the position was this: In a parish with a large majority of Churchpeople the school would be conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England, and would be thoroughly efficient in that respect. Parenthetically, he might say that he thought it impossible to erect a school to place everybody. If a Jew lived among a large number of Christians, or a Mohammedan amongst Buddhists, he had occasionally to suffer certain disabilities. In the same way, if two or three Dissenters lived in such a parish as he had described, although the Church-people would doubtless try to make things as easy as possible for them, he was afraid they would have to suffer certain disabilities, and their children would have to go to that school, although they might be withdrawn from the religious instruction. But what would happen in a parish in which there was a Church school, and a large majority of the people were Nonconformists? If the managers provided an education which was not in accordance with the wishes of the parents, the latter would doubtless be very indignant. They would probably send a petition to the local authority, who would look into the matter, and no doubt give the parents favourable hearing. ["No!"] The Council would then go to the Board of Education and say a new school must be provided. He did not believe that any Minister at the Board of Education would refuse the demand of the County Council if a large majority of the parents required a different kind of education. The Council would then say to the managers: "You are not giving the kind of education the parents desire, and we intend to build a new school," and the managers, probably being the biggest ratepayers in the parishes, would in nine cases out of ten, immediately reply: "If the parents do not approve of the education which is being given, we will let you our school; you take it over and manage it," That would be done in

  559
  nine cases out of ten, and he thought this difficulty would be got over. Then there was the Churchman who was anxious that his child should receive religious education every morning. He would have a grievance. But if he lived amongst a lot of people who were mostly Nonconformists he would have to bear the grievance, because it was perfectly impossible to please everybody. Where voluntary schools were under management which suited the people of the district, they had nothing to say against them, and such schools would go no quietly. In his own constituency there was a large number of Nonconformists, who had no quarrel with the Church schools, and in many cases Nonconformists were the managers of those schools, and even the managers of those schools, and even the churchwardens were often Nonconformists. Undoubtedly the managers would see that Nonconformists were represented on the board of management. As he read the Bill, he thought all educational interests were protected, and they would not serve any useful purpose by passing fresh Amendments.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS ()said he did not think it was necessary for him to quarrel with the noble Lord who had just spoken, because they always listened to his speeches with considerable interest. He thought there was a good deal of practical commonsense in what the noble Lord had said. The policy underlying this Bill aimed at maintaining the voluntary schools of this country, and it was impossible for them to think that the Bill would work out in any other direction. As one who represented a large area in Wales, this Amendment was bound to have a great influence on the constituency he represented. The case complained of was an acute one in Wales, where the majority of elementary schools were denominational schools. At least one half of the elementary schools were denominational schools, and a great majority of them were single schools in their area. There had been many evidences during the discussion that both sides admitted this grievance and desired, if possible, to meet it. He was very sorry that any theological dispute had been brought in. He felt that there was a great gulf fixed between a certain number of hon. Members opposite, who held religious views which it was difficult to bridge over as between them and
  560
  those who sat on the Opposition side. Those differences, however, would not be settled by a debate in the House of Commons, but only by the overwhelming sentiment of the people of the country as a whole. The result of the attitude of the Government in reference to the Amendment would be that the process of extinction of non-provided schools would go on all the more quickly. He should have thought that in the interests of the satisfactory working of this Bill, and in the higher interests of education, the Government would have reconsidered the posssibility of doing something in the direction of this Amendment. He was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for East Toxteth, who expressed views which were largely held by the Church, and whose intervention in the debate to-day was welcomed from both sides of the House. He hoped it was not yet too late for the Government in another place to do something to meet this real grievance.
  MR. HARWOOD ()said he rose to ask the Government very seriously to reconsider this matter. He had not before spoken in any of the debates on the Education Bill, and perhaps his position was 'a somewhat peculiar one. He was a friend of this Bill on the whole. He had voted for a good many Amendments, but they might vote for Amendments from quite different motives. Some hon. Members might vote for Amendments because they wished to wreck a Bill, but he voted for Amendments with the intention of improving this Bill. He felt that this was a better Bill than they had any chance of getting from any one else, and he was disposed to take this Bill rather than see the great cause of education put back for ten or twenty years. His desire was to make this Bill as good as it possibly could be made, and to make it work as smoothly and as effectively as possible when it was passed. He wanted to put it to the Government, as a Churchman who was very keenly interested in the welfare of the Church, whether there was not a case of grave injustice that ought to be met in this particular matter. He asked the Government to consider how they would feel themselves, as Churchmen, if they were in the minority in which

  561
  Nonconformists were. They must not forget that the great principle of compulsion had been introduced in education. When this country adopted the great principle of legal compulsion, they altered the whole philosophy of the matter. Now they found that in thousands of parishes the children were compelled by law to go to the only school in the district. How would they, as Churchmen, like it if they were compelled to send their children to Roman Catholic schools? He thought his hon. friend opposite had a little under estimated what was called the religious atmosphere. How would they like it if their children had to go to schools soaked with a Roman Catholic atmosphere? The would feel that it was a case of great injustice, and they ought to feel that, in a Bill which was going to put this education question on a new footing for generations to come, there ought not to be anything that would create a sense of injustice. This was certainly a great and practical injustice. He had not risen to suggest a remedy, but he begged the Secretary to the Board of Education, as a Churchman, and as a friend of this Bill and a friend of education, to do something to meet this practical injustice, which would do more than anything else to impede the effective working of this Bill. He was convinced that the Church of England did not need for its strength and maintenance any kind of chicanery. On the contrary, he was certain that the true welfare of the Church was identified with moderation liberality, and generosity in a matter of this kind. Upon the School Boards in nearly every case at the elections Churchmen were returned in a majority which showed that the masses were in favour of the Church. He hoped the Government would do something to meet this difficulty.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS ()said he lived in the centre of a number of parishes which were single-school areas. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had told them that there was no real grievance. This grievance might not be very loudly expressed but nevertheless it was felt very keenly and bitterly. He agreed that if the Bill passes into law in its present form it would pass with a very
  562
  serious and great blot upon it in this respect. Appeals had been made to the Secretary to the Board of Education. He did not wish to say anything offensive, but he thought it was unfortunate for the educational system of this country that the hon. Gentleman should represent in this House a constituency which consisted very largely of rural clergymen. He hoped that before the Bill left this House something might be done to mitigate its acerbity to Nonconformists in this respect. This Bill was to go to another place, and what mercy were Nonconformists' interests likely to meet with in another place, which did not contain a single English or Welsh Nonconformist, but which did contain a large number of the official representatives of the Churchs of England? The grievance, to which reference had constantly been made, had been acknowledged by the Prime Minister and his predecessor, Lord Salisbury, and it was one which was not to be lightly settled in this country. He wished to express his belief that this Bill would be very largely unworkable in many of the country districts of England. They could not treat large areas with large majorities of Nonconformists as if they were children or slaves always to be kept in subjection. These people had the feelings of human beings. He ventured to say with regard to these large areas of the country that a feeling was arising, and would continue to grow after the passage of the Bill, which would never cease until ultimately some fairer solution than this could be found. He wished to do everything that could be done to meet the views of honest Churchmen in this matter. He did not wish to see a victory of Nonconformists over Churchmen. He did not wish to see this question settled on the basis of keeping the other side always down to the ground. He trusted that when another Bill was introduced into the House the Government of the day, whatever that Government might he, would take into consideration all the factors that applied to the situation in an infinitely fairer manner than had been done in the case of this Bill.
  (6.33). Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 209. (Division List No. 584.)

  AYES

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Runciman, Walter

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc.,Stroud

  Harwood, George

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shackleton. David James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Broadhurst. Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radeliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington)

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hasting s)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Manrice

  Thomas, J. A(Glamorg'n, Gower)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George. David

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Logon, John William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Wason, Engene

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moultom, John Fletcher

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Donglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Partington, Oswaid

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxail, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Grant, Corrie

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

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

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby-hire)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arkwright, John Stahope

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ. A. (Wore)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  FitzGerald Sir Rober penrose.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Austin, Sir John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Flower , Ernest

  Balearres, Lord

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Forster, Henry William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Garfit, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gibbs Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon, Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bond, Edward

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Guthrie, Walter Murrey

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hain, Edward

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dosford, Sir William Theodore

  Hamilton, Rt HnLordG(Midd'x)

  Butcher, John George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Campbell, RtHn. J. A. (Glasgow)

  Egertaon, Hon. A. De Tatton

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent. Ashf'rd)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)

  564

  565

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Higginbottem, S. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hobnouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E)

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute)

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Hope, J. E.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hoult, Joseph

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Howard, John(Kent, F'versham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kemp, George

  Percy, Earl

  Tufnell, Lient.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tully, Jasper

  Kenyon-Slanev, Col. W. (Salop)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th)

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton)

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Welby, SirCharlesG E. (Notts.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyed

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Leigh-Bennett. Henry Currie

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rensbaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Renwick, George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

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

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks,)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robinson, Brooke

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John

  Wylie, Alexander

  Macartney, RtHnW. G. Ellison

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Younger, William

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Maxwell, W. J H(Dumfriesshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Austruther.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)

  *(6.44.) MR. RICKETT ()moved an Amendment on Clasue 6 with the object of providing that of the six managers four should be representative and two foundation managers. It was quite useless at this time of day to argue the question of abstract right, and he would, therefore, confine himself to endeavouring to impress on hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the interest of the Church party, how desirable it would be to recognise the representative character of these schools. There was no point in the whole Bill which stood so outside the theological sphere, and which would so appeal to that large part of the English people—48 to 52 per cent. Of the population—who did not attend any church, and who, as working men, would largely determine the fate of this Bill and the fate of the next election. They were very weary of these theological discussions. They quite realised that Church and Nonconformity appeared to bulk more largely in the House
  566
  than they did in the country. They had a keen sense that where the money went, particularly in the cases of rates, there should be a true representation on those who provided the money—that they should not be put in the position of mere spectators. They had been told that the local education authority would have the disbursement of the money. That might be so, but the working classes realised the common-sense view of the situation that the management of the school would be practically in the hands of the Board of Managers. If. As they had been told, the real control was vested in the hands of the local education authority, then why put two representative members on the Board of Management. For what purpose were these two members put on the Board? Surely it must be that it was felt with the introduction of retes some sort of control would be exercised through the Board. If That

  567
  were not so, the only alternative would be that these two representatives would stand for the religious side of the management, and that would be contrary to the intentions of the Government and the wishes of the Church party. Where there was a majority of foundation managers there would be constant controversy going on. Moreover, the Liberal Government of the future might hesitate to reverse legislation, but could easily convert two into four by a short Act. The Church school was secured for denominational purposes by the Trust, and so long as the Trust Deed was maintained there would be no risk in increasing the number of representative members of the Committee, as no change could take place in the denominational character of the school. If this change were made, the representative managers would become friends instead of crities, or in the position of the Devil's Advocate. If the Government made this concession it would not involve the least sacrifice of the denominational position of the school, but would, in his opinion, do more than anything else to confirm that denominational status, and leave it unchallenged in the future. Moreover, those who desired that the clergy should have a strong position in the management would secure that by reducing the foundation managers from four to two. The influence which denominationalism would exert in the schools in the future would be a moral, and not a mechanical and physical one. The moral position would he strengthened by his proposal. It seemed to him that that was a very strong case for making the alteration he proposed in the representative managers, and that it was far more likely to work in harmony with the denominational managers than if the representative managers were in a minority. What was the Church to gain by this capricious and anomalous position of the Church schools? Would she not gain a great deal more by frankly holding out her hand to the people, by throwing open her gates and making herself in fact, as she desired to be in theory, the Church of the nation?
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 18, to leave out the word 'four,' and insert the word, 'two'" —(Mr. Compton Rickett.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. FULLER ()said he wished to make a last appeal to the Government to alter the Bill on this very vital point before it became law. He made that appeal to the Prime Minister, not from any religious point of view, or from even any educational point of view, for he did not profess to be an educational authority. But the right hon. Gentleman must be anxious that this Bill Should work in practice, and, as a Member of a County Council, it was his belief that if this provision was left in its present form in the Bill, giving the denominational managers a majority on the Board, the Bill would not work satisfactorily and harmoniously in the way which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman desired. The point on which he laid special stress was that of economy. There would be handed over to the managers, through the local authority. immense sums of money. Take the case of his own county. They should have, what with the old aid grant, the new aid grant and the money raised by the threepenny rate, £100,000, and he ventured to say that where the local education authority had not the full control of the administration of this huge sum of money there could be no hope or prospect of the Bill being administered efficiently or economically. The Committee of Management would have no inducement to practise economy. An education inspector would come down to inspect the school, and the managing Committee would persuade him that new desks and new books, &c., were wanted, and the inspectors would recommend that these should be furnished. The local authority would have no power to stay the hand of an extravagant school management committee. The right hon. the Prime Minister, would see that this proposal of his hon. friend went to the root of the Bill. He believed that the Opposition as a whole had disinterestedly applied themselves to improve the Bill, and at the eleventh hour they were making a final appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision, and let the Bill pass as a more workable measure.
  *(7.0.) SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Government ought to be grateful to

  569
  the hon. Members who had just spoken for the most kindly solicitude they had shown for the future of the Church and of the Bill and of the Government. But they must bear in mind that these schools were to be denominational schools. That was part of the scheme of the Bill, and many hon. Members opposite had said they did not desire to deprive these schools of their denominational character. How could they provide for the maintenance of the denominational character of the schools if the denominational managers were not in the majority? The hon. Member for Scarborough had said that the members of the board of managers, coming from different sources of representation, would be engaged in constant controversy, because they represented different interests, and there would be constant litigation. He ventured to predict the hon. Gentleman had taken an exaggerated view of the situation. He had himself been connected with a body concerned in the management of a school of which the various members of the governing body came from different constituencies, but it never appeared to him that each representative considered it was his business to assert the views of the constituency he represented. All were engaged in endeavouring to advance the institution of which they had control. He was convinced when these managers came together under this Bill they would forget that one was a foundation manager and the others were not, and all would work together harmoniously. The real reason for insisting that there should be a majority of denominational managers was to insure that the teachers should be chosen with due regard to their denominational character. If they were to choose people who were to teach religion of a practical sort they must be sure that the people chosen would be able conscientiously to teach that which they had to teach. That was an unanswerable reason for insisting on this majority on the board of management, and he saw no other way in which could be secured the end which everybody admitted was desirable, namely, that the schools should remain denominational schools.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the gratitude of the Secretary to the Board of Education to his hon. friends had sttopped at words, and had not taken the shape of any
  570
  concession. He did not even take the excellent advice offered: he made no answer to them, except that the schools referred to must be denominational. Since the discussion of this question in July, the Government had discovered no fresh argument. The Opposition had discovered, in the course of the Bill, many additional reasons for anticipating that it would work badly in its present form. All that the hon. Gentleman now said had been said in July last. To the denominational consideration everything was to be sacrificed: strife was to be introduced, good administration to be lost, and constitutional principles to be disregarded. He maintained that, with a trust deed securing the denominational character of the school, the necessity for a majority of denominational managers disappeared. The local authorities would be bound to respect the trust. This had been referred to as the eleventh hour of the Bill. This was the last chance the Government had of making changes which would, he did not say remove their objections to the Bill—they had long ceased to hope for that—but give the measure a reasonable chance of being accepted by the House as one that it would be possible to work. Well, the eleventh hour was passing, and that chance was being lost. In resisting the Amendment the Government were making fatal errors. They were violating the principle, hitherto always observed, that taxation and control should go together, in defiance of a challenge to point out any precedent for such a course. They were not giving the spending authority the strong connection they ought to have with the representative local authority, but were putting on the managing body a majority who would have no interest in economy. Their argument, which was not met by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education, was that they were putting the managers into a position in which it would be necessary for them to incur expense with the passive consent, or in anticipation of the consent, of the local authority, and therefore there ought to be on the managing body a majority of persons appointed from the local authority. They were creating a further

  571
  source of theological strife, and losing the opportunity now given to them of avoiding that strife by having on the spot an authority impartial, trusted, representative, and responsible. Nothing would meet their sense of injustice but the provision everywhere of undenominational schools, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the difficulties that now arose would be removed under a system of popular control. With popular control there would be a check on anybody who wished to abuse his power of management—if he was only one on the board of management and the other managers were not his creatures. The local authority was expressly refused control over all questions relating to religious instruction, and by that refusal they were perpetuating the sources of religious controversy. The Government said they had carefully considered the grievance of single school areas, but were not able to find any remedy. What a confession of despair! Never had confession of despair been so clear before. Here was an admitted grievance which affected no other country in the same way, and the Government said , "We should like to remedy it but do not see our way."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that, although they had not remedied the grievance as they might wish to do, they had introduced into the Bill many mitigations.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid he could not remember anything being done, except in Clauses 8 and 9, and that, he throught, was rather an aggravation.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONcited the provision in regard to teachers.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid that remedy was partial, and did not remove the grievance of the Nonconformist parent. He would remind the Government of the famous phrase that unsettled questions had no pity for the repose of nations. This question, never completely settled, had at any rate sunk into a kind of tranquillity, but now the Government had made it infinitely more acute. They were sending this Bill out as a messenger of strife and bitterness. He believed that the Bill would excite stronger feelings of antagonism—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! it is not in order on every Amendent to make a general attack on the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would not pursue the subject. In the interests of the Church of England itself, as well as of education, they were bound to protest against the violation of principle involved in this Clause, and to record their opinion that only by accepting popular control would a solution of these difficulties be found.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLOR ()said on this, the only occasion on which he had addressed the House this session, he would like to ask the Government if they could not find some means of mitigating this grievance, the existence of which they admitted. He joined issue with the Secretary to the Board of Education when he said that this was the only way in which the denominational character of the school could be secured. He believed it would have been well if the Government had, in the interest of education, and in order to make denominational teaching acceptable to the people, determined to widen the character of the school, and give the majority of the managing body to the public. The reason why the majority of the foundation representatives on the board of managers was so strongly insisted upon by the Government was evidently because the representatives of the public in their opinion could not be trusted. There could not be any other reason. His experience of local authorities had been quite the contrary Local authorities would do nothing unfair in regard to religious bodies. Who were they whom the Government would not trust? They were the people of England and Wales. But those same people elected Members of Parliament, and thus indirectly the Prime Minister, who appointed the bishops of that very Church this restriction was designed to protect. And yet those same people were not to be trusted with the appointment of the teachers of their own children paid for entirely by public money. Let them carry out the principle of trusting the people.
  It being half-past seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned until this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [this day] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended.
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 3, line 18, to leave out the word 'four,' and insert the word 'two' instend thereof."—(Mr. Compton Rickett.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLOR, continuing his speech, said he believed the substitution of four elected managers for two would make the measure more workable. It was not right to suggest that hon. Members were not honest in their desire to amend the Bill. They fully recognised the difficulties of the Government, but still they were anxious, as the Bill was to pass, to get one which would last a considerable time and commend itself to the people of the country. They believed that if the Bill gave what its authors professed that it gave—full control over the secular education of the elementary schools—it would be, if not what Nonconformists would desire, at all events generally acceptable to them. But it seemed impossible to have full control by a popularly elected authority when one of the most important functions of school management,i. e., the appointment of teachers, was left in the hands of a body which was not popularly elected. What woluld be thought if he went to a shipbuilding yard or a large manufactory and said to the owner: "You shall have full control of the works, but I intend to engage all the men, with the exception, perhaps, of a few apprentices." Yet that was practically the position here! They were honest when they said they did not oppose the National Church as such. The persons elected, if the Amendment were carried, would not necessarily be
  574
  Nonconformists, but if they were Nonconformists he did not believe they would be hostile to the Church, and they would properly carry out the provisions of the trust deeds. Whether Nonconformists or not, they would be honest Englishmen. It was a mistake to put the Church in this attitude of mistrust and hostility to the rest of the community. There was less of mutual hatred and suspicion than people sometimes thought. He was one of those Nonconformists who hoped that some day we should have national religious reunion, and that the Church of England might form a nucleus for that purpose. But this Clause did not show a comprehensive national spirit. It was lowering the National Church to the level of a sect. He believed that church wardens were now elected by the parishioners generally, without regard to the religious faith of the electors. Did Nonconformists however, interfere in these matters, except in a few cases where there had been perhaps some objectionable practices carried on against which even Church people protested? The Bill was not in accord with the spirit of a National Church. He was a Nonconformist, but he had no hostility to the Church of England. He recognised it as the National Church, and was willing to give it all the respect it deserved. He was glad to recognise among a considerable number of hon. Members opposite the spirit of compromise and for that reason he followed the example of the Prime Minister the previous day and did not vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He wished it were possible, even at that last moment, to get rid of the spirit of hostility. Many of their grievances could be got rid of by giving popular control, as asked by the Amendment, and in the intersets of the real unification of educton, of real co-ordination, and of social and religious peace, he asked the Government whether, if they could not agree to this Amendment, they could not do something to recognise the principle of popular control in our educatinal system.
  MR. BROADHURST ()said he did not think that the Secretary to the Education Dapartment could have

  575
  followed very closely the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough, whose main argument was that where public money was concerned there should be a considerable proportion of publicly appointed persons to spend it. The hon. Gentleman in his reply lost sight of that argument altogether. He was, of course, in an unfortunate position, for he was the Parliamentary representative of a privileged class who had the power of voting not only in the Division in which they happened to reside but also of voting for a Member for the University. Brought up amid such surroundings, the hon. Gentleman had naturally lost sight of the principle of public control by popularly-elected persons. The mind of the Secretary for the Education Department was wholly bent on a sectarian monopoly in the management of public institutions. These schools were essentially public institutions, maintained out of public funds, and the hon. Gentleman could not get his mind from the narrow groove in which, unfortunately, he had been trained, into the broader position, that we ought to have public men to control public money. So alarmed was the hon. Gentleman for Church interests that he would trust nobody with a voice or veto in regard to religious education unless he was assured, and doubly assured, that they were quite safe. If the Church diplayed less suspicion of public control it would occupy a much stronger position than it now did. Pesonally, he was a pronounced Nonconformist, and one of the poorest Members, perhaps, of the House of Commons. Yet, in spite of his strong convictions, he was no enemy of he Church, and out of his modest means he had been glad to make contributions to Church purposes in the parish in which he lived. Of course the Government did not dare to accept the Amendment. Their hands wee not free. They were under the control of two or three prelates who were their masters in the matter of this Bill. Nonconformists were not the enemies of the Church, and they were not anxious to rob, despoil, dishonour or ridicule it. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister by his action was depriving the Church of much moral support. The Amendment was a reasonable one, for there ought to
  576
  be a majority of publicly-elected representatives to control the large expenditure of money involved in the administration of the Bill. Under the plan the Government proposed the four managers would be responsible to nobody, and yet they were to have control of the vast revenues to be obtained from public sources. Only the other day he heard a manager of a school state publicly that he would reather that the children in the schools grew up ignorant than that they should fail to thoroughly learn the Church Catechism. Of course, he did not mean to suggest that all managers were so bigoted and narrow-minded, and even many of them who were were far too clever to express such views openly, but the fact remained that great powers were being placed in the hands of such men. It was very unfortunate that the Secretary to the Board of Education had been brought up in a University atmosphere; he might otherwise have been broad-minded. He sincerely regretted that the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the Amendment in his remarkable speech in so narrow and evasive a spirit.
  *MR. BOUSFIELD ()said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had complained that no new arguments had been addressed to the House in support of the position taken up by the Government. But he forgot apparently that this was a fundamental part of the solution of the education problem which the Government was offering, and probably he would be the first to complain if hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were to consume the small space of time left for discussion in repeating former arguments. In his opinion the proportion of four managers to two was essential to the maintenance of the denominational system. Everybody knew that the real object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to do away with the denominational system. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed very clearly that that was the ultimate object he had in view. He told the House that nothing would meet their sense of injustice but the provision everywhere of undenominational schools.
  MR. BRYCE: I did not argue this Amendment on that ground.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he was only pointing out the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and he took it that it was the view of the majority of those who were supporting the Amendment. It would mean that in many areas the undenominational school would have to take the place of the denominational school. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the system the Government was asked to modify, in the sense of giving more popular control, was first established in 1869, when it was decided to incorporate denominational schools in the education system of the country. The right hon. Gentleman should haved made his protest at that time; it was too late to do it now. Where was the sense of injustice of which the right hon. Gentleman complained, when one-fourth of the cost of those schools was paid out of public funds; where was it when a half, and eventually three-fourths, came to be so paid? All they were now doing was to secure complete control over secular education, and to bring the schools up to the highest standard of efficiency by providing the remaining fraction of public money necessary to keep them going. And what was the country getting in return for that? In the first place, the local authority was to have absolute control over secular education, and on every board of voluntary school managers there were to be placed two popularly appointed members. Remember that, hitherto, while nearly the whole cost of keeping up the schools had been paid out of public funds, there had been no popular representation on the management. That was not a system initiated by the present Government, but one that was started in 1869. The third thing they secured was the school-houses rent free, but that was a very small thing in comparison with the control that was to be given. It was objected that that control was not full or efficient, and that the only way to make it efficient was to have two managers representing the foundation and four popularly elected. But in many districts there would be practically direct control. He would take his own parish of Hendon as an example. That was an urban district with a population of over 20,000. Under the Bill,
  578
  instead of their present School Board, they would have the District Council as the education authority. Each of the schools, whether board or voluntary, would have its board of managers under the direct control of the Council, and that control would be precisely the same as regarded secular education, whether the school was a board, Roman Catholic, or Church school. In every case it would be a direct control, and the managers would be bound to carry out the wishes of the popularly elected authority. There was, of course, the question of teachers. He would not go back on that point. All he would say was that it was the only way in which these schools could be retained as denominational schools and as part of the system of public elementary education, and it was the price that had to be paid by the public for that retention. He agreed that in the case of counties the control was more remote, though the remoteness was a question, not of machinery, but of distance. Under the Amendment the control would pass into the hands of a small body of elected parishioners, instead of being vested in the County Council, and some of the worst evils of the present system would be perpetuated. In the best interests of education it was absolutely essential that the control by the County Council, the more enlightened body, should be an effective control, and the idea of parochial control was out of the question. As to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that this provision would introduce strife, it was simply idle rhetoric. What difference would the Amendment make? Simply, that instead of there being two on the one side and four on the other, there would be four on the one side and two on the other. The four would have the upper hand. [Opposition cheers.] If the object of hon. Members who cheered was to do away with denominational schools, let them say so. The object of the four managers was to preserve the denominational system. If hon. Members said they did not want that, they would show their honesty of purpose, but they could not in the same breath say that they wished to retain the denominational schools as part of the educational system of the country, and also that they wanted four undenominationalists to have the upper hand in regard to the maintenance

  579
  of denominational teaching. If there was to be strife—and unfortunately there would be strife as long as people persisted in considering that this or that dogma, or that opposition to this or that dogma, was of more importance than true religion—the best thing that could be done was to set the different interests down at the same table, as the Government proposed to do. He would guarantee that there would be far less strife in the future over the management of the schools than there had been in the past. The essential principle of representative government was that conflicting interests should be brought together to discuss the points in dispute between them. If denominational schools were to be maintained, as they must be, as part of our system of national education, the denominationalists must have the upper hand in matters of religion.
  (9.37.) MR. PERKS ()understood that the object of the Amendment in reducing the four foundation managers to two, and possibly increasing the elected managers to four, or leaving them on an equality, was to convert the sectarian schools, not into secular schools, but into Christian schools. There was a great distinction between a strictly denominational school, in which dogmatic theology was taught, and a Christian school in which there was nothing savouring of sectarian or dogmatic teaching.
  MR. TALBOTasked the hon. Member to define Christian teaching.
  MR. PERKSsaid he was not prepared to give a definition, but he knew from practical experience that the greatest distinction existed between a sacerdotally governed sectarian school and a school in which plain common-sense Bible teaching was given by the teachers. On the introduction of this Bill the First Lord of the Treasury said that those whom he called militant Nonconformists were to derive various benefits from this Bill. They had discovered none of those benefits so far. The paltry concession as to pupil teachers was worthless, and there was nothing in the Bill to justify the right hon. Gentleman in holding out the expectation that the Bill would meet some of the admitted grievances of Nonconformists. The right hon. Gentleman was not the first Prime Minister who had fed Nonconformity upon illusions; they
  580
  were accustomed to that, to some extent, even under the regime of a Liberal Prime Minister. The compact of 1870 was forced upon Nonconformists by an ominous coalition between the then Leader of the Liberal Party, and a large number Gentlemen who at that time sat on the Opposition side of the House. The claim that there should be four members of this local governing body appointed by the foundation managers was a grave injustice to vast masses of the community, especially in the great central counties. It could not be denied that in many counties, such as one or two of the Ridings of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cornwall, Nonconformity was in an enormous majority, and that there was hardly an elementary school in those counties in which the children of Nonconformists did not greatly outnumber those of Anglican parents. Yet it was said that this majority of four against two must be maintained in order to impress upon the children in those schools the tenets of the Anglican Church. That was a grave injustice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the Amendment would leave the necessity for teaching Anglican theology in these schools absolutely unaffected; it would not make the schools Nonconformist.
  MR. PERKSquite admitted that the new construction placed upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire by the law officers of the Crown—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was taking the interpretation placed upon the Amendement by its mover, viz., that if the Amendment were passed the instruction in each school would be according to the trust deed of the school, so that in denominational schools the teaching would be denominational.
  MR. PERKSadmitted that the new construction placed on the recent Amendment of the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That has nothing to do with it.
  MR. PERKSdid not agree that it had nothing to do with it. If it was said

  581
  that it was totally unimportant whether the four or two managers were appointed by the local authority or the foundation managers, because the religion to be taught in the school had nothing whatever to do with the managers, that it was altogether outside their purview, and that they were to have the religious instruction forced upon them by the dictum of the local clergy, with an appeal to the bishop—if that was the view taken, it was totally at variance with the speech of the Prime Minister a few days previously. This majority was distinctly defended on the ground that it would maintain the sectarian control of the schools, and one of the reasons why he wanted this majority reduced from four to two, was that he desired that these schools should be conducted not as sectarian schools, but in a more Christian spirit and more in consonance with the views of the overwhelming majority of the parents of the children who attended them in some of the great counties of the country. He feared it was almost too late to hope that the Government would make this important concession. It was one of the fundamental points in the whole Bill. The tests of teachers was one, the appointment of teachers was a second, and this was a third, and on these fundamental questions Nonconformists had received no concessions whatever. There was a growing feeling of discontent on their part—a feeling that they had been unjustly treated and, he was sorry to say, misled to some extent by the too friendly or too optimistic views of the Prime Minister as to the concessions that would be made with a view to removing Nonconformist grievances. He hoped that even at this late hour something might be done to fulfil the pledges which the Prime Minister unquestionably made when he introduced the Bill in March last.
  (9.50.) DR. MACNAMARAsaid that this was one of the few questions in a very complex Bill in regard to which the issue was absolutely clear and simple. The Government averred that they must preserve the denominational system, while the Opposition declared that for every penny of public money spent there must be public control. Those two views were not in themselves incompatible, but they were entirely incompatible under
  582
  the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Government was to create in each case a body of managers which should do two things at one and the same time—preserve denominational instruction and secure public control. He believed that it was impossible to do these two things with one and the same body of managers, and that in endeavouring to do it the First Lord of the Treasury was setting himself an impossible task. He had himself several times suggested a scheme by which the schools would be placed under full public control, and, at the same time, denominational teaching preserved. That plan was to rent the denominational buildings—to buy them out if they were for sale, or to supplant them by others—and then, having the schools under public control, to give the fullest facilities outside the time-table of the school to the denominationalists to come in and give denominational teaching.
  LORD HUGH CECILasked what would be the system of religious teaching ordinarily.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would have all the children join in a simple family Bible observance and prayer.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Would the Cowper-Temple Clause be maintained?
  AN HON. MEMBER: And what about Roman Catholics?
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had always admitted that the Roman Catholics would require special treatment—a sort of special treatment which was compatible with the system of popular control in existence all over Scotland at the present time. As to the Cowper-Temple Clause, it would not be maintained in its entirety. The school would be opened with common family worship—the singing of a hymn and the recitation of a prayer—and that would be an end of it so far as the school was concerned. After school he would give the fullest facilities, free of any charge, to anybody to come in and give religious instruction according to the faith preferred by the parents of the children.
  *MR. SPEAKER: These details as to the mode in which religious instruction should be carried on do not arise on this Amendment. To some extent they are

  583
  involved in the question of whether the foundation managers are to have a majority, and hon. Members may state their views as to what the result may be, but this detailed discussion is out of order.
  DE. MACNAMARAsaid he would at once bow to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and he would not pursue that point any further. Whatever might be the result of this Bill, the system arrived at in our Colonies, after a chastening which this country was likely to go through for the next ten years, would be the system they would arrive at. The Government said they would put denominational schools upon the rates. He was very glad they had done so, and he was extremely glad that that bold step had been taken. He was tired of the system which was maintained by voluntary subscriptions, for it was a dangerous anachronism. The Government intended to evade popular control, which was a consequence of rate aid. In that they were pursuing quite a futile course. The most remarkable thing in connection with the discussions on education during the last ten years was the extraordinary change of front on the part of the Church of England. He had made a close study of the attitude of the Church of England for the last ten years, and he was quite astonished at the change of front which had taken place, more particularly on this question of rate aid. In 1895 the position of the Church was not to touch the rates under any circumstances, because the feeling was that popular control must follow, and that that would be the undoing of the denominational system. In 1895 the Archbishops' Committee submitted some recommendations to Lord Salisbury as a basis on which the Government should legislate upon the education question, and they were then of the opinion that if the schools came upon the rates they would cease to be denominational. Therefore, they were afraid to come on the rates. Dr. Temple, at that time, was of the opinion that it would be best for the Church to consider whether it would not be better to surrender some of their schools to the School Board than put the Church schools on the slippery slope of the support of the rates. On the 9th June, 1896, the Bishop of
  584
  Gloucester said that in regard to accepting aid from the rates, the objection seemed to be insurmountable, for if they received money from the rates they could not remain free in the management of the schools. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India spoke at Stepney on November 3rd, 1896, and he asked, "Could the right to religious teaching be maintained if voluntary schools were put upon the rates?" The Government had tried to maintain that right. The noble Lord in that speech went on to say that he very much doubted this, because the moment a charge was put upon the rates those who paid the rates would try to get control over the expenditure of the money. Lord Cross's Commission of 1888 suggested a rate aid of 10s. per child for voluntary schools, and that was scouted by Churchmen. The then Bishop of London, at the Church Congress in the same year, said he was confident that any proposal to put the schools bodily on the rates, and so do away with the necessity of voluntary subscriptions, was tantamount to giving up the voluntary schools altogether. Therefore hon. Members opposite, who with their eyes open placed these schools upon the rates must stand the consequences. Lord Selborne was a member of the Archbishops' Committee which sat in 1895, and he said that he looked with the greatest fear to their having to take any such course as that of claiming any share of the rates, for that would be handing the schools over body and soul to the enemy. He had no shadow of a doubt that the rate aid meant absolute public control in the long run, and they could not keep down the public representatives to the proportion of two out of six. Up to the last year or two all the leaders of the Church had been profoundly against rate aid, because it would mean the destruction of the voluntary system. Dr. Temple had said that to take a share of the rates would, to his mind, have a disastrous and lowering effect, and he did not see how the rates could possibly come to them without popular control accompanying it. He thought they were creating a Frankenstein which would destroy the system which, before the State had any concern in the matter, many Churchpeople made sacrifices to build up. They

  585
  could not possibly avoid the inevitable consequence of rate aid, which was complete popular control.
  He had found that in the immediate future the cost of maintenance of each child in denominational schools would be about 55s. per year from public funds. The denominationalists were to contribute roughly about 3s. per child for the use of the buildings, and the Church was to keep up the fabric, or, rather, that was intended during the early discussion of the Bill. One of the early Clauses provided that the managers should maintain the fabric out of funds provided by them, and that was called a fair bargain. Since then that bargain had been whittled down. The total cost of maintenance would come to about 60s. per child, and 55s. of this would come out of the public funds. In other words, eleven-twelfths of the money would be found by the public, and one-twelfth by the denomination. Under this Bill, in return for finding eleven-twelfths of the money, the public was to have two-sixths, or four-twelfths, of the management of the schools. The public ought to have at least eleven-twelfths of the management if they found eleven-twelfths of the money. Personally he viewed the future with the utmost equanimity. He very much objected to the Accommodation Clauses, which he thought were vicious to the last degree. He objected to the sweeping off from voluntary funds of the obligation to keep up the fabric. He felt sure that by this proposal the Government were endeavouring to do an impossible task. When they came down upon the ratepayers and presented a demand upon them for their schools, they would find that the ratepayers would want to have something to do with the management.
  (10.15.) MR. TOMKINSON ()said that as a Churchman, and as one actuated with nothing but the best wishes towards the Church, he desired to say a few words about this Clause and about the Amendment which had been moved. As one who had listened a very great deal to the discussion and said very little, he was astonished to notice that there appeared to exist on the part of the clergy a rooted distrust of the people. He was sorry to say this,
  586
  but he was afraid the evidences of it were too strong to be ignored. The Church claimed to have a distinct majority in the country. He thought that in some cases very exaggerated claims had been made. He heard of a clergyman the other day who stated that in his opinion the Nonconformists were in the habit of overrating their numbers and their strength, and he said that if they could be numbered accurately, they would be found to be in a considerable minority. This clergyman said he was the chaplain of a prison where there were 103 prisoners in the gaol, and of that number no less than ninety-eight were members of the Church of England. The explanation of that was that in a country with an Established Church, every prisoner whose religion was unknown was put down as belonging to the Established Church. The claim made by the Church was the inalienable right of the parents to have their children brought up in the faith of their fathers and their forefathers. Surely that also applied to the children of Nonconformists. Why could not the clergy trust the people? If they would only do so it would strengthen their position enormously, and by refusing to do this they were striking a blow at their Church. They had heard repeatedly of the almost insane dislike on the part of the Chruch to publicly elected bodies and to School Boards. They had heard over and over again charges of irreligious tendencies brought against board schools, which had often been refuted. The Leader of the Opposition the other day gave a number of statistics in regard to the composition of five of our largest School Boards, and it was found that over 60 per cent. of them were Churchmen, and about 30 per cent. Nonconformists. They had had the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury in regard to the efficiency of the education given in board schools. The Country Council of the country which he represented had had a special meeting to consider this Bill. On that Council there was a considerable majority of Conservatives, but after discussing this Clause they passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority of quite two to one that inasmuch as the public were going to find most of the money the public

  587
  ought to have a majority upon the board of managers of voluntary schools. In order to prevent an agitation in the shape of resistance to the rates, he urged upon the Government the necessity of adopting some suggestion which would remove the grievance complained of.
  MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,)regretted that the Government had not seen their way clear to accept the recommendation made, he thought from both sides of the House, to give the public an equal representation with those representing the trust. He ventured to think that if that policy had been pursued, and the denominational character of the schools maintained, it would have done away with a good deal of the suspicion and friction that had since arisen. He was fully aware that it would have been necessary to modify Clause 73 of the 1870 Act, otherwise the denominational character would not be preserved. He was not partial to the preservation of the denominational character in our schools. He would very much prefer a national system of education with the simple reading of the Bible, and a simple exposition, but he was convinced that that was impossible of attainment at the present moment. Notwithstanding his disappointment that the Government had not been able to give a larger public control on these committees, he was still hopeful that, with the control of the County Council and the Borough Council, and with the two representatives of the public on the committees, a more liberal method of carrying on these schools would obtain in the future than had been the case in the past. If he had to make his choice, he had no hesitation in saying, as a sincere Nonconformist, that he would much prefer this Bill, with all its defects, to the suggested policy of preferential treatment for Roman Catholics.
  COLONEL NOLAN ()hoped that this dreadful Amendment would be withdrawn. If it was not withdrawn, let the House understand the position so far as Catholics were concerned. The mover of the Amendment proposed that in regard to every
  588
  Catholic school a majority of Protestants should control the teaching of Catholic dogma. [Cries of "No."] They would have full power to send four Protestants to control Catholic education if the Amendment were carried. He did not look upon the hon. Member for North Camberwell as a bigoted secularist, but he would like to know what his general Christian teaching was. Did he now really want a majority of Protestant managers to control Catholic schools? Did he want to send to a Catholic school a Protestant teacher? They had been told that Catholics should get separate preferential treatment, and that had been advocated on the Liberal side of the House. There were over 500 Amendments to the Bill put on the Paper, but did a single Liberal Member put down an Amendment in favour of preferential Catholic treatment? He was not aware of one, but if any hon. Member did, he apologised to him. The fact was, the Roman Catholics had been used by the Nonconfirmists as a sort of red herring drawn across the trail. Catholics were quite aware of that. He believed that the Liberal Members were really, in their hearts, fairly disposed to Catholics, but they did not dare propose preferential treatment and face their constituencies. Catholics were now offered a good Bill. Mr. Davitt stated recently in the United States that they would now get 15s. per child more. Mr. Davitt was not a friend, but an opponent, of the Bill, and yet that was his opinion. That was a very large sum of money to the Catholics. If the Leader of the Opposition would get up and say that he would bring in a Bill proposing preferential treatment for Catholics, he would be ready to say, "Let the Church of England and the Nonconformists fight their own battle." But as there was no prospect of that, he thought Catholics were right to accept what they could get now under this Bill. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said that as the taxpayers found the money they ought to have the control of the schools. But ssurely the hon. Member was aware that Roman Catholics also paid taxes. It had been stated that an agitation was springing up against the Bill; but if the Roman

  589
  Catholics were true to themselves in Ireland and in England it would be of little avail.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS ()said it appeared to him that the question now before the House was one of great gravity from the broad point of view. Those who sent him to Parliament had been giving consideration to this Bill. While he accorded a general support to the Government, he believed that he had a clear mandate from his constituents on this subject. He did not think the Government were entirely aware of the popular sentiment in Scotland. His fellow - countrymen in Scotland were
  unable to understand this principle of four and two managers as arranged by the Bill. The Government could not dissociate the principle of public control from the granting of public money from the rates. He believed that a blunder had been committed by the Government in this matter, and he urged them to concede equality of representation as a wise and prudent policy in the interest of those whom they were desirous to serve.
  (10.38.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 585.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Geral Walter Erskine

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Austin, Sir John

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Garfit, William

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shorpshire

  Bond. Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mst'w

  Bousfield, william Robert

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Bull, William James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Carlile, William James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, RtHnJA(Worc'r

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Champman, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Purvis, Robert

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fre.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kemp, George

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Renwick, George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerHamlets

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

  Lockie, John

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tully, Jasper

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, James Parket(Lanarks.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und. Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Allen, CharlesP(Gloue.,Stroud

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Shackleton, David James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Black, Alexander William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Spencer, RtHn. C .R(Northants

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Tomkinson, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison

  Weir, James Galloway

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thoman J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Morkham, Arthur Basil

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Perks, Robert William

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

  Emmott, Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Price, Robert John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Grant, Corrie

  Rigg, Richard

  Griffith, Ellis Sir E.(Berwick)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Amendments made—
  "In Clause 7, page 3, line 34, leave out 'so long as,' and insert 'but.' In Clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'them,' insert 'only so long as.' In Clause 7, page 3, line 41, and page 4, line 1, leave out 'with respect to,' and insert 'for.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)said he wished to move the omission of sub-Section (b)of Clause 7, in order to ascertain the views of the Government in regard to inspection. This was the only place in which inspection was mentioned in the Bill. He thought it was understood by the Government and the House that His Majesty's Inspectors should still continue to inspect all the schools; but the local education authorities would also appoint their own inspectors, and he hoped something would be put into the Bill in regard to the duplication of inspec-
  592
  tion of the schools all over the country. Duplication of inspection would not be good for the schools, for the local education authority, or for the ratepayers, and he was anxious that this should be avoided.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page4, line 6, to leave out sub-Section (b) of Clause 7."—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he was fully alive to the risk and the evil of duplication of inspection, and it should, so far as it lay in his power, be avoided. His right hon. friend would not expect him to say what line the Board of

  593
  Education would take up in every case, because much would depend on the local authority and on local circumstances; but he might safely say that it would be the desire of the Board of Education to act with the local authorities, and to enter into some arrangement by which the results of their inspection could be utilised for the benefit of the local authorities.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that after that explanation by the Secretary to the Board of Education he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN ()said he was glad that the answer of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education foreshadowed some amount of Departmental action in regard to inspection. If that could be done without endangering the efficiency of the schools it would prove of great advantage
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAMBERT, in moving that the words "the consent of" should be omitted from the beginning of sub-Section (c), said that his intention was subsequently to move the insertion of other words, the effect of which would be that the local authority should appoint and dismiss teachers. That was, indeed, the clear issue which he proposed to submit to the House. It was said that the local authority would have the control of all secular education; but it was impossible that they should have such control unless they had the absolute right to the appointment and dismissal of teachers. Ninety-five per cent. of the instruction in the schools was secular, and it was absolutely impossible for the local authority to have control over it unless they had the power to appoint and dismissal the teachers. The local authority ought to be trusted and given as much power as possible. At present there was a form of dual control in regard to the appointment of teachers, but there was, unfortunately, no provision for the dual payment of the teachers. Not a single penny of the teachers' salaries would be paid by the managers; and he insisted that the principle should be observed that those who paid the teachers should control their appointment and their dismissal. They knew very well that the success of a school largely depended upon
  594
  the masters, and if the control of the local authority was to be real it was absolutely necessary that his Amendment should be carried. Under the Bill the Board of Education was to be called in, in the event of any dispute arising between the local authority and the managers. He had not a profound confidence in the Board of Education. The hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Board of Education would not always be in power. A change was possible, and another gentleman might be appointed head of the Department who had different views from those held by the hon. Baronet. But if the local authority were made responsible for the appointment and dismissal of the teachers, they would maintain the even tenor of their way, and their policy would be far more stable than under the control of the Board of Education. They had been told that to give the power of appointing the teachers to the local authority would be to destroy the denominational character of the schools. He could not see that. There was, he contended, a great deal of truth in a statement of an hon. Member that in this matter the Church would be far better off if they trusted the local authorities. These would not be revolutinary bodies. Most of the County Councils had a large majority of Conservative members, and they would not be likely to do anything which would inflict any grievance on the denominational schools which they had under their control. The defects in the Bill were bound to be cured in the long run, because the country would assert itself. They had had a division the previous day on a most extreme clerical Clause, and although the Prime Minister gave the House no lead in the matter, that extreme clerical Clause was rejected by an enormous majority. They had seen over and over again that the right hon. Gentleman would not give any real power to the local education authorities. This could not be a lasting settlement unless his Amendment were carried. There would be no security for the teachers, who would be under the harrow of the managers, whereas, if his Amendment were carried, the teachers would be under the control of the local education authority, which was the local education authority, which was a body more likely to give them fair

  595
  play than the managers. It seemed to him that they had no right to ask that something like 11,000 head teachers in the country should be submitted to a denominational test. Such a thing was unknown in National Government. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister asked the members of His Government what their religious convictions were; and why should they ask the teachers? The Bill put the clock backwards, and apparently religious tests were to be revived. It was an insult to the Nonconformists of the country to say that they were not to have a share in the teaching of any of these 11,000 schools. It had been said that concessions had been made to the Nonconformists; but he would like the head of the Education Department to tell the Nonconformists how they were to benefit under this Bill. He was afraid that the hon. Baronet would have the greatest difficulty in doing so. If the power were given to the local authorities to appoint and dismiss the teachers, that would, he was convinced, reduce a large amount of objection to the Bill. The concession which had been given in regard to assistant and pupil teachers was no concession, when the appointment of the head teachers was left in the hands of the managers, who were to have regard to the religious convictions of the head teachers. It was stated by the Prime Minister that the Roman Catholics formed an effective bar to giving the local education authority the right to appoint teachers, but for his part he did not see that the Roman Catholics presented any obstacle in the way. He said most distinctly that time was on their side in this matter, and that the system organised by the Bill would not go on. From a political point of view he believed that nothing would be better for his party than that the Government should reject his Amendment, because if they accepted it a great part of the opposition to the Bill would, as he had said, fall to the ground. Directly the ratepayers realised that they were to be saddled with all the expense of maintaining these schools, and at the same time were to be deprived of the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, they would rebel and there would be a change probable much more drastic than he suggested by his Amendment. The Clause was contrary to fair play. It was
  596
  against fair play that one half of the community should be banned from putting teachers into these schools. He insisted that the Bill would not be workable, and that it would not effect that educational reform which they had all hoped to see.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 8, to leave out the words 'the consent of.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that hither-to they had been reviving, with zest and at some length, the discussions of last summer, but now they were asked to reconsider a matter which was discussed with great animation and also at considerable length a month ago. He hoped it would not be considered disrespectful if he did not answer the hon. gentleman in great detail. The managing body constituted by Clause 6 was constituted with the definite object of preserving the denominational character of the schools. They ought to have something to manager, and the principal business of their management was surely the appointment of the teachers. He did not think that the House would go back on what it had already done in regard to school management.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE ()said he moved a similar Amendment a month ago, but the arguments then advanced had not been answered; neither had the arguments which his hon. friend had brought forward to-night been answered. There was a grievance, which was not inconsiderable, felt by Nonconformists in the matter. There were about 11,000 voluntary schools out of the 20,000 public elementary schools in the country; and, mainly speaking, in those 11,000 schools the teachers were members of one denomination, while in the remaining 9,000 schools half the teachers at least were members of the Church of England, because the training colleges, which Nonconformists contributed, were absolutely closed to members of the Nonconformists were unable to receive a proper training as teachers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they would have a proper training under the Bill.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid a large number of Nonconformists would still be in a very inferior position as he understood the Bill. The training colleges of the country had as boarders only those who belonged to one denomination, and the result was that members of that denomination were placed in a privileged position.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that under the Bill all that would be changed, as there was unlimited power to train teachers in rate-aided institutions.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he was quite prepared to admit that certain powers were conferred on the County Councils.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Full powers.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that the Prime Minister must be aware that there was no prospect of such institu-
  tions being provided in any event for some years to come, and the prospect of an immediate increase of rates of 6d. to 1s. in the £ above those at present enforced in connection with elementary education, made it most unlikely that County Councils would further add to the rates and provide new training colleges. It was, therefore, most important, if only to secure efficiency, that all State-aided denominational colleges should be thrown open to Nonconformists. Out of the 20,000 headmasters in the country he believed that some 16,000 or 17,000 would be selected from one denomination alone, and as long as that grievance existed they were justified in protesting against this Bill and supporting this Amendment.
  (11.18.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes 82. (Division List No. 586.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Mane'r

  Lockie, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bignold, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Bigwood, James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macartney, RtHn W. G. Ellison

  Bond, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Maxwell, W J. H(Deumfriesshire

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.

  Bull, William James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milvain, Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Montagu, Hon. J . Scott (Hants.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w)

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H Aylmer

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

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

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E.)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F.(Sheflield, Brightside

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kemp, George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Denny, Colonel

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (alop

  Purvis, Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJoseph C.

  Keswick, William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Renwick, George

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Roberts, samuel (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson-todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUniv.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R(Bath

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rutherford, John

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Ho. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tully, Jasper

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

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

  Walrond, RtHon SirWilliam H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Smith, AbelH.(Herford, East)

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E.(Taunt'n

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Shackleton, David James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bell, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Tomkinson, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Channiing, Francis Allston

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Ellis, John Edward

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rigg, Richard

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstoneand Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  *(11.30.) MR. YOXALL ()said the object of the Amendment which he desired to move was to provide that the appointment of teachers of all grades in non-provided as well as in provided schools, should be made without reference to religious creed or denominationa. The words in the Bill referred only to the appointment of assistant teachers and pupil teachers, and that was qualified by the mysterious words "if it is thought fit." It was not clear by whom it was to be thought fit; but presumably it would be by the managers, and they would be unlikely to appoint teachers without reference to creed or denomination. He desired to omit the words "if it is thought fit," and also the limitation of the Clause to assistant teachers and pupil teachers. It was
  600
  held that in a denominational school an assistant teacher or a pupil teacher of another denomination might be appointed; but that the head teacher should be of the denomination to which the school belonged. He admitted that the option to appoint pupil teachers and assistant teachers of another denomination was a slight advance on the present system; but he based his Amendment on the change which was to be made with regard to the maintenance of the schools. Hitherto, a denominational school had been a quasi-private institution. It had relations to the State which were very loose and indirect, and the contract between the teacher and the managers was one in which the Board of Education took no part. That was all to be changed. The denominational schools, so far as secular education was

  601
  concerned, would be under the local authority, and were to be wholly maintained from public sources; and, therefore, he claimed that the provision with reference to the appointment of teachers in those schools should be similar to that in provided schools. What was the case at present with regard to the board schools? A School Board laid down the syllabus of religious instruction. It was known to the applicants for positions as teachers under the Board, and it was understood that every person applying was willing and prepared to give that instruction. He submitted that that should be the case also with regard to the denominational schools. He was not prepared to say that it was the proper thing for a man who did not accept the creed of a certain denomination to accept to accept employment as a teacher in a school belonging to that denomination; but he was prepared to say that the question of his sincerity was not a question into which other people should go. If the test proposed to be applied to teachers in denominational schools were to be applied to incumbents in denominational benefices, he thought strange results would emerge; and he claimed that freedom to undertake the duty of giving religious instruction should be granted to teachers, as well as to persons who were engaged in giving religious instruction in a higher sphere. They had done away with religious tests at the universities, and the tendency of the time and of public feeling was against their perpetuation, especially in institutions maintained by public funds. The denominational school of the future would not be a quasi-private institution, but would be a wholly public institution; and, to all intents and purposes, so far as its funds were concerned, it would be under the general control of the local authority, and would be on the same footing as a board school. They had not laid down in the case of board schools, that no one should teach whose religious creed or private views went beyond the Cowper-Temple Clause; and he submitted that they had no right in a new kind of board school to lay down the principle that a teacher should be tested to see if his religious views were such as the school required. That was a matter between the teacher himself and his conscience, but if he was found not
  602
  to discharge his duty properly, or not to give the religious instruction which was required, he could, under the Bill, be dismissed. If the teacher did his work satisfactorily, that would be sufficient. If he did not, then he could be dismissed; but let them not lay down a theological test of an invidious character which was entirely opposed to the spirit of the time and the feeling of the nation, and which was the sole survivor of many tests which had existed in the past. That would be wrong in theory, fallacious in practice, and repugnant to the free institutions of the country, and ought to be removed from the Bill. No practical difficulty would arise if the test were removed, as the main stream of teachers who would apply for employment in non-provided schools would belong to the Church of England; but if the test were removed, a measure of religious liberty would be given to a class who, after the passing of the Bill, would be in all respects public servants, without in the least interfering with the efficient teaching of the articles and creed of the Church of England in non-provided schools. It was not as if the immediate result of his Amendment would be that teachers would be appoionted to Church of England schools who were Agnostics, or Baptists, or Methodists. The bulk of the teachers would be, for many years to come, qualified to give religious instruction in Church of England schools. What he claimed was that the fact that a candidate presented himself for employment in a non-provided school, whether it was Church of England, Wesleyan or Roman Catholic, ought to be taken as evidence that he was willing to give instruction in that school, and if his educational credentials were satisfactory, he ought to be allowed to enter that school without being asked whether he was a communicant of the Church of England, or a believer in the Athanasian Creed. After the passing of the Bill, a teacher in a non-provided school would be, to all intents and purposes, a public servant. At present he was not a public servant, and was engaged on a contract between himself and private persons who, by an anachronism, had the management of a school eleven-twelfths of the income of which was provided out of public sources. By a legal fiction, a denominational school was at present a private

  603
  institution, and the teacher was a private person, and it might be said that the House had no right to interfere with any test which the managers of a denominational school might set up. But all that was to be changed. Although the appointment of teachers in the future would rest with the managers, the teachers would be public servants; and was it to be contended that any Government would think of setting up a system of theological tests, direct or indirect, for the public servants of the country? It was not done in the case of the Welsh Intermediate Act, or in the case of the Technical Education Acts. The stream of tendency for the last twenty or thirty years had been in the direction of removing theological tests, and he asked the House to follow that stream, and not to attempt to obstructor dam it. If they did, they would do violence to the feeling of the country and to the consciences of many thousands of future public servants. It might be said that the teachers would not suffer in the future any greater hardship than they had suffered in the past, but the position was changed, and the teachers, as citizens and Englishmen, had a right to claim that this matter should be put on a proper footing. The teachers were not willing to submit to those tests. They had perhaps to submit to them in the past as a condition of their employment, but not willingly, and he ventured to express the warning that such a condition in the Bill would set up another subject of irritation in every locality, and would be another reason why the Bill would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. In the name of the teachers, he protested against such a test being applied to them. It could be removed without any practical difficulty, and he claimed that the sole judge in the matter should be the teacher as between himself and his conscience. If he failed to give the teaching required he could be dismissed. For all these reasons he claimed that justice should be done to the teachers, and it was for that reason that he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 14, to leave out the words 'Provided that assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed if it is thought fit,' and insert the words 'the appointment of teachers shall be made from among persons willing to teach in the school.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was not sure how far the words proposed by the hon. Member would carry out his object. As the Bill originally stood the managers had discretion in the choice of teachers, except in cases where it was limited by the trust deed to persons of a particular denomination. The Government had introduced an Amendment extending the discretion of the managers where the trustdeed imposed a limitation, except as regarded the head teacher, and by that the Government were prepared to stand. As he understood the hon. Member, he not only wished the managers to have the widest possible discretion whatever the trust deed might say, but that the managers should be forbidden to ask a teacher whether he was or was not prepared conscientiously to give denominational teaching, on which the very existence of the school as a non-provided school depended. That would impose on the managers a disability so gross as to be almost ludicrous. It was a disability which would not be imposed on any other employer, and he really hoped the House would not consider long before rejecting the porposal of the hon. Member.
  Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he wished to submit that if the words were inserted they would inflict a blow on Nonconformists rather that confer a benefit on them. Was it likely that anyone would be unwilling to accept the appointment of teacher? The words were perfectly futile, and if they were accepted they would be substituted for words which, although they might not go as far as hon. Members opposite desired, would certainly have the effect of throwing open thousands of places in the schools to Nonconformist teachers.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid that the answer given by the Secretary to the Board of Education entirely passed by the salient feature of the position, which was that the schools would change their character,

  605
  and that the teachers would become practically the public servants of the State. The imposition of a test on civil servants had no parallel in any part of the administration of the country. In some respects the position would be worse than it was at present. Many trust deeds did not restrict the appointment of a teacher from a particular denomination, but the provisio which the Government intended to insert in the Bill referred only to assistant teachers and pupil teachers, and, therefore, implied that the head teacher should be appointed from the denomination.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the object of the Clause which would be inserted at a later stage was to give the managers a wider discretion where the trust deed limited that discretion.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought that this might very well be construed by the managers as a direction to them to appoint teachers from the denomination. That would be the interpretation which the managers would be likely to put upon the Clause. The whole case had been very fully and clearly argued by his hon. friend, and he would only add that, to his mind, there was not in the whole Bill a provision more retro-grade or unfortunate, or more calculated
  to prejudice the teaching profession, and that interest which the public had in securing the widest choice of competent men to enter the teaching profession. That was the broadest interest the public had, and it would be narrowed by the proposed provision.
  *MR. BULL ()said he should like to ask the hon. Member who moved the Amendment whether it was not a fact that the London School Board, on more than one occasion, refused to appoint teachers who professed Free Thought. Without entering into the merits of the matter, was not this a religious test? If it was not, what was it?
  *MR. YOXALLsaid he was not aware of the case to which the hon. Member referred, but the inference he drew was not correct. He had already stated his own view —
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken on the Question before the House.
  (11.53.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 168. (Division List, No. 587.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R.(Northants

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Causton, Richard knight

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Donglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Price, Robert John

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Rigg, Richard

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Runciman, Walter

  Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn .GeraldW(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hamilton, Rt HnLordG(Midd'x

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Purvis, Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bull, William James

  Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, John George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Riddley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge

  Carlile, William Walter

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

  Kemp, George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A (Worc.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W . (Salop.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chapman, Edward

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Clive, Crptain Percy A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Colomb, Sir John CharlesReady

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneside

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, James Parket (Lanarks.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lockie, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald Walter(Bristol, S.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, RtHn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUniv.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesteft)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Doughty, George

  Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison

  Tully, Jasper

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Cann, James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

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

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

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Whiteley, H(Ashtonund. Lyne

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute

  Wylie, Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Younger, William

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Perey, Earl

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after midnight, further consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2:—
  Question again proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put. Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.