EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL

HC Deb 27 November 1902 vol 115 cc700-40

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 5, line 6, to leave out sub-section (4) of Clause 7.—(Mr. Cripps.)

Question again proposed, "That the words 'religious instruction' stand part of the Bill."

(9.0) MR. MILVAIN) (Hampstead

said he did not think the existing law was interfered with in any way whatever. The existing state of things was that denominational schools were, generally speaking, founded upon trust deeds, which usually placed the direction or supervision of religious education in the hands of the incumbent, subject to an appeal to the bishop. By common consent religious education was left in the hands of the incumbent. That was common ground, and the appeal to the Bishop implied that a decision must have been arrived at previously by one of the parties to the appeal, and there could be no appeal unless there had been interference with the incumbent from laymen or managers. The Kenyon-Slaney Amendment laid down that there should be religious education in accordance with the tenour of the trust, and that it should be religious education in accordance with the tenour of the trust, and that it should be subject to the control of the managers. So long as the majority on the board of management did their duty and assisted the clergyman in the direction of religious education, he saw no ground for fearing either the disestablishment of the Church or the difficulties which had been spoken of by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. As the existing law was not interfered with, he would, if the supporters of the Government were to vote as they pleased, vote for the deletion of the Clause; but if the matter were made one of confidence, he would be prepared to support the Clause. He wished to know what the intention of the Government was.

* MR. GUTHRIE) (Tower Hamlets, Bow

thought the question was one on which Members ought to be at liberty to take their own line He would be compelled to vote against the Clause, guided by a principle which was one of the foundations of belief of the Conservative Party, namely, the sanctity of property. The question of the rights of property seemed to have been too much neglected. To alter the trust deeds would be a serious breach of trust, and he regretted that the Government should have been the initiators of such a proposal. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that it was unfortunate that the Government should have given such a bad example to the Party opposite, whose instincts towards predatory legislation were quite keen enough.

MR. MALCOLM) (Suffolk, Stowmarket

desired to associate himself with those who had spoken agaist the Clause, He thought the Government were making a grave mistake in violating the sanctity of trust deeds. It was not only a question of the rights of property, but it was an operation which would greatly interfere with voluntary effort in the future. In days to come, hospitals, infirmaries, and similar institutions, which held their moneys under trust deeds might be taken over by Governments and their trust deeds might be altered in accordance with the particular views obtaining at the moment, and in opposition to the desires of the benefactor. Under such circumstances it was not all likely that people would be inclined to make such deeds of gift in the future, and voluntary effort would thus be in peril of extinction.

A few days previously the House had been asked to consider the feelings of the teachers if they were not allowed to take part in the religious instruction. But what about the feelings of the clergy under this arrangement? They would be infinitely more deeply wounded than those of the teachers; and the feelings of the children, which had not been much considered in the matter, would be of great perplexity when they found that the gentleman to whom they looked on Sundays for their religious teaching was debarred by the action of a fortuitous concourse of managers from giving that instruction on weekdays. He asked whether the words "the tenour of" were not very peculiar words to insert in a legal document? He had never seen the phrase so used before, and would like to know whether it was one well recognised in courts of law, or one that had been invented for the purpose of this Bill. If it had been invented for the purpose of dealing with, and was to be confined to, the endowments of voluntary schools, he thought the action of the Government was going very far, and that in the future they would have cause to regret that they, as a Conservative Government had ever laid a finger on trust deeds which hitherto had always been respected.

MR. DUKE) (Plymouth

thought the practical effect of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment would not be great; but its possible effect, regarding it in its technical sense, was not satisfactory. He did not think that religious education, under the existing system of the Church of England, produced the alarming consequences in the working of schools which had been depicted. The one instance of abuse which, after years of search, had been brought to the notice of the House, was said to have occurred in the school of St. John's, Sutton-on-Plym, in his own constituency, and from his own knowledge he was satisfied that the hon. Member who brought that matter forward had alighted on a mare's nest. But the House was not legislating entirely in regard to probable consequences, and it ought not to leave an uncertainty in the Bill in reliance on the common sense which marked the working of English institutions. The House ought to provide safeguards which would be satisfactory to those concerned in religious education. He believed the Bill would secure the appointment of Christian teachers in voluntary schools, which would be of great advantage, but the subscribers to and the trustees of Church schools were entitled to something more than was provided in this Clause. The Clause purported to put the control of religious education in the hands of a body of managers who might be laymen, where as the trust deeds of Church schools put the direction of religious education in the hands of the clergyman of the parish. The Attorney General had assured the House that the safeguards of the present system would still exist. If that was the case, and the intention of the Clause was to leave the direction of religious instruction in the hands where the trust deeds now reposed it, he could not see why it should have been moved. But what difficulty was there in embodying in the Clause words which would make its intention perfectly clear? Trustees of a school which was supposed to be maintained on Church of England principles, and in accordance with the terms of the trust deed, might have conscientious scruples against handing that school over to the control of a system set up by an Act of Parliament, the main Clause of which, in regard to religious education, was, on the face of it, absolutely contrary to the terms of the trust deed. In the West of England there was great anxiety among trustees as to whether the Clause would enable them to discharge the obligations which they, as conscientious men, felt they had undertaken, if they handed over the school or proceeded with it under the terms of the Bill. The Attorney General said the intention was embodied by implication that the appeal to the Bishops in matters of doctrine would be retained. And yet the Government would not risk putting it in plain words. That was a form of high obstinacy which he did not understand in matters of business. There were difficulties enough in the Bill, without complicating it unnecessarily.

The course the Government were adopting was not that that might have been expected from a Government with an absolutely loyal majority behind them, or from a Government dealing with vital matters upon which many Members had been ready to risk the possibility of their continuance in public life. He hoped that a higher courage would take possession of the Government, and that they would not let a nervous apprehension as to the views of this or that Party affect their conduct. Let them make the intention of the Clause clear, so that the trustees of Church schools might know that what was to be taught in Church schools was the doctrine of the Church of England ascertained by the Bishops of that Church, and not the doctrine of the Church of England according to the views of any casual body of laymen who might be collected from time to time. No other religious body, whether of Nonconformists or of Roman Catholics, would consent to have such matters so dealt with, and why in the single case of the Church of England was it to be said that these decisions should be given, not by the authority which could deal with the matters with the responsibility and the sense of duty arising out of long ages of usage, but by a tribunal consisting of a casually collected body of persons? There was a feeling in the country on this subject which he thought ought to be satisfied. For the sake of some technical punctilio as to the phrasing of the Amendment, or from some ungrounded apprehension of the loyalty of the Conservative Party or the common sense of the constituencies, the Government were running the risk of wrecking the future operation of their Bill in Church of England schools by refusing to insert in plain words in this Clause that which they confessedly believed to be implied.

(9.34.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

It has been said by the hon and learned Member for North Louth, and also by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, that this raises a very deep question, and that is perfectly true. It raises the question of the relation between the nation, who are the laity, and the clergy in respect of the religious education of the children. A greater question than that cannot be raised. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth, Speaking on behalf of the great communion to which he belongs, very fairly and clearly stated what their view is, that all questions of religion belong exclusively to the clergy, with an appeal to the Bishop of the Diocese, and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. That is an ecclesiastical constitution which is perfectly intelligible. But, as I understand it, the view of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is precisely the same, only he does not go further than the Bishop of the Diocese. It is that all religious teaching belongs exclusively to the clergy.

LORD HUGH CECIL

That all religious teaching given in the name and on behalf of the Church of England must be given by the ordained ministry.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Yes; but I should like to know what the authority for that proposition is. IF true, it is wonderfully little observed, because part of the teaching is given by people who are not ordained—by lay teachers, who are not appointed under this Bill, not by the clergy or by the bishop, but by the managers; they are to be laymen appointed by laymen to give religious teaching in the denominational schools. I think that disposes of the ecclesiastical theory and the fundamental principle expounded by the noble Lord. I do not enter into the ecclesiastical controversy on that subject, I only deal with the practise which exists. I think the noble Lord said something about the canons of 1603. That is a long time ago, and in the 20th century the practise of the Church is not in accordance with the canons of 1603. So much for that. The real difference between the ecclesiastical system of the Church of England and that of the Church of Rome is that the Church of England was lay-established. it was enacted by the laity. I do not know whether the noble Lord is familiar with the preamble of the Act of Uniformity; that is the Act on which the Prayer-book depends.

LORD HUGH CECIL

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the Prayer-book depends on it; the Prayer-book depends on the Act of Charles II. at far as it depends on anything.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

There was an amendment in the reign of Charles II., but the Prayer-book was established by the Act of Elizabeth.

LORD HUGH CECIL.

No.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I will not go into that any further with the noble Lord, except to say that the Prayer-book of the Church of England was established by the Act of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth, and in that Act the Lords Spiritual took no part; all the Bishops and Convocation voted against it. There is another difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; the appointments of Bishops is by the Crown, and whereas the ultimate appeal on matters of doctrine in the Church of Rome is to the Pope, in the Church of England it is to a lay tribunal, the Privy Council. I only mention those notorious facts as being a perfect refutation of the clerical theory of the noble Lord. Popular control is a thing not unknown to the Church of England, and it properly finds its place in this Bill. If you may have a lay school master appointed by lay managers to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, then you have a recognition of the right of laymen in the teaching of religion.

I will not go any further into ecclesiastical theories. What I have risen specially for is, to ask what is the present position of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question. My hon. and gallant friend has shown the courage that belongs to his profession in bringing forward this question. He has told us of "the perils of the field" he has undergone. Sydney Smith once said that the greatest punishment that could be inflicted upon anybody is to be preached to death by wild curates, and that is what my hon. and gallant friend has experienced. He will go down to posterity, no doubt, with the crown of martyrdom; but I am very glad to think that, though we live in days of the wearing of various uniforms, we do not live in a time in which he would have appeared in an auto-da-fe, and, in a San Benito uniform, have been consigned to the flames; that we are not back in the days when clerical domination flourished in a form in which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would desire to see it.

What, sir, is the history of this Amendment? It was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member, but I think he is too prudent a man to have brought it forward without some idea of how it would be entertained. I did not think that the moment he sat down after moving an Amendment of this kind, the Secretary of the Education Department would have risen and embraced it at once, and that it would have received the confirmation of the First Lord of the Treasury. I suppose they knew then what it meant. I do not know whether they had a legal opinion on the subject. I should very much like to know whether this legal astute opinion of the Attorney General's was given before the Government assented to and accepted the Amendment in the House itself, or whether it was born immediately before the Albert Hall meeting. I should very much like to know what was the genesis of this remarkable theory of the difference between "tenour of doctrine" and "machinery of control." I do not think that even the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages could have devised a more elaborate and unsustainable theory. The hon. and gallant Member, not only with courage, but with frankness, told the House what his intention was. The object of his Motion was to give an authority which should restrain the clergy from irregular practices. There is no mention of the bishops at all. It is an extraordinary thing, that in an ecclesiastical discussion of this kind, I have not been able to find in the language of the Government at all, their recognition of the existence of such a person as a Bishop. The Secretary to the Board of Education at once followed and accepted the Amendment as expressing the views the Government had always entertained. And speaking of the operation of the Amendment, what it was intended to do and what it might do in rare cases when it was required, he said— The clergyman, if he were a man of ordinary tact and good humour, would not find his special province invaded by the managers who worked on the board with him. There might be cases, no doubt, when a clergyman would find a restraint put upon his action if he insisted on observances which were not in accordance with the general desire of the community. That was the first acceptance of this Amendment. It was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for Tonbridge, and then the Prime Minister got up and suggested what his view of the Amendment was, and why he accepted it. He said— It comes upon them, apparently, with a shock of astonishments, and they seem to think that this is sprung upon the House without the smallest preface or preparation. It was a thing that had been carefully prepared in the speeches of the Prime Minister himslef. How often had he spoken on the subject, he asked, and then he goes on to quote from a speech which he delivered on July 21st, as follows— After all, secular education had something to do with national education. It was, he might remark, the main subject of the Bill, and it should not be left absolutely out of account, as being wholly alien. Religious education would be under the control, not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a board of six. Of these, the parson would probably be the only minister of religion, and three would be managers representing the denomination." [(4)Debates, cxi., 867.] That was the view of the Government from the first. That is the thing which was bruited throughout the country to recommend the Bill There had been a suspicion that this was a Bill to give clerical control of schools sustained by public money. That was the first statement of the Prime Minister as to why he accepted this Amendment. Then he said— It was never contemplated that the teaching in a Roman Catholic school be otherwise in a Roman Catholic, or that the teaching in a Wesleyan school be other than Wesleyan, or that the teaching in an Anglican school should be other than Anglican. That was, of course, accepted by my right hon. friend as meaning the tenour in the first part of the Clause. And then the Prime Minister goes on to say— But I must traverse the contention of my noble friend that it was ever contemplated that the teaching should not be under the board of management. Surely it would be very inconsistent if that should be so, because what had been asked for all along was that a teacher should be elected with religious qualifications for carrying on denominational teaching. Well, it is the board of management who are to elect the religious teacher, and not the ordained minister. In the case put of this terrible, tyrannical. Ritualistic, Squire, if he comes across a Low Church minister, he and his subordinates will appoint the schoolmaster, who will give the religious teaching. The whole thing is perfectly plain—that the Government had contemplated, and contemplated from the first, that against clerical control they should have the security of lay popular management, and it is in that way they justified the Bill to the country. and on that ground they accepted this Amendment as carrying out more distinctly the views they had always entertained. What does he say as to the bearing of this on the appeal to the Bishop? Does he say that the Bishop, and the Bishop alone, is to control religious teaching which is distasteful to the community? He says exactly the opposite. He speaks of the men whom he says are rare. I think they are increasing, and in my opinion they ought to be diminished, and that the people who ought to diminish them are the Bishops, and they have not done so. If they exist, what is to be done with them? The Prime Minister Says— What is it, I put it to them, that has raised almost all the difficulties in the public mind connected with religious teaching in our schools? It is the abuse, here and there, very rarely, I admit, by the clergyman of the parish of the powers given him by the trust. Wherever that was done the harm that it has done to the whole cause of religious education in our public elementary schools is, in my mind, not to be measured by words. I meet it at every turn and on every occasion. The follies and indiscretions of a single individual are multiplied by public rumour till they almost stand up as a great public danger. Is it wise to leave a system in existence [that is the present system of the clergy being controlled by the bishop] which can but bring the whole of our scheme of national education into discredit? Now mark this— It is because I desire to see this danger removed forever from the path of religious denominational education that I am anxious to see the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend accepted. That is the Government view of the remedy for this state of things, which has done incalculable mischief to the cause of education. They say it ought to be removed. by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. That was the ground on which they accepted the Amendment three weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it is known that the Government— Have done nothing whatever to see that the wishes of the parents of the children have been considered, there would be a strong feeling aroused against the great reform we are suggesting. That is to say, that if this Bill provides no remedy for the mischeivous religious teaching which is offensive to the parents there would be a strong feeling aroused against the Bill. Therefore he accepts this Amendment as the proper remedy for that mischief. How will doubling the priest by the bishop satisfy the people? Then the First Lord continued— I do not pretend to maintain that in an absolutely theoretic sense these managers necessarily represent the parents. They are not elected by them, and, therefore, they do not represent them in that sense. But they will represent, broadly speaking, the general opinion of the particular denomination in a parish, and I think that if this Amendment is carried there really will be no danger that Anglican children will be taught a form of religion to which their parents heartily object. In that sense the Amendment was accepted by the Government representing the wishes of the community, giving the laity a voice which would not protect them against the clerical disposition in any case to go contrary to the feelings of the community. That is the principle the Government said they had always contemplated in their Bill, and they accepted the Amendment in the form in which it stands, because it carried out the clear intention that three should be a lay voice in directing the character of the religious education to be given to the children. I do not think anything can be clearer than that.

Of course, this was vehemently opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, as we can readily understand, as being contrary to the principles he sincerely holds and which he always very powerfully presents. The questions of trust deeds was raised, and the Secretary of the Education Department did not shrink from it. He said that trust deeds would have to be dealt with. But the Prime Minister dealt with the subject more directly. He said: Trust deeds were necessarily dealt with and altered by the Bill. Of course, when you determine that there shall be six managers, two of whom shall not be existing managers of the schools, it is impossible more completely to recompose trust deeds. You cannot have a more distinct violation of the trust deeds then the constitution of this Board of Management. It revolutionises the Board in all its most important particulars and that was pointed out by the Prime Minister most distinctly. He said: We must all recognise that the Bill does involve some interference with trust deeds; some interference is inevitable. My noble friend has on the Paper words which, as I understand, preserve the control of the managers, but which would, as regards other powers, leave them subject to the trust deeds. If such an Amendment can be devised I have no objection to it. What I do object to is anything that interferes with the control of the managers. That is the essence of the Amendment. I do not think it is worth while persevering with anything short of that. That is the control of the managers over-rules the trust. There cannot be a doubt of that, because the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to the noble Lord the Amendment he would be disposed to accept—that any power as to religious instruction conferred by a trust deed on any minister of religion shall, subject to such control, remain vested in him. The proposal was at once rejected by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who said that it was worse than nothing I will not trouble the House with what followed. I wish the house to understand the position in which we stand.

What is the position of the Government in reference to the Amendment? They accepted it and it was confirmed by an overwhelming majority as carrying out their views? As I understood the Amendment, and as the House understood, it was to give lay control which should enable parents of children in the parish to prevent the giving of religious teaching which is offensive to the people of the parish. Well, are the Government of the same opinion now? What is the real meaning of this Amendment? What is the meaning of saying there is a difference between the doctrine and the machinery? The noble Lord dealt with that very well. The Whole ecclesiastical system is a machine, and, therefore, to say that you are going to leave doctrine, and the character of the teaching dependent upon the doctrine, exclusively to the clergy with the bishops at their back is to run counter to the whole of the language hitherto held by the Prime Minister, and I think we have a right to ask what control the managers will have in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman said in this very speech that the absurdity of opposing this Amendment was that the managers when they desired to interest themselves in the school and who were excluded from meddling with the secular teaching which was the function of the education authority, would have nothing whatever to do except in regard to the question of appointing the schoolmaster, and that it was intended to give the managers this interests in the work of the schools. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am not accurately representing him, I have a passage here in which he made it a great part of his argument that these managers would have nothing to do unless we give them the sort of power conferred on them in this Amendment. That being so, I think we have a right to ask the Prime Minister what is the nature of the control in this religious instruction which he desires to give, and for which he accepted this Amendment. If this Amendment is really to assume a form by which practically speaking, religious instruction is to remain solely with the parson and with the Bishop, then all the representations that have been made to the country that this is not to be a one-clergyman power goes for nothing at all. It is one-clergy-man power. You talk of appealing to the bishops. What the bishops will practically have is a veto upon the managers, and to suppose that is giving to the laity in these matters the protection which it was supposed that this Amendment would give is an entire delusion. I hope any idea of that sort—of having gone back upon the recognition of the right of the laity to protection against solely clerical control—will be dispelled by the explanation which I am sure the Prime Minister will give to the House.

(10.10) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down filled up so much of his speech by lengthy verbatim quotations from my own utterances on pervious occasions that I really am almost absolved from the necessity of making another oration upon this well-worn topic to the House. I have no change to suggest in anything that I have said before. The views that I entertained before I entertain now: the views that I expressed before I am ready to express again. I really think it was hardly worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to occupy the House with these remains of previous speeches, and though I appreciate the compliment, I confess I think it might have been spared us on the present occasion.

So far as I understand the arguments that have been urged against the Amendment, they fall into three categories. The first I will mention is, I personally think, the least controversial, and in some senses and from some points of view the least important. It is that based upon the violation or alteration of the trust deeds by the present Amendment. Now, Sir, I do not in the least deny, and I do not in the least wish to minimise, the fact that many trust deeds are altered by the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend; and I think among many of my friends on this side of the House and among many gentleman sitting on the other side of the House there is a genuine and well founded jealousy of any rash interference with trust deeds, which are so important a part of the basis upon which property rests in this country. But let it be remembered that some alteration in the trust deeds of the primary education schools in absolutely necessary if you are to have this Bill, or anything like this Bill, at all. And let me further remind those who take a strong view upon this subject that an alteration more important, in my judgment, than any which this Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend contemplates, is of the very essence of this Bill, because—as I think I have pointed out in one of the extracts which the tight hon. Gentleman has read—this Bill contemplates, and has from the first contemplated, that a third of the management of the voluntary schools should be appointed by outside authorities, and that, in regard to their appointment, there should be no limitation whatever as to the creed which they profess or the religious opinions which they hold. I cannot imagine a greater violation of the spirit of the original trust deeds in certain respects than this, and yet it is not only the principle of the Bill, but it is a principle of the Bill that has been endorsed by all the ecclesiastical associations—at least every Anglican, and, I rather think, every Roman Catholic association in England.

They have all said, "If certain advantages are given us, we are perfectly prepared to see one-third of our management transferred to persons who are not necessarily of our creed." Really, is it possible after that to say that the trust deeds of the voluntary schools are not to be modified in connection with this Bill? It is of the very essence of the measure, and if my noble friend or my learned friend behind me who moved this Amendment, is prepared to answer and say, "No doubt this change in the trust deed was suggested, but it was suggested by the beneficiaries of the trust,"—I do not know whether I am using the right technical term— "by those who have obtained rights under the trust deed, and have a right to suggest an alteration against their own interest," then I say these are the trust deeds of individual founders of individual schools, and it no more rests with diocesan associations to suggest that they should be altered than it rests with any other set of private individuals. Therefore, if I may, I will dismiss at once this argument from the sanctity of trust deeds. Trust deeds are things with which this House ought to be most reluctant to interfere, but when we are remodelling the system of elementary education in this country, and when we wish to bring into that system the voluntary elementary schools which have hitherto carried on so much of the education in this country, I say that such a process is absolutely impossible unless you remodel the trust deeds. And if you adhere with this rigid orthodoxy to the absolute letter of the trust deeds with which you have to deal, your only choice—

LORD HUGH CECIL

Why do you respect them at all?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Your only choice is to leave the voluntary schools altogether outside your educational system, and leave my noble friend with the voluntary schools untouched, uncontaminated by any interference on the part of this House, and also without any part in the education of the youth of this country. My noble friend asks me why on this principle I respect any part of the trust deed. I utterly fail to understand him. He himself, I understand is an advocate of this one-third of extraneous management. At all events, he has never uttered a word against it, and all his friends have been in favour of it. Why does he respect any other provision in the trust deeds? My noble friend has gone further. My noble friend put on the paper of the House yesterday an Amendment which he did not move, but it is there for anybody to see. And this Amendment, if I understand it—my noble friend never lacks perspicuity—this Amendment suggests that we should institute a visitatorial committee, or authority, to be appointed, not by a clerical body but by a body on which laymen are largely represented, and, I dare say, in many cases laymen are in a majority. Is that to be found in any trust deed of a voluntary school? I have no complaint to make against my hon. friend, but I do not say that we could have accepted that Amendment if it had been moved—

LORD HUGH CECIL

Hear, hear!

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Though I might have been persuaded by my noble friend's silver tongue. But, at all events, the author of that Amendment ought not to attack us because, in a respect which we deem to be essential to the general coherence and consistence of our measure, we have followed his example and suggested interference with existing trust deeds.

Now I leave what I profess to regard as the least interesting part, though not the less an important part of the question, and I come now to the second argument which I have heard advanced, and which I will call the lawyers' argument. The lawyers have taken a great part in this discussion; but they have not altogether agreed. Some critics have been rash enough to say that the fact that they have disagreed proves that this sub-Section requires remodelling. [An HON. MEMBER on the Opposition Benches: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear!" Has he ever heard of any disputed sub-Section on which the lawyers have been agreed? I can truly assure the House that I never have; and the extraordinary thing is that the opinions of lawyers on the two sides of the House, with surprising regularity, coincide with the opinions generally held by their political friends.

* MR. T. M. HEALY

Won't that be read by the the Irish Judges?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But may I be permitted to brush aside these legal subtleties, which are more appropriate to the discussion of Amendments to the sub-Section than of the sub-Section as a whole? It seems to me that the sub-Section as a whole is not difficult to understand, and the policy which has prompted our support of it is not difficult to explain. A great deal has been made in this debate of the fact that in the earlier controversies which we have had on this subject, very little was heard of the appeal to the Bishop. That is true. That is not what the House was interested in. In all these cases there must be a reference somewhere. In certain trust deeds it may be to the Bishop; in others, to another person; and where there are no trust deeds it must be to a court of law. But that is not the question in which the House was interested when we discussed the question before. The subject in which it was interested was whether the clergymen of the parish should have the sole control of the teaching in that parish, or whether that control should be shared by his colleagues on the managing body. That alone was the question before us, and on that I hope the Government gave no uncertain sound as to what their views were then and what they are now. There must be a reference somewhere, and personally I am distinctly of opinion that it is a very convenient course that the reference, in the case of the Anglican schools, should be to the Bishop. It saves a reference to a Court of Law, which is a very clumsy method. But the question is whether you should or should not put the management of religious teaching in these schools in the hands of the whole body of managers, or whether you should allow the management to remain in the hands of a single individual. I need not go further into the legal question. That will have to be discussed in detail no doubt, on the Amendments. But it will be open to those who have an opportunity of speaking to point out wherein the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend falls short of or exceeds the explanations of his object, which we accepted when that Amendment was first brought forward, and which we are prepared to support now.

I now leave the second subject which has been in dispute tonight, and I come, with considerable searchings of heart and sinking of spirit, to the third subject, which I must regard as the theological branch of the inquiry. This is more difficult and serious. It touches finer issues than the subjects with which I have been dealing so far. I am bound first to refer to a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. He made a very interesting, touching, and eloquent address upon the aspect of this Amendment as it affects his coreligionists, and the substance of his argument amounted to this—that it was directly contrary to his faith that laymen should have any concern whatever in the settlement of matters pertaining to religion.

* MR. T. M. HEALY

I said that the clergy of our Church have a Divine commission.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My statement was not inconsistent with that. The hon. and learned Member thinks that the clergy alone should be entrusted with anything connected with the teaching of his faith. I have to admit that in theory the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend does run counter to that. It is perfectly true that if the managers, of whom a large number will be laymen, are given the control of religious education in the schools, the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member is departed from. That I do not minimise; nor is it for me to dispute the absolute accuracy with which the learned Gentleman has stated the beliefs of those who agree with him. But I do not think that in practice he will find that any damage or injury is done to those of his community in this country. He seemed to fear that Town Councils would be found which would endeavour in Roman Catholic schools, through the intervention of the representative managers, and possibly through the action of the foundation managers, to interfere with what was regarded as sound teaching. I think he need be under no alarm of that kind. I do not believe that there will be the smallest attempt on the part of Town or County Councils to do any injury to those of the hon. and learned Gentlemen's creed any more than I believe the Roman Catholic laymen foundation managers on the board of management will for a moment interfere with the supremacy—that being part of their creed — of the bishops and the clergy of their Church. I do not know that what I have said will entirely remove the hon. Member's objections to the Clause as it stands, but I hope he will believe that, as far as the Government are concerned, and I believe as far as every man in the House is concerned, no matter on which side he sits, the last thing they desire is to use the machinery of the Bill to interfere with the teaching which the bishops and the clergy of the Church desire to give to their denomination in the schools.

I now come to the difficulties which have been felt, not by Roman Catholics, but by Anglicans, chiefly by friends of my own, as to the provisions inserted in the Bill. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich complained of the Attorney General because he distinguished in this Amendment between the Clause as it dealt with doctrine and with the Clause as it dealt with machinery, and he reproached the Attorney General with a great ignorance of ecclesiastical history in that in the first place he used such a word as machinery and in supposing that there was truly theological machinery except in Church administration.

LORD HUGH CECIL

No, I did not say that. I certainly said that what the Attorney General called machinery involves theological questions of the highest importance.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I quite agree that questions of Church constitution involve questions of Church doctrine, but I thought he went further. But I do not wish to break a lance with my noble friend on the subject of Church history. I mention this sentence in order to notice what I think is the main fallacy of his contention. He has regarded this throughout as a strictly ecclesiastical question, and he has treated these denominational schools of the Church of England as if they were indistinguishable from the churches, as if they were as much an integral part of the ecclesiastical machinery of the Church of England as the cathedrals and the churches and the chapels which belong to that Church. I think my noble friend went the length of saying that as far as this Amendment was concerned he would have been content to consider that the schools were State schools and not Church schools, if the epithet applied to them by the late Home Secretary was accurate. It is not clear that the name makes a great change in the ecclesiastical aspect of this subject because my noble friend has mistaken the true root of the matter.

LORD HUGH CECIL

My objection was to calling the buildings State schools.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think these schools are neither State nor are they, in my noble friend's acceptation of the word, Church schools. They are public elementary schools belonging to the Church of England; that is their full style and title. I think my noble friend is making a profound mistake theologically, if he will allow me to say so, practically without admission, when he tries to sustain in this House the proposition that these schools, at all events as far as the religious hours of education are concerned, must be regarded as mere annexes or parts of the ecclesiastical fabrie of the Church. I do not think so. I take a different view. I regard these schools not as annexes of the fabric of the Church, but as extensions, so to speak, of one aspect of the fabric. A most interesting speech was made earlier in the evening by my hon. friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who reminded the House, what every one knows, that Members of this House, to whatever denomination they belong, in educating their children do not think it necessary that the whole of the education should be carried on under the control of the parson of the parish. That is, I think, the real key of the situation. The poorer members of the community cannot command either the time or the assistance which the richer members of the community can command.

They have not, unfortunately, the opportunity of teaching religion in the nursery, and in later life they have not governesses or tutors to teach them religion. They are obliged to send their children to school, and the school from the secular point of view is undoubtedly an annexe of the fabric, as I think it is also in point of religious teaching. That does not mean, of course, that the clergyman is not the natural adviser; it does not mean that it is not to him you would first go for assistance in dealing with these difficult and delicate questions. But it does mean that the clergyman is not supreme either in the family or in the school in the same sense as he is rightly supreme in the fabric of the Church. I venture to suggest most respectfully to those who take a different view whether they are not advancing a very dangerous doctrine if they try to persuade laymen of this country that, as regards their own co-religionists, they have the same kind of supremacy outside the Church as they have inside. Will not people say: "Ought they to have more supremacy in the Church than we are prepared to give them outside the Church?" I am not sure whether it is wise in the interests of the Church—I am sure it is not wise in the interests of the Church—that the doctrine of my noble friend and those who agree with him should be driven it. After all, have the clergy of the Church of England endeavoured to drive it to that point? My noble friend appears to draw no distinction between the Church and the school. What would be thought in the Church of a parson who merely gave a general superintendence, and the Church was represented by persons elected by a body in which laymen were in a majority, and the clergymen only had a right of general supervision and of preaching when he chose? That is what is done in schools. Remember, that in the Church of England schools at this moment, to an increasing degree, the teaching is carried on by the teachers of the schools, not because the clergyman of the parish is oblivious of his duty, not because he does not take the keenest interest in the welfare of the young members of his flock, but because as education becomes more specialised and more difficult the professional teacher gets an advantage, and the clergyman finds that the very doctrines which he desires to instil into the child are better instilled, on account of experience and the general discipline carried on in the school, by the lay teacher of the school. My noble friend must remember that an arrangement like that is subversive of the strictly ecclesiastical theory which he has desired to defend, and I do not think he is doing good service to the very cause he pleads by driving too far his speculative theories on this point. And may I remind the House that by the consent of everybody concerned—and I may include the learned Gentleman and his co-religionists in this country—the selection of the teacher has been committed, not to clerical, but to a lay body, a body predominantly lay? We are told quite rightly that from the point of view of teaching in the school, it is the character of the teacher more than anything else that is important. When you have given the appointment of the teacher over to a body predominantly lay, how can you come down to this House and say that your ecclesiastical theories make it absolutely necessary that the clergyman of the parish or somebody in holy orders should have full control of your education?

Now, Sir, I must conclude, but I will conclude by making an appeal, not to this House, and not to the laymen in the country, but to that great body of clergy to whom the debt of every educationist is so immeasurably great. I know and I regret the pain which this Amendment has given to many of the most hard-working clergy of the Church of England, and to the priests of the Church of Rome. I know it, and I grieve over it. But surely, when they come to think of it, they will recognise that the wrongs of the Government towards them are small indeed. May I remind them—I can assure them and the House that I do not do so to get a merely argumentative advantage—of the kind of Resolution which they passed two years ago and three years ago on the subject of the controlling authority of the school? I am going to read a single paragraph from the Resolution of a joint conference of Convocation of Canterbury and York sitting in committee. The third paragraph runs as follows:— That the government of every school, and especially the appointment and dismissal of the teacher, be left in the hands of the present committee of management, with the addition of certain members appointed by, or under rule made by, the local authority, such additional members not to exceed one-third of the whole number. I do put it to all concerned if the clergy—the clergy, mark you, of the two great provinces—in passing that Resolution, reserved to themselves the right to object to such an intrenchment on this management as is involved by the rejection of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, if they had up their sleeve any reservation of that kind, if they were subsequently coming down and saying,—"It is quite true we did propose to hand over the management of the school and selection of the teacher to the denominational body, with a third added to it, but all the time we meant that if the trust deed was of a different tenour the whole education should be kept in the hands of one man," I think if they had done that deliberately, which I am sure they did not, we should have reason to complain. I believe they passed that Resolution absolutely in good faith. Certainly, when I introduced this Bill with Resolutions of that character before me, it never occurred to me, I can most truly say, although these controversies were very far advanced, that any objections would be raised from the side of the clergy to leaving to this mixed body, one-third external to the denomination, two-thirds belonging to the denomination — it never occurred to me that this mixed body, competent to elect teachers, was incompetent to deal with the religious education. I think we should have great reason to complain of the ecclesiastical, authorities themselves, who, if they held these views at the time, did not give us some warning that it was in their mind.

LORD HUGH CECLE

No one so much as suggested at that time that the trust deeds would be altered. No one dreamt that the right of a clergyman to teach in his own school was to be removed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I confess I should not have thought that a body of men, who by their profession probably looked as much at the religious and ecclesiastical side of education as any other side, could pass this Resolution without knowing what it meant. My noble friend may have had the reservation in his mind at the time, but I had not any evidence of it. I can only say it never occurred to me. I did not hear a whisper of this difficulty until the end of July, after I had made a speech in this House in which I stated what my view of the Bill was. I am not accusing any human being of bad faith, I am only saying it is difficult to understand the ecclesiastical mind in defence of that position. But I have something much more to do than defend the Government. I have to say that in my judgment, thinking over this question and giving it the most serious consideration in my power, I am now more convinced than ever that the future of religious education in this country, so far, at least, as the voluntary schools of the Church of England are concerned, lies in the future, as it has lain in the past, with the clergy. If they refuse to work this Bill, as I have always conceived this Bill to be, and as I hope it will be when it is passed into law, then I admit that though this measure will in any circumstances do, I believe, an enormous service to the cause of general education in this country, it will not do all that I had dreamt it was capable of doing in the cause and interests of religious education. If the clergy take the view of my noble friend and the Bishop of Worcester and say, "This Clause interferes with the theory of episcopacy, and therefore we will not touch it," they have it absolutely in their power, in my judgment, to destroy the future of religious instruction, certainly religious instruction

in the tenets of the Church of England, in our public elementary schools. But I believe more firmly in their devotion to religion and their public sprit. I am not going to pretend that this Bill will relieve— as was sometimes said in controversial moments by hon. Gentlemen opposite—the clergy of a great burden of labour, of troubles in respect to the collection of money, and other burdens, which they have borne during many years past. It will not remove that burden though I trust it will alleviate it. I admit that in parishes where the clergy and laity cannot work harmoniously together, scandals and difficulties may arise, though not of a character surpassing those which we have seen in certain cases under the existing system. I admit, also, that the clergy may feel that in a region in which they have hitherto regarded themselves supreme they may now have to share their powers, technically, and in some cases really, with a great body of laymen. But I am perfectly confident that in every parish where the clergyman shows that tact and moderation of which I believe the great majority of the clergy are capable and have given ample proofs, the system will work as smoothly and without friction in the future as it has done in the past; and that in the future, as in the past, those schools—infinitely better equipped in all secular matters—will not be less zealously concerned in the cause of those great religious truths for which the clergy of all denominations ought to, and, as I believe, do, earnestly strive.

(10.53.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 589.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Bain, Colonel James Robert	Black, Alexander William
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)	Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds	Bousfield, William Robert
Allen, CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud	Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Brasssey, Albert
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Brigg, John
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Barran, Rowland Hirst	Broadhurst, Henry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Brown, George M. (Edinburgh
Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry	Bell, Richard	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bentinck Lord Henry C.	Burns, John
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Butcher, John George
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Bignold, Arthur	Buxton, Sydney Charles
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Bigwood, James	Caldwell, James
Cameron, Robert	Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x	Murray, Col. Wyndham
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Newnes, Sir George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Nicholson, William Graham
Causton, Richard Knight	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Norman, Henry
Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A(Worc.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Channing, Francis Allston	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Chapman, Edward	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Parkes, Ebenezer
Charrington, Spencer	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Paulton, James Mellor
Clive, Captain Percy A	Helder, Augustus	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Henderson, Sir Alexander	Pemberton, John S. G.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Philipps, John Wynford
Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Higginbottom, S. W.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E	Price, Robert John
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Priesley, Arthur
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Horniman, Frederick John	Rankin, Sir James
Craig, Robert Hunter	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cremer, William Randal	Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)	Ratcliff, R. F.
Crombie, John William	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rea, Russell
Crossley, Sir Savile	Jacoby, James Alfred	Reid, James (Greennock)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Kemp, George	Renwick, George
Dalziel, James Henry	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.	Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.	Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge
Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham	Keswick, William	Rigg, Richard
Denny, Colonel	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Lambert, George	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Langley, Batty	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dix'n	Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th	Robson, William Snowdon
Doughty, George	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lawson, John Grant	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Royos, Clement Molyneux
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lecky, RtHon. WilliamEdw. H.	Rutherford, John
Duncan, J. Hastings	Lee, ArthurH. (Hams, Fareham	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Samuel, Herbert L.(Limehouse)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Ellis, John Edward	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Schwann, Charles E.
Emmott, Alfred	Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Fardell, Sir T. George	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Shackleton, David James
Farquharson, Dr. Robert.	Lloyd-George, David	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Finch, George H.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fisher, William Hayes	Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fison, Frederick William	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison	Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside
Flower, Ernest	Macdona, John Cumming	Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)
Forster, Henry William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Spear, John Ward
Forster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool	Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants
Fuller, J. M. F.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Garfit, William	Majendie, James A. H.	Stewart, SirMarkJ. M'Taggart
Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriessh.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Graham, Henry Robert	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Grant, Corrie	Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederick G.	Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Grenfell, William Henry	Milvain, Thomas	Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Thomas, JA (Glamorgan Gower
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)	Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w	Thornton, Percy M.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Tomkinson, James
Groves, James Grimble	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Morley, Rt. HnJohn(Montrose	Toulmin, George
Hain, Edward	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hall, Edward Marshall	Mount, William Arthur	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute	Valentia, Viscount

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)	Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Wallace, Robert	Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Wylie, Alexander
Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Willonghby de Eresby, Lord	Younger, William
Wason, Eugene	Willox, Sir John Archibald	Yoxall, James Henry
Webb, Colonel William George	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Weir, James Galloway	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
White, George (Norfolk)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)	Sir Alexander Acland-
White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Austin, Sir John	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Healy, Timothy Michael	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carew, James Laurence	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Kennedy, Patrick James	Tully, Jasper
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Galloway, William Johnson	Malcolm, Ian	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton
Godson, SirAugustus Frederick	More, Robt. Jasper(Shrepshire)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	O'Doherty, William	Mr. Cripps and Sir James
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Purvis, Robert	Fergusson.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end, add as a new sub-Section—'(5) The managers of a school maintained but not provided by the local education authority shall have all powers of management required for the purpose of carrying out this Act, and shall (subject to the powers of the local education authority under this Section) have the exclusive power of appointing and dismissing teachers.' "—(Sir William Anson.)

Amendment agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 11th instant, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions

on the Amendments proposed by the Government to Part III. of the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 22, at end to insert as a fresh sub-Section the Words—'(2) If, in the opinion of the Board of Education, any enlargement of a public elementary school is such as to amount to the provision of a new school, that enlargement shall be so treated for the purposes of this Section.' "—(Sir William Anson.)

(11.10.) Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 590.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Carew, James Laurence
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Chamberlain, RtHonJ A (Worc.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bignold Arthur	Chapman, Edward
Austin, Sir John	Bigwood, James	Charrington, Spencer
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Clare, Octavius Leigh
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Bousfield, William Robert	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balcarres, Lord	Brassey, Albert	Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds	Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Butcher, John George	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Remnant, James Farquharson
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm	Renwick, George
Cranborne, Viscount	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Ritchie, RtHon. Chas. Thomson
Crossley, Sir Savile	Kemp, George	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Kennedy, Patrick James	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Denny, Colonel	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Keswick, William	Rutherford, John
Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDix'n	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Doughty, George	Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lawson, John Grant	Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight)
Duke, Henry Edward	Lecky, RtHon William Edw. H.	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.	Spear, John Ward
Fellowes, Hon. Aliwyn Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ (Manch'r	Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham	Stewart, SirMark J. M.'Taggart
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurt	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lowther, C. Cumb (Eskdale)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fisher, William Hayes	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Fison, Frederick William	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Macartney, RtHon W. GEllison	Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N)
Flower, Ernest	Macdona, John Cumming	Thornton, Percy M.
Forster, Henry William	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Galloway, William Johnson	Majendie, James A. H.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Garfit, William	Massey-Mainwarning, Hon. W. F.	Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire)	Tully, Jasper
Godson, SirAugustusFrederick	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Valentia, Viscount
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG	Vincent, Sir Edger (Exeter)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Milvain, Thomas	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Graham, Henry Robert	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	More, Robt. Jasper Shropshire)	Webb, Colonel William George
Grenfell, William Henry	Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w)	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E(Taunton)
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Morton, Arhtur H. Aylmer	Welby, SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.)
Groves, James Grimble	Mount, William Arthur	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Murray, RtHn. AGraham(Bute)	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne)
Guthrie, Walter Murray	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hain, Edward	Nicholson, William Graham	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hall, Edward Marshall	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hamilton, RtHn. Robert Wm.	O'Doherty, William	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Wodehose, Rt. Hon. E. R.(Bath)
Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd	Parkes, Ebenezer	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Peel, Hon Wm Robert Wellesley	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pemberton, John S. G.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo	Percy, Earl	Wylie, Alexander
Healy, Timothy Michael	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Helder, Augustus	Platt-Higgns, Frederick	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Henderson, Sir Alexander	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Purvis. Robert	Younger, William
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Rankin, Sir James
Higginbottom, S. W.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Ratcliff, R. F.	Sir Alexander Acland-
Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somers't, E.	Reid, James (Greenock)	Hood and Mr. Austruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead	Asquith, RtHon Herbert Henry	Bell, Richard
Allen, CharlesP(Glaouc.,Stroud	Atherley-Jones L.	Black, Alexander William
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barran, Rowland Hirst	Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Brigg, John	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Schwann, Charles E.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Holland, Sir William Henry	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arhtur C.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burns, John	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Kitson, Sir James	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carmeron, Robert	Lambert, George	Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Langley, Batty	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Causton, Richard Knight	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr
Craig, Robert Hunter	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Cremer, William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, J A(Glamorgan Gower
Crombie, John William	Lough, Thomas	Thomkinson, James
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Toulmin, George
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Wallace, Robert
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds. S.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duncan, J. Hastings	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Wason, Eugene
Ellis, John Edward	Morley, RtHon John (Montrose	Weir, James Galloway
Emmott, Alfred	Newnes, Sir George	White, George (Norfolk)
Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone	Norman, Henry	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Paulton, James Mellor	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Fuller, J. M. F.	Philipps, John Wynford	Woodhouse, Sir J. T(Huddersf'd
Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn	Price, Robert John	Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Priestley, Arhtur
Grant, Corrie	Rickett, J. Compton
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Rigg, Richard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Griffith, Ellis J.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Mr. Whitley and Mr.
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Rea.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Robson, William Snowdon

Amendment proposed— In Clause 10, page 6, line 4, at end, insert 'which, in cases where part only of a parish is situated in the area of the local education authority, shall be apportioned in such manner as the Board of Education think just.' In Clause 10, page 6, line 15, after 'elementary,' insert 'day.'

Amendment agrees to.

The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 226. (Division List No. 591.)

AYES.
Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stround	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Dalziel, James Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Atherley, Jones, L.	Burns, John	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Caldwell, James	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bell. Richard	Cameron, Robert	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Black, Alexander William	Causton, Richard Knight	Duncan, J. Hastings
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Channing, Francis Allston	Ellis, John Edward
Brigg, John	Craig, Robert Hunter	Emmott, Alfred
Broadhurst, Henry	Cremer, William Randall	Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Crombie, John William	Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 33, to leave out the words 'Before such order is made, reasonable.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

(11.23.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Amendments proposed—

"In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, leave out 'thereof,' and insert 'of any such application."

"In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, after 'draft,' insert 'final.' "

"In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, after 'order, insert 'proposed to be made thereon.' "

"In Clause 11, page 6, line 36, leave out 'or,' and insert 'and' "

"In Clause 11, page 6, line 38, at end of line, insert 'and the final order shall not be made until six weeks after notice has been so given' "—(Sir W. Anson).

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, line 16, at end, to add as a new sub-section the words—'(6) The Board of Education may, on the application of the managers of the school, the local education authority, or any person appearing to them to be interested in the school, revoke, vary or amend any order made under this section by an order made in a similar manner; but before making any such order the draft there of shall, as soon as may be, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if within thirty days, being days on which Parliament has sat, after the draft has been so laid before Parliament, either House revolves that the draft, or any part thereof, should not be proceeded with, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order,' "—(Sir Wiliam Anson.)

(11.38). Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 91. (Division List No. 592.)

AYES.
Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stround	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Dalziel, James Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Atherley, Jones, L.	Burns, John	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Caldwell, James	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bell. Richard	Cameron, Robert	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Black, Alexander William	Causton, Richard Knight	Duncan, J. Hastings
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Channing, Francis Allston	Ellis, John Edward
Brigg, John	Craig, Robert Hunter	Emmott, Alfred
Broadhurst, Henry	Cremer, William Randall	Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Crombie, John William	Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)
Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Newnes, Sir George	Tomkinson, James
Grant, Corrie	Norman, Henry	Toulmin, George
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wallace, Robert
Griffith, Ellis J.	Paulton, James Mellor	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	Pearson, Sir Weetman D	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Philipps, John Wynford	Wason, Eugene
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Price, Robert John	Weir, James Galloway
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Priestley, Arthur	White, George (Norfolk)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Rea, Russell	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Horniman, Frederick John	Rickett, J. Compton	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rigg, Richard	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Robson, William Snowdon	Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk Mid.
Kitson, Sir James	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsfi'ld
Lambert, George	Schwann, Charles E.	Yoxall, James Henry
Langley, Batty	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Shipman, Dr. John G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Levy, Maurice	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Mr. Charles Morley and
Lewis, John Herbert	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Mr. Lough.
M'Arhtur, William (Cornwall)	Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Northants)
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Groves, James Grimble
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cranborne, Viscount	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Crossley, Sir Savile	Hain, Edward
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hall, Edward Marshall
Austin, Sir John	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham	Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Denny, Colonel	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Asf'rd
Balcarres, Lord	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)	Doughty, George	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Healy, Timothy Michael
Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Higginbottom, S. W.
Bignold, Arthur	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bigwood, James	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fardell, Sir T. George	Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)
Bond, Edward	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r)	Howard, John(Kent, Fav'rsham)
Bousfiled, William Robert	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Brassey, Albert	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Butcher, John George	Fisher, William Hayes	Kemp, George
Carew, James Laurence	Fison, Frederick William	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Kennedy, Patrick James
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire	Flower, Ernest	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Forster, Henry William	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)
Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.	Galloway, William Johnson	Keswick, William
Chapman, Edward	Garfit, William	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Charrington, Spencer	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Godson, SirAngustusFrederick	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Cochrane, Hon, Thos. H. A. E.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lawson, John Grant
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Graham, Henry Robert	Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Farcham
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Colomb, SirJohnCharles Ready	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Grenfell, William Henry	Leveson-Glower, Frederick N. S.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N
Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Thornton, Percy M.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Purvis, Robert	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham		Tritton, Charles Ernest
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.	Rankin, Sir James	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)	Rasch, Major Frederic carne	Tully, Jasper
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ratcliff, R. F.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Valentia, Viscount
Lytteleton, Hon. Alfred	Remnant, James Farquharson	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison	Renwick, George	Walround, Rt Hn. Sir WilliamH.
Macdona, John Cumming	Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge	Warde, Colonel C. E.
M'Arhtur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green	Webb, Colonel William George
Malcolm, Ian	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)
Massey-Mainwarning, Hn. W. F.	Roberts, Samuel (sheffield)	Welby, SirCharles G. E.(Notts.
Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd)
Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne)
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Milvain, Thomas	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Rutherford, John	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy		Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Mount, William Arthur	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute	Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Murray, Col. Whyndham (Bath	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry	Wylie, Alexander
	Shackleton, David James	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nicholson, William Graham	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.)	Smith, Abel H.(Herford, East)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
	Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside)	Younger, William
O'Doherty, William	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
	Spear, John Ward
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Parkes, Ebenezer	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Sir Alexander Acland-
Pemberton, John S. G.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Percy, Earl	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Flower, Ernest	Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Forster, Henry William	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Anson, Sir William Reynell		Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Galloway, William Johnson	Milvain, Thomas
Arnold-Forster, Huge O.	Garfit, William	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
	Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick	More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy	Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim	Morgan, DavidJ(Walth'mstow)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Graham, Henry Robert	Mount, William Arthur
Balcarres, Lord	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute)
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Grenfell, William Henry
Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Nicholson, William Graham
Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Groves, James Grimble	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Beresford, Lord Chas. William		O'Doherty, William
Bignold, Arthur	Hain, Edward	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Bigwood, James	Hall, Edward Marshall	Parkes, Ebenezer
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley
Bond, Edward	Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x	Pemberton, John S. G.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Percy, Earl
Bousfield, William Robert	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Brassey, Albert	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Butcher, John George	Healy, Timothy Michael	Purvis, Robert
	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Carew, James Laurence	Hermon. Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Rankin, Sir James
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Rasch, Major Frederic Crane
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Higginbottom, S. W.	Ratcliffe, R. F.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Reid, James (Greenock)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A(Worc.	Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Chapman, Edward	Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Charrington, Spencer	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Renwick, George.
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)
Clive, Captain Percy A.		Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis		Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady	Kemp, George	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. JohnH.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Kennedy, Partick James	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cranborne, Viscount	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)	Rutherford, John
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.
	Keswick, William	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dalkeith, Earl of	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dalrymple, Sir Charles		Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th	Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight
Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.	Lawson, John Grant	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Doughty, George	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)
Douglas, Sir William Theodore	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam Hart	Lockwood, Lt.-col. A. R.	Spear, John Ward
	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham	Start, Hon. Humphry Napier
	Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Talbot, RtHnJ. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst		Thornton, Percy M.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Macartney, Rt Hn. W. GEllison	Tomlinson, Sir William Edw. M
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Macdona, John Cumming	Tully, Jasper
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Fison, Frederick William	Majendie, James A. H.	Valentia, Viscount
Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Warde, Colonel C. E.	Willox, Sir John Archibald	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Webb, Colonel William George	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Welby, SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.	Worsley-Taylor, HenryWilson	Younger, William
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne	Wrightson, Sir Thomas	Sir Alexander Acland-
Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Wylie, Alexander	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.
Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue.,Stroud	Griffith, Ellis J.	Priestley, Arthur
Ashton, Thomas Gair
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil	Rea, Russell
	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Rickett, J. Compton
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Rigg, Richard
Bell, Richard	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Black, Alexander William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Robson, William (Snowdon)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Horniman, Frederick John
Brigg, John	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Broadhurst, Henry		Schwann, Charles E.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James		Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Burns, John	Kitson, Sir James	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Caldwell, James		Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Causton, Richard Knight	Lambert, George	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Channing, Francis Allston	Langley, Batty	Spencer, RtHn. C. R.(Northants.
Craig, Robert Hunter	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cremer, William Randall	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Crombie, John William	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, JA.(Glamorgan, Gower
Dalziel, James Henry	Lough Thomas	Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)		Toulmin, George
Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Wason, Eugene
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Weir, James Galloway
Duncan, J. Hastings	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Ellis, John Edward	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Whiley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone		Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
	Newnes, Sir George	Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfold, Mid
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Norman, Henry	Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Hudd'rsfi'd
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Faller, J. M. F.	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn	Philipps, John Wynford	Mr. Warner and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Price, Robert John	George White.

Amendments proposed—

"In Clause 14, page 8, line 14, leave out local,' and insert 'public.' "

"In Clause 14, page 8, line 16, leave out a local,' and insert 'such an.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Amendments agreed to.

Further consideration, as amended, adjourned till Tomorrow.

Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.