Commons Sitting of 31 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
PETITIONS
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Tantobie; Port Glasgow: Surbiton; Mansfield; and East Kirkby; to lie upon the Table.
  CLUBS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Baptist Union of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Hull; and Ashwater; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Tantobie; Honley; Surbiton; Mansfield; Kirkby in Ashfield; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Ashton-in-Makerfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Tantobie; Honley; Surbiton; and Mansfield; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY).
  Petition from London, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Baptist Union of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND v. ANDERSON AND OTHERS.
  Petition of Charles Gibbons May, Solicitor, of 49, Lincoln's Inn Fields,
  1306
  praying for leave for the proper officer to attend at the High Court of Justice, and produce documents.
  Leave given to the proper officer to attend accordingly.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

RETURNS, REP0RTS, ETC.
  POLICE (METROPOLIS).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th October; Mr. Hayes Fisher]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 364.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Military Hospital Accommodation at Shorncliffe.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a contemplated isolation hospital for infectious cases contiguous to the military hospital at Shorncliffe, and close to the main road from Hythe to Sand-gate; and whether, in view of the injury that will be inflicted upon the inhabitants of those districts, he will consider the expediency of establishing such an institution on another site.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The whole question of hospital accommodation at Shorncliffe is under consideration; the point raised by my hon. friend will be borne in mind when deciding upon final sites for the buildings.

    Rating of Crown Property.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total valuation of Crown property in England, Ireland, and Scot land respectively, and the total amount of Treasury bounty in lieu of rates paid thereon, the amount withheld from any and what local authority in the three kingdoms, in consequence of the Brockley Park decision; and why, as the Crown are not liable to pay rates on any property, this decision has been availed of to repudiate liability in respect of contributions to rates for royal parks, which were never rateable; will he state what new legal principle affecting rateability this case decided, which led the Treasury into withholding contributions for royal parks; and why were the responsible law officers of the Crown in the three kingdoms not consulted before the Treasury undertook to decide that a new legal principle affecting rateability had been laid down by the House of Lords in the Brockley Park case.

    Amount of Contribution withheld.

    Park in respect of which Contribution was withheld.

    Name of Local Authority from whom Contribution was withheld

    ENGLAND.

    £

    233

    Regent's Park and Primrose Hill.

    Borough Council of St. Marylebone

    16

    Regent's Park and Primrose Hill.

    Borough Council of St. Pancras.

    450

    Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens

    City Council of Westminster.

    30

    Green Park

    City Council of Westminster.

    19

    St. James's Park

    City Council of Westminster.

    7

    Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens

    Borough Council of Paddington.

    22

    Greenwich Park

    Borough Council of Greenwich.

    5

    Richmond Park

    Overseers of Coombe.

    5

    Richmond Park

    Urban District Council of Coombe,

    20

    Richmond Park

    Overseers of Ham.

    25

    Richmond Park

    Urban District Council of Ham.

    70

    Richmond Park

    Overseers of Mortlake.

    52

    Richmond Park

    Urban District Council of Barnes.

    55

    Richmond Park

    Overseers of Petersham.

    11

    Richmond Park

    Select Vestry of Richmond.

    57

    Richmond Park

    Town Council of Richmond.

    92

    Richmond Park

    Borough Council of Wandsworth.

    5

    Bushey Park

    Overseers of Teddington.

    6

    Bushey Park

    Urban District Council of Teddington.

    IRELAND.

    604

    Phoenix Park

    County Council of Dublin.

    SCOTLAND.

    20

    Holyrood Park

    Parish Council of Edinburgh.

    28

    Holyrood Park

    Town Council of Edinburgh.

    2

    Linlithgow Park

    Parish Council of Linlithgow.

    2

    Linlithgow Park

    Town Council of Linlithgow.

    (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The total valuation (rateable value) of property in the occupation of the Crown for the public service, excluding telephone trunk wires, telegraph property acquired under the Telegraph Acts, 1868 and 1869, and property in charge of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods and Forests, is—

    £

    In England

    1,402,170

    In Ireland

    171,800

    In Scotland

    104,700

    The total amount of the Treasury bounty in lieu of rates paid thereon in the year 1901–02 was—

    £

    England

    412,698

    Ireland

    47,218

    Scotland

    21,282

    The amounts withheld from the local authorities in the three kingdoms in consequence of the Brockwell Park decision, and the local authorities from whom they were withheld are as follows:—
    As I informed the hon. Member on the 23rd instant, the valuations of Government property are based (as far as practicable) on the same principles as the valuations of private property. Accordingly, no contributions are made in respect of parks which would not be rateable if they did not belong to the Government. For the legal principles decided I must refer the hon. Member to the reported judgment to which I have already given him a reference. As explained by my predecessor, on 29th May last, the Treasury have always reserved to themselves the right to decide in the last resort upon any disputed question regarding contributions in lieu of rates. It is their practice to take such legal advice as they may require before forming their decision. In the present case they did not consider it necessary to consult the law officers.

    London Postal Sorters' Grievances.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a memorial was submitted by the sorters of the London postal service to the Postmaster General on the 25th October, 1901, and that a reply has not yet been received by the men concerned; and whether, in view of his observations in Minute (Ireland) No. 1,703 / 02, he will consider whether an early reply can be sent to the memorialists.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The memorial has already been partially answered. The remaining portions of it shall be answered as soon as possible.

    Russia and Afghanistan.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the interests involved, and the anxiety which has been excited by the announcement that a correspondence is proceeding between the British and Russian Governments on the subject of the opening of Russian relations with Afghanistan, he can give the House an assurance that no definite arrangement will be entered into with Russia before Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing its terms.
    1310
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The question to which my hon. friend calls attention is undoubtedly a matter of much interest to the public, but it is a rule without exception that assurances such as he seeks should not be given, and to break it in this case would, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, not be for the public advantage.

    Vaccination Prosecution at Bethnal Green.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a bicycle belonging to a resident of Green Street, Bethnal Green, which was distrained on the 30th September last for non-payment of a fine imposed on him at the Worship Street Police Court under the Vaccination Acts, was sent to a sale room at Holloway to be disposed of; and will he explain the reason of its being sent such a distance from the residence of the owner instead of being sold in the district, so as to allow of his being present at the sale.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am not aware that the broker entrusted with the sale of goods taken under a distress warrant is bound to select a place of sale with a view to the convenience of the owner. He is only bound to see that the sale is a fair one, and that the charges are not unreasonable. In the present case the place was the one usually used by the broker employed, and the distance (some three miles) did not apparently prevent the owner from being present, as I am informed that he attended and bought in the bicycle.

    Education Bill—Pupil Teachership.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, when a vacancy arises in a pupil teachership in a voluntary school, the managers will be under any legal obligation to make any public notification of such vacancy.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It will be in the power of the local education authority to give directions on the subject

    Irish Pharmaceutical Society.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that there is no Roman Catholic chemist from Dublin, Belfast, Cork, or Galway on the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, which consists of twenty-one members; whether since Sir Dominic Corrigan was nominated by the Crown at the incorporation of the Society in 1875, no Roman Catholic has ever been elected president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer; whether a Roman Catholic is or ever has been a professor or lecturer in the schools of the society; whether no Roman Catholic is or ever has been an examiner for the licence of the society, or for the qualification of registered druggist or assistant; whether, out of over 700 druggists holding the certificates of the society, only about thirty-one subscribe to assist it to enforce the Pharmacy Act; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking steps to modify the constitution of the society.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government has no official knowledge of the matters alluded to in this Question. The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland was constituted by the Act 38 and 39 Vict., c. 57, and the mode of election of members of the council and its officers, and of the appointment of examiners, is prescribed by statute and regulations issued there under. Religious tests are not imposed, and the Government sees no necessity for imposing them.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 8:—
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYhoped that the Committee would give him a little attention while he tried to explain the Amendment which stood in his name—an Amendment which he hoped
1312
to be able to convince them was reasonable, supplying a real need in the Bill, and being consistent with its general principles and objects. What he wanted to make absolutely clear was that his Amendment was directed only to non-provided schools, hitherto known as voluntary schools, and its reference to the managers meant the whole body of managers, and not those only who might be called the denominational part of the management. His chief object was to make what was called one-man control over the religious teaching in these schools impossible in future. He desired to make it impossible for the future that any individual, whether cleric or layman, should be able to impose, of his own will, any form of religious teaching, or any practice or observance in connection with religious teaching which might not have the consent and approval of the majority of the management of the school. That was the object he had in view, and he hoped that in the discussion which would follow it would be borne constantly in mind. He would be told, he was afraid, by many whose opinions he respected very much—by many gentlemen and ladies—
MR. BRYCE: We have no lady Members of the House at present.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that was so; but there were means by which the opinions of ladies were brought to the notice of hon. Members. He would be told, no doubt, that the Amendment was a slight on the clergy, a slight which ought not to be levelled at them in consideration of the splendid work they had done. He should be sorry to be exposed to that charge. No one acknowledged more unreservedly or gratefully than he the splendid part played by the clergy of all denominations in the educational progress of the country. He agreed most fully that they had received scant recognition for the service they had done. People were only too apt to forget that there were several generations of our countrymen who would have received little or n o education had it not been for the unselfish and constant exertions of the clergy of different denominations. He must frankly

1313
admit, however, that this Amendment was in some measure levelled at the clergy—that was to say, it was directed against the possible abuse of the powers at present possessed by certain extreme-minded men; he referred chiefly, perhaps, to those of his own Church. The great body of the clergy were absolutely trustworthy. They were the natural and rightful teachers of religion in the schools, and both the House and the public would wish them to continue in that office. That, no doubt, was the general feeling with regard to the great mass of the clergy; but that general feeling did not provide for possible exceptions, and cases might occur of what the Prime Minister had called eccentricity and extravagance. There might be cases of wrong-headedness and narrow mindedness—there might be cases in which, even under the impulse of conscientious conviction, or even from motives of personal vanity, foolish things might be done. In such cases as those it would be possible, in existing circumstances, for an individual minister to force upon the school with which he was connected practices which would be obnoxious, and even abhorrent, not only to the public, but to the majority of the very denomination to which he belonged. He could not help recognising that the existence of any such eccentricities, or the possibility of any such conduct, was a direct menace to the continued maintenance of the Established Church. In speaking of a denomination, it was not exclusively the clergy of the denomination who were referred to. It was the whole body, both lay and clerical, that was meant. It was perfectly clear that the object of the Bill was not to magnify the position or increase the power of any individual minister, but, in so far as it dealt with denominations at all, it was to safeguard the general interests of the whole of the denominational community, both lay and clerical. He might be asked how the Amendment would work. As they knew, there would be four managers of the j denomination to which the school belonged, appointed in consonance with the provisions of the trust deed which governed the school. It was not un-reasonable to suppose that one of the; four would be the clergyman. In addition to that, there would be two, presumably level-headed, appointed by the
1314
County Council. Under the Amendment interference with the method of religious teaching in these schools could only result from insistence by the clergyman on something which, in the opinion of the managers, three of whom were of his own denomination, ought not to be carried on. He did not think, therefore, that there was much danger of the Amendment exposing any fair-minded or rational clergyman to inconvenience. Supposing the clergyman took a rather extreme view as to the form of religious instruction, he would have to modify it and bring it into accordance with the view of the majority of the managers. That would not be a very hard thing to do. Some hon. Members thought a rather extravagant and unwise suggestion was made by those opposed to the Bill, that under certain circumstances Members would be justified in refusing to pay rates put upon them in connection with it, and he held that it would be equally foolish for a clergyman to refuse to modify his form of teaching so as to bring it in consonance with the views of the majority of the management. One great advantage of the Amendment was that it would tend to promote great simplicity of religious teaching in the schools. He was certain that in the interests of the children it was good that the religious teaching should be as simple as possible, and unconfused with any of the controversies that raged outside. They must realise that the most genuine religious feeling to be found in the country districts had a strong Puritan tinge, which was all in favour of simplicity, and the Amendment would make extravagant practices possible, unless the majority of the management agreed with them. It would also forbid the introduction into the school, for the purpose of religious teaching, of books advocating extreme doctrines which were not accepted by the majority of the managers. It would substitute for the one man judgment which now prevailed, the perhaps cooler judgment of the six members of the management. It would tend to secure, too, the rights of the laity, for in dealing with these questions too much was often made of the rights of the clergy, and too little of those of laymen. Up till now, the laity had one safeguard, inasmuch as the school had hitherto depended on voluntary subscriptions, and a supporter would seriously hamper its management by withdrawing his subscription if he

1315
were dissatisfied with what was going on. But that safeguard was largely removed by this Bill, and the Amendment was, as he said, to fortify the rights of laymen against possible clerical domination. He thought also that it would tend to remove friction. How would the Bill affect the extreme minister or clergyman who insisted on teaching the particular form of worship which he approved, or none at all? No doubt he would have to cease giving religious teaching in the school as far as it fell under the control of the managers, but he would not be debarred from the use of the school at other times, and could then conduct what classes he liked. In that respect his privileges would not be curtailed. Next, how would it affect the Roman Catholic denomination? They did not fear priestly ascendency; on the contrary, they believed it to be the best, and, if that were so, it was hard to believe that there could possibly be any Roman Catholic school which would be affected by the working of the Amendment, inasmuch as the priest would be sure of the support of the majority of the management. He could only say in regard to the Amendment that he had not himself been the recipient of any objection from any class of the community, whether clerical or lay. He had not had the advantage of hearing the opinion of the Bishops upon his Amendment, but, in so far as it would restrain ministers from doing things which would be awkward for the Bishops, he thought they would look upon it with a lenient eye. He now came to the question of trust deeds. While insisting that the general tenor of the trust deed should be acted upon, the provision would undoubtedly override any such portion of the deed as enabled the clergyman to carry on any system of religious teaching in defiance of the management. They were now entering upon a new phase of the existence of these schools, and of their relation to the country at large, and he thought, therefore, that it was not unreasonable to ask that, in regard to a trust deed which was created under a different state of things, there should be modifications in certain cases to bring them into harmony with the future situation. It could hardly be said that there was anything harsh or revolutionary in asking for such a modification. He did
1316
not think the result of the Amendment would be to debar the clergy from entry into the schools. The Amendment was an assertion, not of any desire to put a slight on the clergy, but an assertion that, whilst amply respecting the clergy, laymen intended thoroughly to safeguard their rights. He hoped that if it were accepted by the Government, it would be allowed to carry with it an absolute refutation of the charge made against the Bill that it was intended in any way to accentuate clerical control or maintain priestly ascendency. He also hoped it would be accepted as a practical if humble contribution which would render still more popular, effective, and beneficial this great measure of educational reform. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"After the words last inserted, to insert the words, 'Religious instruction shall be given in a school not provided by the local education authority, in accordance with the tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto, and shall be under the control of the managers.' "—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,said the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend no doubt embodied the policy which the Government had set forth on this subject, but it was desirable that things which were open to any doubt in the construction of the Bill should be clearly expressed. From the very outset, it had been laid down by the Prime Minister that the control and management of voluntary schools would be popularised, even from a denominational point of view, by insisting on having four foundation managers. It was further popularised by the addition of representatives of local authorities. The object which the Government had in view was that the managers should all work together for all the purposes which they had in common, and that religious instruction should not be excluded from those general powers, of management. With that in view, the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend. He did not

1317
think those who desired to make denominational teaching secure need have any anxiety. They would all remember the anxious and somewhat heated discussion winch took place in the summer of the present year as to the majority of foundation managers which should be placed on the Board of Management, and surely all these struggles were in vain if they could not trust that majority to secure the maintenance of the denominational character of the school. For his own part, he would not have hesitated to leave the denominational teaching in the hands of the majority which had been placed on the boards of managers, but this Amendment went somewhat further in the way of security, and provided that the tenour of the teaching should be in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. He hoped the words of the Amendment made that point perfectly explicit. There was another question as to how far the clergyman's status in his own parish would be damaged or diminished by the Amendment. Well, he belonged to a part of the United Kingdom from which neither the Prime Minister, nor the Attorney General, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen who had led the opposition to the Bill, came, and he ventured to say that they hardly appreciated the fact that in that part of the kingdom called England the people did not bring a very intense dialectical acumen nor a keen theological interest to bear upon these questions of denominational teaching; indeed, the average Englishman was prepared to take his theology as he found it. 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 desires of the community. The Government were anxious that the character of the religious teaching should be secured. His hon. friend the Member for the Tonbridge Division had an Amendment on the Paper providing for the inspection of religious instruction where that was required by trust deed. He
1318
did not think the Government could accept it in the form in which it stood on the Paper, but they would be prepared to accept an Amendment which, when the provisions of the trust deed required the inspection of religious instruction by a diocesan inspector, would secure that such inspection should take place under the provisions of the Act of 1870. With that explanation he had to say that the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend.
MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he understood from the speech of the Secretary of the Board of Education that the Government accepted the Amendment because it made their policy clearer and more explicit, but he could not help thinking that it brought greater obscurity in the Bill. It was clear that the aim of the mover of the Amendment was not simply to make the Bill clear but to secure an increase of control over the clergy. If the Amendment were accepted, would the managers have power to break a trust which placed specific powers in the hands of the parson to superintend religious instruction in the day schools? If they had not, this Amendment was mere verbiage. If they had the power of breaking the trust, why were the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite watered down? Why did not this Amendment run "not with standing anything in the trust deed of the school"? Surely, that would be the franker and more straightforward way to deal with the question—to give the managers power to break the trust deed. He held that they should not have power to break the trust at all; but if the Government meant to give the managers power to alter the trust deed, they should state the fact clearly and should define to what extent it was to be allowed to be done. He had no doubt that if they had a parson who took an extreme view here would be precisely the same difficulty and trouble with the Amendment the Bill as without it. He regretted that the Government had accepted the Amendment, which would be regarded n many quarters as a perfectly unnecessary reflection upon the parson.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that, before going further with this Amendment, he thought it would be a great advantage if the Government would explain what was the meaning of the word "tenor." As he understood the hon. and gallant Member, he regarded it as a security to the lay element on the management. He would assume that the trust deed said that the trust should be administered according to the doctrines of the Church of England. Then arose this question—What were the doctrines of the Church of England—what was its teaching? He did not know whether that would be the interpretation of the word "tenor." They remembered the well-known lines:—
"Along the cool, sequestered vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way."
He did not know whether it would be along a cool, sequestered vale they would pursue the noiseless tenor of their way when they had introduced this Amendment. There might be cases, he knew many of them, where the layman in the parish, even the majority of the subscribers, held views as to what was the teaching of the Church of England very different from those of the clergyman, who was not put into position by themselves. The hon. the Member for the University of Oxford, belonging to that annexe of the United Kingdom called England, must remember that in Scotland the laymen had some views, some control in connection with their Church. So, too, the Nonconformists of England had that control. There was only one religious community—no, two, the Church of England and the Church of Rome—where the laity had no control. It had been held that in this Bill, for the first time, there was to be given to the laity a voice in the management. The Prime Minister, time after time, had told them not to be afraid of clerical control, because the presence of three laymen among the foundation managers would be ample security against "one-man" clerical control in the school. But they must remember that the clergyman might hold a different view from the managers as to the "tenor "of the teaching. In the case of secular teaching the Board of Education was to have the power in
1320
regard to any difference of opinion that might arise there; but he did not observe that they gave any appeal in this case. Who was to decide what was to be the teaching of the Church of England? It would devolve on the representative of the Univerity of Oxford to determine what was the religious teaching of the Church of England to decide as between five laymen out of the six as against the clergyman, whether or not his teaching was in fulfilment of the trust and in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England. Therefore, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that they must have a definition of the words of the Amendment, and that they ought to have an explanation of the word "tenor."
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was sure from the course the debate had run it-must be perfectly clear that they were very much in the dark as to what the Amendment meant. Indeed, he doubted whether his hon. and gallant friend really understood it. By altering the form of his Amendment he had increased the difficulty. Originally it ran that "notwithstanding the trust deed the managers should have control." That clearly contemplated doing away with the trust deeds altogether. Now the Amendment said the teaching must be in accordance with the tenor of the provisions of the trust deed. Did he mean that the general character of the trust deed should be maintained, or did he mean that the specific conditions of the deed must be observed? He might give three specimens of the conditions referred to. First, did his hon. friend mean that the instruction should not be subject to the superintendence of the parochial clergyman? Was that the meaning of the word "tenor"? Did he contemplate that, in the event of the managers having a quarrel with the clergyman, he could be debarred from going into the school? He thought if that was so it would lead to friction in the parish which would do an immense amount of harm. The school buildings would belong not to the managers but to the trustees, and if specific conditions of the trust were

1321
broken the trustees would close the school, and the provision of a new school would be put upon the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman asked who was to control these managers in giving their religious instruction? The National Society modern trust deed provided that—
"In case any difference should arise between the parochial clergy and the managers of the schools with reference to the preceding Rules, or any regulation connected therewith, an appeal is to be made to the Bishop of the Diocese, whose decision is final."
He did not want to argue that point because there was an appeal already to a recognised constituted authority, but if this Amendment were carried there was no appeal at all. They might give their decision in accordance with the tenor of the trust deed with no bishop or education authority to see that they did their work properly. The Government must see from this discussion that they were allowing to be introduced a very difficult and dangerous topic. He regretted altogether that this question had been raised. He had always understood that this was a Bill dealing solely with secular education and for improving the secular education given in what were now voluntary schools. Now they were asked to deal with the religious instruction given there. And why? When they were dealing with provided schools they did not touch religious education, and they left those schools subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause, the managers, and the Board of Education; but now that they had come to non-provided or voluntary schools his hon. and gallant friend moved this most obscure and difficult Amendment, putting into the hotchpotch this proposal, for which there was no demand to justify it being brought before the House at the present moment. The Government had stated from the beginning, and it had always been understood, that the six managers would control religious instruction. He supposed he had been particularly stupid, but he knew that a great many others as well never understood that, and outside this House very few other people understood it. Taking the scheme of the Bill, he wished to ask for what purpose were those two outside managers to have a voice in the religious instruction? They
1322
were to be put on as representatives of religious instruction in order to see that the school was properly conducted and to give the local education authority a voice in the appointment of teachers. It seemed to him to be a revolutionary proposal that these two outside managers should have a voice in regard to the religious instruction to be given in the schools. No doubt the Government relied upon what was called the permanent majority of the Board of Managers. He was not quite so sure that there would always be a permanent majority, because this clearly depended upon the assumption that all the foundation managers would belong to the same denomination as the school. But that was not the case at all. There were a great many Church of England schools where several of the managers were not members of the Church of England. The other day he came across a school which was working under the Charity Commission, and out of the nine members who were foundation managers no less than four wore elected, two by the Vestry and two by the subscribers.
MR. WHITLEY: What a shame !
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he did not think it was a shame; on the contrary ho thought it was a very good thing. Of course it did not follow when these things happened that all the foundation managers were always members of the denomination to which, the school belonged, but in this particular case, out of nine five belonged to the Church of England and four did not. For the sake of illustration let them suppose that the managers remained in the proportion of nine with three added. At present five of them belonged to the Church of England and four did not, but if the local authority added three then there would be a majority of managers not belonging to the denomination, for the proportion would be altered to five belonging to the Church of England and seven who did not belong to that denomination. He simply gave that as an instance to show that the so-called permanent majority might not be a majority at all. He fully believed that the Government in accepting this Amendment were quite unaware of the difficulties it brought

1323
about, and while he recognised the very conciliatory speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he appealed to the Government to reconsider the whole question, and he asked them whether in a Bill primarily for secular education it was worth while in the case of voluntary schools—and voluntary schools alone—to raise this question of religious instruction thereby bringing about a state of things which they all expected would not have taken place.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he was sorry to find himself in opposition to this Amendment. He desired to oppose it strongly, and he did so on behalf of his co-religionists. This proposal was absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Bill, by which they had always understood that the religious instruction, given in the school was to be preserved and not disturbed. What he objected to was that two outside managers representing the local authority might have a voice and a vote with regard to the religious instruction given in a particular school, although they themselves did not belong to that religious communion. That appeared to him to be absolutely absurd. He could quite understand that this Amendment might be acceptable, or fairly practicable, in the minds of some members of the Church of England, because they might fairly assume that, in the majority of cases, the two representative managers appointed by the local authority would be members of the Church of England, and where that was the case the whole body of the managers would be of the same religious communion. But what about the religious minority? What about this in the case of the Catholics, the Jews, and the Wesleyans? Did the Committee suppose that the local authority was going to appoint two Catholics, two Jews, or two Wesleyans in the case of schools belonging to those denominations? Where that was done he had no objection to offer, but he did protest against inflicting on a religious minority two managers to have a voice in the religious instruction given in the school when, in his opinion, they were not competent to form an opinion upon it. It might be said that they had got their majority, and if they were satisfied with that majority
1324
as regarded the appointment of teachers why could they not be equally satisfied as regarded religious instruction? He frankly admitted that in nine cases out of ten, or in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the two representative managers of the local authority would not be so wanting in good taste as to interfere with the religious instruction of the denomination to which they did not belong, but he must remind the Committee that they were dealing with what was intended to be an Act of Parliament, and he objected strongly to giving a statutory right to a man to give his vote in a matter of religious instruction with regard to a religion to which he did not belong. He wished to remind the Committee what the Roman Catholic position was with regard to this matter. He acknowledged that they represented a minority, but he was only asking that they should be considered in the light of a minority. He claimed the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments while he considered the Catholic position. Apart from the organic constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, the teaching authority in religious matters was not the layman, and was not even the priest, but it was the bishop. Their theory was that bishops inherited the authority of the Apostles, and whatever authority was exercised by others, whether clergy or laity, was derived from the bishops. The bishops were subject to the canon law, and were more closely tied and bound by it than was generally imagined in this country. They were liable to censure, and they were liable to deprivation of their authority, if they taught or acted in defiance of the canon law of the Church. He did not ask the Committee to say whether they approved or disapproved of that system. It was an intelligible system, it was their system, and it was not going to be changed. He ventured to appeal to the Committee to ask themselves whether it was fair to foist on them in regard to religious instruction the opinions of members outside their own communion, members who not only did not belong to it, but were violently and even conscientiously opposed to it. He confessed it seemed to him to be singularly unjust. He did not know whether his hon. and gallant friend had quite considered how far the

1325
Amendment would carry him. There was no reason why he should not be appointed by a local authority as the manager of an Anglican school or a group of Anglican schools. Yet he was a bigoted Papist! In the view of his hon. and gallant friend he was a fit and proper person to give his vote as to the religious instruction which was to be given in the Church of England schools. He did think that the acceptance of the Amendment could only lead to considerable trouble. He should not be at all surprised to find hon. Gentlemen opposite supporting this Amendment. They had avowed their determination to endeavour if possible to make this Bill, as soon as it was an Act, unworkable. This Amendment, if he understood aright the speech of the Member for West Monmouthshire, had filled the right hon. Gentleman with some alarm as to the friction which would possibly arise. The noble Lord respectfully said that in his humble judgment, if the Government accepted this Amendment they would not add to the harmonious working of their Bill. At any rate so far as he was concerned, and so far as it affected the religious community to which it was his privilege to belong, he could only repeat that if the Government forced on them the acceptance of two members not belonging to their communion to have a voice and vote in what their religious instruction was to be—he did not want to say it offensively or disrespectfully, but he said it frankly because lie felt it—they would be doing an ungenerous act to a small minority in this country who represented a religious community which had shown the greatest spirit of self-sacrifice and the most earnest perseverance in striving to maintain definite religious instruction for the children of its poor.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think everybody who has heard the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down must recognise that he has spoken not only with great and genuine emotion, but also on behalf of a religious communion which is not in agreement theologically with the great
1326
majority of the people of this country, and against which there is no doubt a strong feeling prevailing among large sections of society. Therefore anything that falls from my noble friend is deserving of the earnest consideration of the Committee. But I would venture to ask my noble friend whether in what he has just said he is expressing his fear as regards any practical danger, or whether he is only giving expression to the speculative—I wish to say it not in any way disrespectfully—theology of the communion to which he belongs. In other words, does he seriously think that in the Roman Catholic schools of our great cities—for the few Catholic schools in the country districts may be ignored in this controversy—does he seriously think that in any single Roman Catholic school in any single city from the north to the south of England any difficulty would arise at any time of the kind which he fears? I draw a very wide distinction between the case which he has put with such earnestness and eloquence before the Committee, and the case which I understand is represented by two hon. friends of mine below the gangway belonging to the English Church. I do agree that with regard to what I may call the Anglican case there might conceivably be here and there and at long intervals cases of collision between the general body of managers and the clergyman of the parish, but they would be very rare. They could be counted, I think, on fewer than the fingers of one hand, but still they are possible. I will come to that case directly. I admit the possibility in that case, but as regards the Roman Catholic schools for which my noble friend pleads does he think there is the remotest possibility that there may be a collision as to which is true Catholic teaching according to the view of the Roman Catholics, or the smallest possibility of a conflict on that subject between the managers and the priest of the parish or the bishop of the diocese? I think my noble friend will probably candidly admit that, however much this may run counter to the canon law or to the established views of the religious community to which he belongs, at all events, the actual danger that an Anglican or a Baptist member of the governing body of managers shall over persuade the

1327
remaining four Roman Catholic managers to throw over their allegiance to the bishop to whom they are absolutely pledged by their religion is inappreciable. I quite sympathise with the views my noble friend has expressed, but I cannot believe that under any circumstances there is the smallest practical danger of any injury being done to the denominational teaching which he is, from his point of view, so rightly anxious to preserve. I now come to what I regard as the practical point of view—the case of the English Church, and here let me say something about the position of the Government. Two hon. friends of mine who have spoken from below the gangway have expressed great surprise that the Government has shown itself sympathetic to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend. It comes upon them apparently with a shock of astonishment, and they seem to think that this is sprung upon the House without the smallest preface or preparation. I have never concealed from the House generally the view I have on this matter. I am ashamed to think the number of times I have had to address the House on the subject, and all my observations on the general scheme of the Bill have been in harmony with the Amendment now before us. Not to go further, if my hon. friend will refer to Hansard of July 21st he will find I spoke as follows. It is reported in the third person, and I have no doubt it is quite accurate.
"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.]
LORD HUGH CECIL: My right hon. friend said nothing about trust deeds.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not said anything about trust deeds, but they are not very alien from the statement I have read. I was laying down what I conceived to be the general principle of the Bill, and I think everybody will admit that my speeches have always been in the same direction. My noble friend seems
1328
to think that wherever the provisions of a trust deed are in question the case is altered. But to appoint two outside managers at all is to touch the trust deed. I should like to know exactly what was meant—he is a better authority than I am—by the resolution I have seen from time to time reported in favour of obtaining rate-aid for the denominational schools and giving in exchange one-third of the management. Did that only mean subject to the unknown provisions of the trust deeds?
LORD HUGH CECIL: Certainly it meant subject to the trust deed. There has never been the slightest doubt of it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does my noble friend mean that when a resolution of that kind was passed, it only applied to those schools in which the general tenor of the trust deed was exactly in harmony with such an arrangement?
LORD HUGH CECIL: My right hon. friend misunderstands. The general management of the school, both in secular instruction and on the borderland between secular and religious instruction, was to be under the Board of Managers. But it was never contemplated that the religious instruction should be modified in any degree.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it was never contemplated that a Roman Catholic school should cease to be Roman Catholic.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Or that the teaching in a Roman Catholic school should be of a different kind. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: There is only one kind.]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was never contemplated that the teaching in a Roman Catholic school should be otherwise than Roman Catholic, or that the teaching in a Wesleyan school should be other than Wesleyan, or that the teaching in an Anglican school should be other than Anglican; 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

1329
it would be very inconsistent if that should he so, because what had been asked for all along was that a teacher should be elected with religious qualifications for carrying on denominational teaching. That is more important than anything, and that is left, and avowedly left, to the managers as a whole. There is no question of changing the religion taught in the school. That must be in accordance with the trust deed, whether Anglican, Wesleyan or Roman Catholic, and that was perfectly consistent not only with the attitude of the Government but also with the resolutions passed by various religious bodies. I would ask one question of my hon. friends who object to this Amendment. 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 in 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 which can but bring the whole of our scheme of national education into discredit? It is because I desire to see this danger removed for ever from the path of religious denominational education that I am anxious to see the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend accepted. I am convinced that, when the general public discover that we have passed a Bill which, whatever its merits or demerits, does at all events put on a solid and permanent basis a large number of the voluntary schools of the country, and that we 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. 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
1330
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. I have deliberately avoided dealing at the present time with the question of what is meant by the word "tenor," because I am anxious to put before the Committee some of those broader considerations I which have been raised by the speeches of my hon. friends behind me.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had spoken of the heated atmosphere sometimes raised when religious matters were under discussion. He should try and imitate his hon. friend and other hon. Members in the quiet tone and spirit of goodwill they had adopted. But he was afraid that, while they might discuss this matter as calmly as possible and recognise the excellent intentions that animated his hon. and gallant friend and the Government, out-side the House the Amendment would excite a feeling of bitterness and pain which it was very difficult for hon. Members to appreciate. There were many good persons who had been doing their work in the schools from the best motives for twenty and more years past who would feel that in this Amendment a most unjust slur and indignity was cast upon them. The justification advanced for the Amendment was what was truly called the unwise and improper use of their position by certain, a very small number, of the clergy, but he could not believe that it passed the wit of Parliament, supposing they were to deal with this question at all, to devise a remedy for the incumbents of, say, 20 parishes, which would not upset and annoy and insult the incumbents of 11,000 parishes. He could not help tracing here some of the military predilection for general punishments of which they heard a good deal last summer. It was the government of the Church not by Rome, or Geneva, or Canterbury, but by Sandhurst. The elementary schools, unlike the older educational institutions, lacked the possession of that very useful officer, a visitor. His hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would be perfectly familiar with the functions of a visitor. He

1331
should like to hear what would be said, if a visitor of an Oxford College who discovered that one of the fellows had developed Popish proclivities, came down on the whole university and abused the governing bodies on account of the wrong-doing of a single colleague. He thought it would be fairly possible, in the case of their elementary schools, to have some system of visitation in regard to religious instruction which would be a very much better and less offensive remedy than the one proposed in the Amendment. How did the Amendment stand in relation to the great principles which the Government had over and over again laid down as the foundation principles of this measure? They had been told over and over again that there must be regard for the proprietary rights of those who had built and were supporting the buildings, and it had been laid down as an absolutely essential condition that the denominational character of the schools as settled under the trust deeds should be respected. But what business had they to pick and choose in an obligation of that kind? What right had they to say that this part of the trust deed was sacred and inviolable, and that part might be set aside altogether? It was perfectly true that in respect of secular education the trusts had been greatly, and very reasonably, modified, but religious instruction had all along been put outside the scheme of the control of the local education authority. The hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had an Amendment which proposed to go a little further than the Government had gone. The position of that hon. Member seemed to be, "The Government have destroyed the trust rights in certain respects, why should I not go a little further and destroy some other trust rights?" What conceivable answer could the Government make to that argument? He could see no answer. His hon. and gallant friend spoke a great deal about "clerical control." He did not think there was an hon. Member who had a greater dislike for priestcraft and clerical control than he had. No one who more clearly recognised than he did the destructive element in the national life of anything that resembled the intrusion of the
1332
clergy in the life of the home, of the State, and of local organization outside their proper sphere and function. But there was no priestcraft in a clergyman giving instruction in religion. That was his function, just as much as it was the function of an officer to fight or of a barrister to argue. That was what he was there for, and, if he did not do that, why should they have clergy at all? He noticed in the proceedings of the great Nonconformist bodies it was recognised that the ministry had a special function in regard to religious instruction, and there could be no doubt whatever that the giving of religious instruction had become a duty of clergymen of the Church of England. In the general discussion, in which the laity took part, the teacher was condemned, but the final decision was left to what he believed was known as the Pastoral Assembly. Therefore, even in the Wesleyan body, it was recognised that the ministry had a special function in respect of religious instruction; and there could be no doubt whatever that the giving of religious instruction was one of the duties of clergymen of the Church of England. Were they going to say to these clergymen: "This is your peculiar position: you have given up your lives to this work, you have had to work very hard on a very slight income, and you have done a great deal of praiseworthy work, in order that you may be a religious minister, and, among other functions, a religious instructor; but you must now take your instructions from a body of laymen who will not claim that they have any special knowledge of religious instruction?" Let the Committee consider who the managers in a rural parish would be likely to be. They would probably be the squire, but he would very seldom attend, because he would have other things, very often, to do. There would be also, perhaps, a retired naval or military officer, living on independent means, and doing a lot of very useful work. Then there would be a representative of the County Council, probably the local County Councillor; and there would be a village tradesman, who would be a prominent member of the Church, perhaps a churchwarden, and a tradesman or farmer representing the Parish Council. Under his hon. and

1333
gallant friend's singular theological system, they would be the infallible interpreters of religious truth, but of course these five gentlemen would not be likely to claim any such function as that of criticising and determining religious instruction in the schools. His hon. and gallant friend knew as well as he did that in 999 cases out of 1,000 they would not dream of interfering. He would like to ask his hon. and gallant friend how he or any other hon. Member would like it if, in his particular profession, he was suddenly to be told that the profession, as a class, could not be trusted; and that therefore they would be placed under the orders of quite incompetent persons. What would his hon. and gallant friend say if some military matter with which he was connected ' was submitted to the Parish Council or County Council? Of course, his hon. and gallant friend would say that, whether such powers were exercised or not, it was treating him very hardly to put him in such a position. In the great majority of cases the majority of the managers would be reasonable people, and would support their reasonable clergyman, but it did not at all follow that there might not be, on many Boards, one cantankerous member; and anyone who knew anything of human nature, especially human nature which took an interest in ecclesiastical matters, would appreciate the difficulties that might arise. He would give the Committee an actual instance. In a parish with which he was acquainted, there was, up to a recent period, a lady who was doing most excellent work, who was munificent and pious, and devoted, among other good works, to the cause of education. She built, out of her own money, a school, and wished to be the absolute controller of it. Her views were of the moderate Evangelical kind, but, owing to peculiarities of temperament, that did not prevent her being a difficult person to get on with. The clergyman of the parish was not in the least degree ritualistic, but, nevertheless, there was, despite most laborious efforts on the part of the clergy, constant friction, because the lady had a feeling which many people would share—she disliked curates. She had great respect for the rector of the parish, who lived two miles from her school, and that added to the mechanical difficulties of the situation. She would
1334
not allow the curates inside the school, and the rector had to cycle at a very early hour in the morning to the school to be present at the religious lesson. The friction that arose in the parish might seem incredible to those not familiar with rural life. At one awful period the action of a hot-tempered curate divided the children of the school into two camps, and collisions arose between them. This, however, was got over by the interposition of a curate gifted with great power of irrelevant smiling, and the tension subsided, though it was only at the very end of this lady's life that she regretted having given so much trouble in connection with the school. That was the kind of case which often occurred in rural life, and that was the kind of person who would be on the board of management, because of the interest displayed by her in educational work. But let the Committee conceive what a lot of trouble one cantankerous individual like that would give at every meeting of the board of management. However sympathetic the majority of the managers might be towards the clergyman, there would be endless friction and disturbance for no purpose whatever. Therefore, he was opposed to the Amendment altogether, but, perhaps, a compromise might be arrived at by the adoption of the Amendment of which he had given notice the insertion after "and" of the words "subject to those provisions." It would then be clear that the clergyman's rights under the trust were not superseded. The trust deeds of the National Society provided that the clergyman should have control and management of the instruction given in the Sunday school, and superintendence of the religious instruction given in the day school. The words were—
"Provided always that the superintendence of the religious instruction to be given in the said school, and the entire control and management of any Sunday school, shall be vested in the said minister, for the time being, and in case of any dispute or difference arising on any matter affecting the religious instruction in the said school, an appeal may be made to the Bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties."
He thought that that would really meet the difficulty which his hon. and gallant friend felt; but what he wished to call the attention of the Committee to was that while the minister was to have the superintendence of the religious instruction in the day school, he

1335
was to have the entire control and management of the religious instruction in the Sunday school. He apprehended that "superintendence" meant that the clergyman might go into the day school and see what kind of teaching was being given, but that the control of the religious instruction would not be in his hands. He could not say, for instance, on what day, and at what services the children should be present. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the laity were not sometimes extreme ritualists. The Committee might contemplate the character of Lord Halifax to realise what a mistake that was. They were often more unreasonable and difficult to deal with than the clergy. In respect to the recent decision upon the use of incense, in many instances the willingness of clergymen to acquiesce was strongly opposed by leading members of their congregations, so that the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend would not meet the difficulty; it would punish both the innocent and the guilty, and not all the guilty. The Amendment was really not suited to the object in view, for which the form of visitation ho had mentioned was better adapted. Suppose a clergyman excluded from giving religious instruction in the school, in what condition would be the teaching of religion in the parish? The clergyman would not be excluded from control of the Sunday school, and he would teach in the parish church, and how would it be; with the children if the teaching they received in the day school was at variance with the teaching they received in the; Sunday school and in church? If the children were to be kept out of the way of the doctrine, they must never be allowed to go to Sunday school or church. Ho would rather leave the Bill as it stood. Nothing could be more grotesque than that two different systems should be taught in the name of one religious denomination. It would be a thousand times better to have no Church school; than a Church school in open contradiction with the Church that would lead to nothing but friction and ill feeling. If the Amendment were carried, he believed the clergy would feel it to be a great wrong, that they had in an Act of Parliament been censured as a body in a most solemn way, that their faces had been, as it were, slapped, while the great majority of them, in his opinion, had
1336
not done anything to deserve such an insult. They in that House had not deserved to be put in the awkward and disagreeable position of being agents of that insult. (2.5.)
COLONEL NOLANthanked the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich for having tactfully accepted a hint that an Irish illustration might be provocative of contention, and for having instead introduced the Committee to that delightful English parish in which raged no storms greater than those that could be occasioned by the colour of a stole, and which could be allayed by the smiles of a curate. In the main, the noble Lord was right in objecting to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Newport. The Prime Minister had indeed said that the opposition of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester was based exclusively on speculative theology, but it could be easily shown that at least Roman Catholics had more solid reasons than speculation for their resistance to the Amendment. If he himself (Colonel Nolan) were appointed to decide what religious doctrines should be taught in a score of Protestant schools in England, this would only produce a stupid and incongruous situation—as a Catholic kept in bounds by public opinion could do no real mischief in England; but if he were appointed to control the religious education of a dozen Protestant schools in Ireland, the situation would be considered intolerable to Protestants. Now this is exactly the case in England, the names being reversed. The Catholics, however, were in a hopeless minority in Great Britain, and this Amendment gave power to the members of a Protestant majority to decide which doctrine should be taught in the schools of the minority. It is argued that the Amendment leaves a majority to the denominational managers of the school; it is true that at present the majority or managers will materially be in harmony with the religion of the school, but often the foundation managers may be sick, absent, or perhaps one of them sulky, and then the holders of an opposing faith are to control the doctrine of the school. Fears may be legitimately entertained that if trusts

1337
were confiscated and their intention reversed under this Amendment, then for the future Catholic donors would not leave legacies for the specific purposes of education, but would be driven to bequeath their money absolutely to bishops. Owing to some relics of the penal laws, this had already often taken place in Ireland. But a greater danger existed from the Amendment. At present the denominational managers of the denominational schools were to be in a majority, the elected managers in a minority. But what was to prevent a future Liberal Government from reversing the position? Then the situation of the denominational schools would be this. A Conservative Government would have torn up their trust deeds by adopting the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Newport, while the future Liberal Government might, by the simple process of increasing the elected members, hand over the whole religious teaching to a hostile religious majority. What could the denominational schools do then? Nothing, but throw up the Government grants—perhaps even losing the resources bequeathed by pious founders—and begin all over again. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had placed an Amendment on the Paper, the adoption of which would certainly mitigate the evil consequences to be feared from the original Amendment. Still it would not be a perfect remedy, and he hoped that the House would consider the hard case of the Roman Catholics, whose only hope of safety lay in the honest administration of the law, and who were unwilling to substitute for this in their schools the direction of men of another faith upon such a vital question as religious training.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought that in reference to this Amendment they required a little more information, both as to its drafting and substance. In neither of the speeches delivered from the Treasury Bench had they been able to understand how far the wording of this Amendment carried out the purpose which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education desired. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech laid down that this Amendment was merely carrying out
1338
what was intended by the Government, but the speech of the Prime Minister carried it further by saying that it was always the intention of the Government in this Bill to give to the managers absolute control over the religious teaching of the schools. He wished at once to lay down an absolute protest against the theory that it was understood throughout the country by Churchmen that by this Bill they handed over the denominational teaching in the school to a majority of those who might not really understand the particular doctrines of the owners of the school. That was not understood. They understood that they handed over the secular instruction, and many other functions which formerly belonged to the denomination, but they certainly did not understand that it included the definition of dogmatic teaching in the religious instruction of the school. They had not had any clear explanation upon that point at present. The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment was, it seemed to him, not quite in agreement with the speeches which they had had from the Front Bench. It was much more of a Church discipline speech than one in connection with education, and he confessed that he did not think this was the most favourable opportunity for dealing with Church discipline. If there were clergymen in the Church of England teaching such doctrines to the children as were not fit to be taught in the school, he thought they were no more fit to teach those doctrines, either from the pulpit or in the Sunday school. The remedy now proposed was one which could only bring friction in its course, because, as the noble Lord had pointed out, it meant that in such parishes they would have a dual teaching, under which one authority would conduct the teaching in the day school, and another in the church and Sunday school. Looking at this question from the hon. and gallant Member's point of view, he feared that the result of this Amendment, if passed as drafted, would not be in the sense which he desired. As soon as it was understood by reading the hon. and gallant Member's speech, and by reading the debate in the House which had taken place this afternoon, that the managers in the future were to practically have

1339
discretion over the trust deeds, to choose the little bits they liked out of them, and leave out the bits they did not like, the result would not be as the mover of the Amendment wished, but rather in an opposite direction, because the trustees I would then be bound in every selection they made for the foundation managers to put on what they considered to be a sound man. There would be no give and take, and no carrying out of the natural promptings to put on the most representative people in the parish, but there would be a tendency to put on extremists. Therefore, he was afraid that this Amendment would have the opposite effect to that which was desired, and from that point of view he approached this subject. There had, of course, been one thing made clear by the speech which they had listened to from the noble Lord below him a little earlier in the afternoon, and it was to the effect that it was almost impossible to apply this Amendment to certain sections of the denominational schools. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said he thought this would work, because in England, as a rule, they took theology as they found it. He wished to point out that in the Roman Catholic schools they did not take theology as they found it, for they considered it was a very serious matter and a very dogmatic one, and if the Parliamentary Secretary's argument was followed out, he must allow that the Roman Catholic schools must be excluded from the scope of this Amendment. He did not think it was quite desirable, from the point of view of those who accepted this Bill as an acknowledgment of the importance of denominational teaching in connection with their primary schools, that they should let it go forth from the spokesman of the Board of Education that they could leave theology to take its own line, and leave it to any body of persons they might appoint to hold office.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not say that. What he said was that the Government were especially anxious to preserve the tenour and the character of denominational teaching as prescribed in the trust deed, but that the average English man did not concern himself so much with theology except where clergymen insisted upon observances not in accordance with the general desires of the community, and
1340
therefore would not be likely to interfere with the ordinary course of religious teaching in the school.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid they had to oppose that particular danger, and the mere fact that from the Government spokesmen they had had the acknowledgment that the managers were to follow what they said was the tenour, but which was not to be the full provisions of the trust deeds, was to hand over the power to those managers, which was never contemplated by the supporters of this Bill. At all events, they ought to receive further information with regard to the word "tenor". He was anxious to know what the meaning of the word tenor was, and he had consulted a dictionary which defined the meaning of the word as "purport, general course or drift." If those were the meanings he did not know that the addition of this word had any advantage, and it was far better to leave those words out and trust to the provisions of the trust deeds. He hoped that might be the ultimate decision they would arrive at. From some remarks made by the First Lord of the Treasury in reply to other speeches, he rather gathered that his opinion was that the employment of the teacher was more necessary in reference to religious instruction than the presence of the clergyman. That was entirely contrary to their contention. They had always contended that one of the first duties of the clergyman was in the school to teach the children the religious instruction in connection with the denomination to which he belonged, and the chief responsibility for this rested upon the clergyman. He confessed that he had always understood that the right and privilege of the parents was in the Conscience Clause and not in the dictation of a particular dogmatic teaching which the children should receive. The parents knew the particular religious teaching by the fact that they sent their children to the school of that particular denomination. They had the right to withdraw their children under the Conscience Clause, and therefore he did not think that the parents were the proper people to decide this matter, which should be left to those who founded the school under the provisions of the trust deed. There was one class

1341
of schools which had not been mentioned, namely, those who had no trust deeds at all. There were a great many schools in this country at the present moment which did not possess any trust deeds. A great number of the schools spoken of as Church schools were in the hands of private owners, and some did not possess trust deeds, but which for centuries had been closely connected with the Church. Such schools were not bound by any particular provision except by some old connection of the Church of England. He did not think that this Clause met their case at all, because if they left out of the central portion of the Clause the words "in accordance with the tenor of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto" it did not apply to them. If those words were left out the Amendment would read—
"Religious instruction shall be given in a school not provided by the local education authority and shall be under the control of the managers."
Therefore, in that case, the managers would have sole control and could dictate in religion. That was the strict meaning of the words, although the Government did not intend it to be so. The debate had shown, he thought, that the Amendment was not free from great ambiguity, and that the mover of it and the Government seemed to have approached the matter from an entirely different point of view. The debate also had shown that under this Amendment some denominations must clearly be exempted. This Amendment had raised an extremely thorny subject, and he urged the Government to consider very carefully whether they could not find either some Amendment of this provision or some other means of satisfying the minds of many loyal supporters who would like to support the Bill, but who felt that this proposal went further than they anticipated.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid this Bill was intended to redress well-founded grievances, which they had endured for many years. He regretted that he could not accept the reply given by the Prime Minister as sufficient. He associated himself with his right hon. friend and others in the recognition of the great need to guard against exceptional religious observances and peculiar
1342
teachings being imported into the schools which were not in accordance with the principles of the Church or in harmony with the wishes of the majority of the people. He thought it was calculated to create difficulty and permanent trouble in the denominational schools. Apart from the Roman Catholic community he should think that others, as, for instance, the Jewish persuasion, might well object to the intrusion of managers, who need not either share or sympathise with the opinions of the foundation managers. The Amendment was illogical and contrary to sound principle. It proposed that the religious instruction given in the schools should be under the control of the managers. The great function of the parish clergyman was to supervise religious instruction in the parish, and his first duty was to instruct both old and young in religion and in the things necessary to their salvation. If the managers were to control the religious instruction given in the school they might as reasonably control the religious instruction given from the pulpit. One of the great disadvantages in this country was that the people were not uniformly instructed in religious principles. How was it that people were falling away from the Protestant Churches? They did not hear of Roman Catholics being converted to other persuasions, and that was because they were instructed in the principles of their Church from their youth upwards. He held that the falling away from the Protestant Churches was because the people had not been sufficiently instructed in early youth. That instruction could be best given by persons skilled in teaching and from whom the children were accustomed to receive instruction. He did not know whether the Government, who had readily accepted the Amendment, were disposed to make any modification in its terms. He reminded the Government that the constitution of the board of managers had been vitally changed since the Clause was introduced, and contended that the modifications which had been made involved an infraction of the principle of the Bill as originally drafted in so far as the composition of the board of managers was concerned. He regretted that the Amendment had been obtruded on the Committee at this stage. It was unnecessary, and calculated to serve sectarian

1343
prejudices and to disturb harmonious relations. He should certainly vote against the Amendment as it stood if there should be a division, but he did hope that the Government would consider the objections that had been raised by some of their best supporters and would not insist on forcing into the Bill that which would give offence to many of the very best friends of religious education, and that which would do harm in the future.
MR. TULLYsaid he wished to support the view put forward by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for North Galway. He knew the position of the Irish Catholics of England and Wales in this matter. Most of those who came over to England and Wales originally were the very poorest of their race. He would oppose the Amendment because it would inflict serious injury and wrong on those people. At present they paid rates for board schools out of their slender and scanty resources. He thought it was very unfair to Catholics, who had made sacrifices and built schools for the teaching of their own religion, out of their slender and scanty resources, that under the cover of this insidious Amendment they should be obliged to run the risk of having their schools confiscated. The Prime Minister had said that it did not matter although two men opposed to their faith were imported into the management of Catholic schools. This was a very serious matter for Roman Catholics. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who took a sympathetic view of this matter, had shown his appreciation of their position when he spoke of different kinds of Roman Catholicism. There was only one kind. That was the kind which had lasted from the beginning, and would last to the end. They did not want, in connection with Catholic schools, men imported into the management who differed from them in religious affairs. They had to look to the future. At present they had a Government who had been to a certain extent sympathetic with the Catholics in this matter. The Prime Minister had stated that in England there was a tendency to magnify small abuses, and it was possible that in the future a "No Popery" or anti-ritualist storm might sweep over the country, and there might be a Govern-
1344
ment in power hostile to the Roman Catholics. If the hon. Member for Carnarvon was in power, and if there was a Government led by him—he was fit to lead a Government—if the Government was inspired by his views, the composition of the Board of Managers might be altered. Instead of having two managers not holding Roman Catholic opinions there might be a majority hostile to that religion. In the part of Ireland where he lived there were only about two per cent, of Presbyterians, and if the rule were applied there which it was proposed to apply here it would mean that the Roman Catholics would be in a position to confiscate a school which a Presbyterian gentleman had provided at a cost of £800 for the children belonging to his creed. He would explain his own personal position in this matter. The hon. Member for North Galway had pointed out that in every part of England Roman Catholics were in a minority except in the Scotland Division of Liverpool. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the Member?"] That was the very question he was going to ask. He had been torn by two conflicting passions. He had been unjustly punished by the Government, but the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had taken very good care never to have upon him the weighty hand of England in Ireland. He could not vote on this Amendment with the Government. It was not in human nature to do so, and he supposed there was some human nature in Irishmen. He could not go into the same lobby with men who had recently sent him to prison. At the same time he felt a conflict of opinion on this matter because of the devotion he had to the old Church of his fathers. But there was no excuse for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division not being here to stand up for the Catholics of Liverpool who put him into this Parliament. They were told by the gentleman who regulated the wild-cat politics in Ireland that it was on account of coercion they should abandon the interests of Irish Catholic children of England and Wales. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday how many were in the prison list on April 5th in Connaught and in the adjoining counties of Longford and West Meath——
THE CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Crimes Act at present.
MR. TULLY: Mr. Lowther, I am deeply obliged to you, Sir. The hon. Member said he was merely striving to explain his personal position. He hoped he would be allowed to put his point as a matter of personal explanation. He asked the Chief Secretary how many were in the prison list in April and how many this day week. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was that there were five in April, and he was one of them, while this day week there was not one. The gentlemen who left the Irish Benches and would not vote on this Amendment which affected the Catholics of England were the same gentlemen who were voting for this Bill in April when he was one of the five in prison. So that there was no justification for their desertion of these Benches on the ground of coercion. Another reason why they should be here to support the Amendment was that they had received valuable support from the Irish Catholics. He read in the newspapers the other day that out of £11,000 subscribed for the Irish Parliamentary fund £4,800 came from the Catholics of England and Wales. On that ground these gentlemen should have been here. He intended to vote against the Government on this Amendment, because he believed it would do a grievous wrong to the Irish Catholics in England and Wales. If the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would be the thin end of the wedge by which Roman Catholics sooner or later might have their schools confiscated.
MAJOR RASCHwas very glad that the Government had accepted this Amendment, because after the sympathetic attitude which they had taken up towards the agricultural interest he would have found it very hard to vote against them. The Government had given them £900,000, and he hoped they would show that they were not ungrateful. Last night the Prime Minister said he did not know where on earth he could find gratitude. He could inform his right hon. friend that he would find it in the bosoms of the members of the agricultural party—so long as he treated them
1346
fairly. Personally, he did not consider that any of the Amendments which had been moved were of the slightest importance, and the bulk of his constituents did not care a brass farthing for them. But this particular Amendment was certainly worth supporting, because it would remove causes of friction, and it would have a salubrious effect in certain parishes with which he was acquainted. It would also form a very agreeable corrective to the incessant beating of the ecclesiastical drum by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and other hon. Members below the gangway.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he could not agree with his hon. and gallant friend that the passing of this Amendment in its present form would tend to smooth the passage of the Bill. He thought it was regarded on this side of the House with very great alarm. But however that might be, he was sure they were all agreed that the Government had devoted their best energies towards securing denominational education, on behalf of which great sacrifices had been made in the past, and in the interest of which Churchmen generally were prepared to put up with certain restrictions. With regard to the controversy over the selection of teachers, they were very grateful on this side of the House for the firmness with which the Government had stood to their guns The public wanted to know what were to be the powers conferred by the Bill on the managers, and also how far their position as trustees would be affected by the new system. He thought they had not sufficiently considered the position of the clergy in this matter, and that they often forgot the great services which that body of men had rendered to education in the past. There ought to be also some gratitude for favours to come, because it must be remembered that they wanted the clergy to take a great part in carrying out this Bill when it was passed. That was to bet of vital importance. His fear was that if the Amendment were carried in its present form, and that the clergy were only told that religious instruction was to be carried on "according to the tenor of the trust deeds," and if it were intimated to them that they were absolutely under

1347
the control of the board of managers, they would feel when they went on to the new board of management, that they had a rope round their necks which would hinder their exertions. Some hon. Members were only just beginning to understand that the trust deeds were to be interfered with. When they came to interfere with the action of religious teaching it was a very serious thing indeed, and he would very cordially agree with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich in asking the Government to let the trust deeds stand on the basis to which he alluded when he said that the managers should be given the superintendence of religious education in the day schools, as differentiated from the control otherwise. If that were done and the managers had control—which should be specified in the clearest way—according to the conditions of the trust deed, it seemed to him that they would be able to use their power and influence, and to make their control effective. Even if the clergyman, as Chairman, were allowed the superintendence of religious instruction, the managers would be able to forbid the introduction of objectionable pictures and handbooks, and services which were not in accordance with the doctrines and practices of the Church of England. That would be a control with which the country would be satisfied.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that, speaking in behalf of those who were in favour of denominational schools, they had never contemplated before that afternoon that the representatives of the local authority on the Board of Managers would have any say whatever in the denominational instruction given to the pupils. ["Hear, hear !" and ironical cheers from the OPPOSITION Benches.] He certainly differed entirely from the hon. Gentleman opposite, because he believed in denominational teaching. He understood that a bargain had been entered into; that the schools were to be placed under popular control in regard to secular education, but that the managers were to have power to give religious instruction according to the faith of the parents in the denominational schools. If this Amendment were carried the
1348
result of giving this mandatory instruction to the managers to take an active part in deciding what kind of faith was to be taught in the schools, what could any reasonable man contemplate except friction and confusion? He had given a strong pledge to his constituents that he would do the best he could to support the maintenance of denominational schools in the country, and he therefore could take no part whatever in voting for the Amendment. He most respectfully said that it was a mockery to ask men who were not Churchmen or Roman Catholics to come and sit at a Board and lay down laws as to the tenets that were to be held, and the instruction that was to be given, in these schools. He appealed to the Prime Minister—because he was perfectly certain that some of his supporters in the country were believers in denominational education, and wished this Bill to be passed into law—that he ought to be very chary before he inflicted upon them the hardship and the slur which the clergy would feel if this Amendment were passed. He appealed most earnestly to the Prime Minister not to put too strong a pressure upon his supporters on that side of the House to vote for his Amendment, and to postpone the discussion of this question until the eighty representatives of Ireland, who were now absent from the House, and who represented the great Roman Catholic body, could be present.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that he was sorry he could not agree with his hon. friend that they should delay this question to a later date. He had no desire to prolong the debate, but he would put this question to his hon. friend who had spoken so strongly in regard to the Amendment: "If his view is correct, and if the managers are to have no Voice in regard to religious instruction to be given in denominational schools, what are we fighting for?" He understood that they were to have a denominational majority on the managing body and that thereby they would secure the religious instruction which was to be given. But if the managers were only to have power over secular instruction, then he agreed with his hon. friend that Clause 7 ought to be re-cast. Surely it was not to be said that the clergy were to have

1349
complete superintendence of the voluntary schools. He believed they would still have a very strong and influential voice, especially in regard to religious education.; That was what he wanted; but he believed that the trustees would retain great power of control over the schools.
MR. CRIPPSsaid that to his mind they were dealing now with one of the most anxious and intricate matters which had been brought before the Committee. It could not be denied that this question of religious education had roused a strong feeling on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He regretted that the Amendment had been brought forward, and that the Government had been induced to give its sanction to it. There were two reasons why he was opposed to the Amendment. In the first instance he could not think there was any worse way of dealing with the point under discussion. If it was true that there were extreme ritualistic practices in certain cases, then these ought to be put down by proper disciplinary measures. In the second place, he considered that the Amendment would introduce friction and trouble into the National Church. Clergymen who introduced those illegal practices ought to be deposed at once, but the assumption was that they were kept within the parish and yet that the managers of the schools were prohibited from superintending the religious teaching. Could human ingenuity provide the machinery which would be more fertile in introducing religious difficulties? If the parishioners and the clergyman were not at one, the clergyman ought to be deposed by legal action and through the action of the bishop. To keep the clergyman in the parish under a prohibition from teaching would be to put him into perpetual antagonism to the religious teaching, not only of the teachers of the children but to the whole life of the parish. He thought that the Amendment was absolutely: futile, and that it had been brought in from religious animosity.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would ask the Committee, I will not say to come to a decision now on the whole Amendment, but, at all events, if they consider this Amendment to be a proper subject
1350
to work upon to enter upon the task of amending the Amendment if necessary. That would bring the debate on the general question, so far as those Amendments raise it, to an end. I think we ought, if possible, to bring it to an end, though I have not the least desire to minimise its difficulty or importance I would point out that the debate has been going on four hours, and I do not want to add to its length. I think if my advice is taken, and we do enter on the Amendments, the Committee will perhaps expect me to say a word or two before we reach that stage. My hon. and learned friend who has just spoken does not like this method of preventing abnormal or eccentric teaching in Church schools, and thinks that that should be dealt with by proper disciplinary measures affecting the whole of our ecclesiastical organisation. That might be a very good solution; but I ask whether it is a practicable solution? If a modest Amendment of this kind raises this immense mass of religious difficulty, of religious feeling, I ask whether any Gentleman bringing in a great measure of disciplinary reform of the Church of England would be likely to have a very agreeable time before him? Evidently, if anything is to be done, and to be done soon, it must be done irrespective of any such wide-spreading measure. I wholly agree with my hon. and learned friend and other speakers on this side of the House in; desiring to see the trust deeds interfered with as little as possible. With that broad principle I entirely agree, but we must all recognise that this Bill does involve some interference with trust deeds, that some interference is inevitable, and all we can do is to cut down that interference to the narrowest proportions consistent with the general principles that underlie the measure. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich has upon the Paper an Amendment, which, as I understand, would preserve the control of the managers, but would, as regards any other power, leave them subject to the trust deed 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

1351
is worth while persevering with anything short of that. On the other hand, to go an inch further, I think, is unnecessary and would be extremely undesirable. So much for the general principle. Then I am told, and I am afraid I am told with a certain amount of truth, that the Amendment of my gallant friend cannot be otherwise than distasteful to a great many most admirable clergymen who have devoted their time to educational work in their parishes, who have never come into the smallest conflict with members either of their own community or of other communities, and who will feel themselves insulted by any provision of the kind which my gallant friend suggests. I do not think that they ought to have this feeling. I am the last man in the House—and I think the Committee will agree that I have done something to prove it—who would desire to run counter in any way to the legitimate feelings of any body of clergymen, especially, least of all, of those of the Church of England. But I am afraid that some of the speeches delivered this afternoon, though temperate and moderate in tone, may produce irritation which, apart from these speeches, I should have expected would have remained quiescent. When a large number of Members say that they are deeply concerned for the welfare of the Church and the honour of the clergy, and that not only would the clergy have their feelings hurt, but that they ought to be hurt, I am afraid that the deplorable evil that may result from these remarks cannot but be aggravated in consequence. But we have to consider other persons besides the clergy. The clergy have done the lion's share in the educational work of the country, and in my opinion they have not received sufficient gratitude. But we mean to call into existence, if we can, other managers who, if they do not rival the clergy, will, at all events, bear their fair share in the work of education. What is to be their feeling if the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend is rejected? Remember we have taken away from these managers all control of secular education. Their powers as regards secular education will be simply what the education authority choose to make them. All the great questions of policy connected with the school will not be decided by them, but by the education authority. It is now proposed to take away from them—[Lord
1352
HUGH CECIL: Not to give them.] Yes, not to give them, in the Bill which calls I them into existence, even the smallest share in the control of the religious education of the schools in any of the schools where the existing trust deeds give it to the clergyman. What will the five managers have to do in the interval between the selection of teachers? They will be called in, no doubt, when a teacher is to be selected, but that will be a comparatively rare occurrence, and in the interval they will have no administrative work at all to carry out. How can a system like that evoke that interest in the management of the school which we all desire to see? I have listened with a little surprise to the expression of general feeling which has come from so many quarters on this side of the House. I have been in the forefront of the battle over this Bill ever since it was introduced. I have not always received enthusiastic support, I quite admit, even from some of those who have been, on general policy, in I harmony with the policy of the Government. There was a time when they looked very coldly upon the Bill. "What was the tenor of their expressions? Their cry was that this was a Bill to give clerical control—a cry caught up by many supporters of the Government; from the loud utterances of many Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I will not attempt to estimate the number of letters I have received from friends of the Government, stating that this was a dreadful measure, that in the guise of improving secular education, the Government were really fastening upon their necks the yoke of the clergy. We all know what was the source of those letters. They were faithfully distributed by too apt disciples among those who should have looked with some suspicion upon the source from which these calumnious utterances arose. Now I find a strange change has come over the aspect of the question. The Bill is now beginning to be understood, and as it is beginning to be understood it is becoming more popular, and as it becomes more popular; this extraordinary phenomenon has taken place—that those who were uttering these melancholy prophecies as to the way in which the Bill would fasten clerical control on us and our children

1353
now are rising in their thousands, saying that the Bill is an insult to the clergy. Every man has a right to his own opinions and to give expression to them. I only say, with all respect, that it is not very easy to conduct a highly controversial Bill in the midst of a storm of criticism, and to find that among those on whose support we have a right co count are those who have changed their tactics at different stages in the course of the controversy. I quite recognise that there is a strong feeling in the House, and in quarters of the House where I count on most strenuous support of the principle of the Bill, in favour of this Amendment. I shall not make it a Government matter. I shall most emphatically vote for it myself, and I trust that all those who agree with me in the general principles of the Bill will support me in the division.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had taken the greatest possible interest in the very frank avowal of his right hon. friend, which was so much cheered on the other side. Still, he was a little in the dark; and he was afraid if his right hon. friend persisted in the attitude he had taken up, he would find that the Amendment would be carried, and if carried it would certainly be fatal to the Bill, because it would render disaffected all those on whose support the Government could count. When he first looked at the Amendment, he regarded it as a kind of military incursion into the ecclesiastical domain. Now he believed it was really and distinctly a Government Amendment; and he very much doubted whether the hon. and gallant sponsor of the Amendment was its real author. It was a Government Amendment to conciliate the Opposition, and he thought it would succeed to this extent. What would happen when they went to a division was that the Opposition would vote for the Amendment, and that the true friends of the denominationalists would vote against it. That was a very awkward situation. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was his superior officer on the occasion, and he could not, therefore, discharge his allegiance to the Government, but would follow the noble
1354
LORD into the division lobby against an Amendment which would have a very evil effect on the Bill.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN moved to insert in the Amendment, before the word "school," the words, "public elementary." The object, he said, was to limit the scope of the Amendment to day schools.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 1, after 'a,' to insert ' public elementary.' "—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put and agreed to.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not intend, after the long discussion, to move to omit the words, "the tenour of," but he should move to insert after "and" in the original Amendment the words, "subject to those provisions." He did not know what the precise effect of the words would be, but he thought they would allow the clergyman to visit the school, see what was going on, and hear the Catechism being taught. The object of his Amendment was to secure that the control of the managers should be subject to the terms of the trust deed. Unless this Amendment was carried, the evils which his right hon. friend thought might arise out of the discussion would be found to be very real indeed. He hoped very earnestly that the Government would accept this Amendment. It was the only course open by which they could still the storm which had been so unfortunately raised. The managers had the right to appoint and dismiss the teachers, and therefore their control was complete already. If the words he suggested were accepted, the Amendment would combine the two streams of feeling, though neither would be completely satisfied, and the sense of personal wrong on the part of the clergy would be removed.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 3, after 'and,' to insert 'subject to those provisions.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that the object of his noble friend was to leave to the control of the managers everything that was not controlled by the trust deed.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not know what his right lion, friend meant by "control."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid no stronger word had occurred to himself or to those who advised him in the matter. It had been used throughout the Bill as the strongest word to indicate power over any course of instruction. He did not; think the words proposed by his noble friend would do, but the general principle he had laid down would be safeguarded if they put in the following proviso:—
"Provided that any power as to religions instruction conferred by the deed on any clergyman or minister of religion shall, subject to such control, remain vested in him."
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that would be almost worse than his hon. and gallant friend's Amendment. A good many people thought that the original Amendment would have no effect whatever, and he preferred to take the chance that his hon. and gallant friend might be mistaken rather than accept these words, which would quite definitely subject the trust deed to the control of the managers.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the words proposed by the noble Lord would be governed by the previous words "in accordance with the tenour of the provisions of the trust deed." He imagined that the noble Lord desired to insist upon the verbal interpretation of the trust deed. The main question was whether there was or was not to be a lay element of control as regarded religious education. Under the trust deed of the National Society, which was the trust deed for the Anglican denomination and the Church of England, the clergyman had, practically speaking, the sole control of the religious education
1356
in the school. Therefore, unless they declared that the managers should have control, they left in the hands of the parson the sole control of the religious instruction, and all that had been said in the House and in the country about giving a voice to the laity in the parish on the subject of the religious education of the children would come to nothing. If they rejected this Amendment they would give absolute authority to the parson, and to the parson alone. If the Government were going to insist that the trusts were not to be modified at all, they would be giving sole control of religious education, in schools supported by public money, to the principal officiating minister. Therefore, however much they might consider that he was, in point of fact, violating the trust by giving religious teaching not in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England, yet, according to the Amendment of the noble Lord, they would have no voice in the matter, as the minister would be the sole controlling authority.
MR. PEMBERTONsaid it should be remembered that the Amendment before the Committee ran counter to a very considerable amount of feeling on that side of the House. Some of his hon. friends, at the earlier stages of the Bill had subordinated their own views to the general wishes of their party, and be thought they might reasonably ask others to subordinate their views also. He was strongly opposed to the noble Lord's Amendment, because its object was to make the original Amendment have no effect whatever. He understood that the object of the original Amendment was to give a kind of supervision to the managers over possible aberrations on the part of the clergy. He thought that was reasonable. That power of supervision could only be exercised where some particular man exceeded the spirit of the trust deed under which he was acting. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment of the noble Lord.
Question put and negatived.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONwas understood to say that he thought it was most desirable that the denominational managers

1357
should be associated with the clergymen in the control of religious education in the schools. The Clause as it stood did not provide for it, but he thought that that point might be met by the insertion at the end of line 3 of the word "foundation" before the word "managers." He begged to move that Amendment.
MR. WHITLEY,upon a point of order said he had submitted an Amendment at a former stage to insert the word "foundation," and it was then suggested that all the managers should act together.
THE CHAIRMAN: That dealt with secular instruction; this is another question.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"At the end of line 3, to insert the word 'foundation.' "—(Sir James Fergusson.)
Question proposed, "That the word "foundation' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment.
MR. COHENagreed with what bad fallen from the Prime Minister in the earlier portion of the day, when the right hon. Gentleman said that nobody wished in any way to alter the denominational character of any single school in the kingdom, and further that the fears of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester were groundless. He was of the same opinion. He did not suppose the local education authority would desire to put a Roman Catholic teacher into, for instance, a Jewish school, or a member of the Jewish community into a Roman Catholic school. That being so, what possible objection could there be to putting a word into the Bill the effect of which would be to carry out and make obligatory the result which every hon. Member of the Committee desired. His community desired as little as anybody to place the inculcation of religious instruction exclusively in
1358
the hands of the clergy, but there was a great difference between giving clergymen a preponderating control with regard to religious instruction and importing into that religious instruction persons who were not members of the denomination; persons who knew little about it and cared less. That seemed to him so universally recognised that he could not see what objection there could be to the Amendment. A large part of what they regarded as religious instruction in the schools of his community consisted of teaching the Hebrew language He stated that detail in order that the Committee might see why from the point of view of the community to which he belonged it was necessary that the Governing body should be members of that community. For that reason he hoped the Prime Minister and the Government would be able to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester, which he respectfully submitted carried out and made obligatory that which was the desire, intention and the anticipation of the Government.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that when he contrasted the attitude of the Government now with what they had said in the past it seemed to him absolutely unjustifiable that one denomination should be allowed a voice in the control of the schools of another denomination. He thoroughly approved of this Amendment to the original Amendment, but he hoped a division would not be taken upon it. The only object in dividing at all was to get an expression of opinion, and he thought it would be better to take the division on the Amendment of his hon, and gallant friend in all its naked enormity.
Question put and negatived.
(1.42.) Question put, "That those words, amended, be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 41. (Division List, No 45.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fenwick, Charles

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

Aird, Sir John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Finch, George H

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc, Stroud

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moulton, John Fletcher

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Fisher, William Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fison, Frederick William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Anstruther, H. T.

Flower, Ernest

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Paulton, James Mellor

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pemberton, John S. G

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Philipps, John Wynford

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Price, Robert John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Graham, Henry Robert

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balfour. Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Grant, Corrie

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bartley, George C. T.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

Ratcliff, R. F

Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin

Grenfell, William Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Rea, Russell

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Beckett, Ernest William

Groves, James Grimble

Rickett, J. Compton

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Gunter, Sir Robert

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bignold, Arthur

Hain, Edward

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bigwood, James

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Rolleston, Sir John F L

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bond, Edward

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Boulnois, Edmund

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Shackleton, David James

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Sharpe, William Edward T

Burns, John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Shipman, Dr. John G

Burt, Thomas

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Caldwell, James

Helder, Augustus

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Cameron, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Horner, Frederick William

Soares, Ernest J

Campbell Bannerman, Sir H.

Horniman, Frederick John

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

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

Jacoby, James Alfred

Stroyan, John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Kemp, George

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kimber, Henry

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lambert, George

Thornton, Percy M

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Tollemache, Henry James

Charrington, Spencer

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Leng, Sir John

Valentia, Viscount

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lewis, John Herbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lloyd-George, David

Wallace, Robert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lough, Thomas

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowe, Francis William

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macdona, John Cumming

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Crae, George

Wylie, Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Younger, William

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Kenna, Reginald

Yoxall, James Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Faber, George Denison (York)

Markham, Arthur Basil

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and Mr. Henry Hobhouse.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E (Wigt'n

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

MR. TULLY: On a point of order, Sir. This is the only chance I have had to vote, and I have not been counted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He has been counted. He makes the forty-first.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON(4.45.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON moved to leave out sub-Section 3. He explained that the arrangements under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, indicated in the sub-Section, would be afterwards provided for by an Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and that the financial arrangements indicated last summer would come up as a new Clause. In these circumstances, the sub-Section had no right or place in the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out sub-Section (3)—(Sir William Anson.)
Question proposed, "That sub-Section (3) stand part of the Clause."
MR. WHITLEYasked, as he had not the new Clause by the Prime Minister containing the financial arrangements before him, whether under that the grant would be paid to the county authority, and not in any case to the individual schools.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was not prepared to discuss the new Clause
1362
until it came before the committee. All he said was that the new clause made it unnecessary for this sub-section to remain in the Bill
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government proposed to go into Committee on the Financial Clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should be glad to consult the convenience of the House on that point.
MR. CHANNINGpointed out that the Resolution might well be discussed before the Committee came to Clause 13.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was under the impression that the new Clause was put down to come after Clause 10. He wished to know whether it would be taken after Clause 10 or at the end of the twenty Clauses of the Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that all the new Clauses would be discussed at the end of the Bill, but the Resolution would be discussed before.
MR. CHAPLINasked when the Resolution would be put upon the Paper.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment is on the Paper, and the Resolution is practically the same.
Question put and negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. TREVELYANsaid the central fact of this Clause was the appointment of the teachers. The claim of the Opposition was that, as teachers were in future to be paid from public funds, their appointment should be in the hands of a public authority. On this there had been absolutely no concession made, and there had been no adequate defence of the Government position. Teachers were to remain subject to a religious test, because in the opinion of the Government the denominational character of the schools must be maintained, but the alternative to the Government proposal had never, really, been discussed. The Colonial Secretary had made a defence of the system of tests, but the only argument he could bring forward was that, under many School Boards, tests—perhaps not open and avowed, hut none the less effective—existed, and that therefore, in pursuance of the principles of religious equality, tests ought to be maintained in the voluntary schools. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? There were no School Boards of any size under which religious tests for teachers were permitted. The only instance in the history of School Boards in which a considerable party had proposed such a thing was when Mr. Athelstan Riley and his friends on the London School Board endeavoured to impose a Church test on teachers, and were utterly smashed at the ensuing election. The defence of the Government was that the policy laid down in the Clause was the only means by which the religious character of the denominational schools could be maintained. But was that the case? The possible alternative had never been really discussed. The proposition that the clergy should be allowed to go into the schools, both
1364
voluntary and board, and give whatever religious instruction they chose had in it the elements of a settlement which might be accepted, but the essential part of a settlement on those lines was that first of all there should be complete popular control. It was frequently said that such a settlement was out of the question because Nonconformists and the upholders of School Boards would not. on any account allow the clergymen of religious denominations to go into the board schools. That was entirely contrary to the fact, because when the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was first placed on the Paper, the authorised representatives of the Free Churches definitely announced that they were ready to consider every possible facility given to denominations for the giving of religious instruction in or out of the school if popular control were first accorded in all schools. The Committee had to deal with two general ideas—the demand for complete popular control, and the demand of the private individual for religious education for his children. Those two ideas were perfectly compatible, but not under the plan of the Government, because popular control was refused. If the appointment of teachers were under popular control it might be left to the other side to settle the exact conditions under which denominational instruction should be given. The central evil of the Clause was the detestable proposition that 60,000 Civil servants whose salaries were to be paid out of public money, were for ever to have a religious test imposed upon them. That was why the opponents of the measure scorned the miserable concessions that had been made, and sometimes in their indignation called them a mockery. They certainly were a mockery compared with the great end they desired, viz., perfect independence for an enormous body of Civil servants, and therefore, they opposed and would continue to oppose the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he desired not to go into a general discussion of the Clause, but to say a word on the position in which it left

1365
the new authority. The Government had created a new education authority which they said was more to be trusted than an authority elected ad hoc. Then Clause began by investing the great municipal institutions with this authority, and finished by giving to another authority power to overrule the decisions: of the education authority, and Borough and County Councils would be in a position of subordination and humiliation in which they did not stand in regard to any other subject. It was his opinion that the Clause would create much friction, and be a temptation and a provocation to managers to appeal against an authority they disliked. He protested against the introduction of an over-ruling authority as provided by the Clause, because he believed it would lead to mischievous friction, and be injurious to the education of the country.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsupported the protest of his right lion, friend. As the Clause stood it would allow an appeal to the Board of Education on nearly every question of detail of administration. What made the matter worse was that the Government themselves did not intend that to be the case, and, in debate, had constantly limited the jurisdiction of the appeal. Many explanations of intentions upon this point had been made, but they had not found insertion in the Bill, which remained practically unaltered. There ought to be an end of this explaining away of the Bill in a sense contrary to the text. The Board of Education or the county court judge would not go behind the Bill and act on the explanations given in debate: they would abide by the words of the Act. The Government had had their difficulties with their own side, and to meet those difficulties explanations had been given to enlarge the Bill and make it appear more liberal. In fact, the commentaries were much better than the text, and the Government were bound, before the Bill left the House, to put their explanations into the scripture of the Bill. In sanitary matters ordinarily a little town council had supreme authority; where schools were
1366
concerned similar powers were withheld from a great County Council simply because of the intrusion of the sectarian element. What had religion to do with the sanitary condition of a building? If it was a question of insanitary air the Council had supreme power; if they blended the insanitary air with Church atmosphere there was an appeal to the Board of Education. The questions asked yesterday with regard to the veto on the teachers' appointment showed that the members of the Government could not agree on the meaning of their own Bill. Support was secured for it by its vagueness. Everybody could see what they wanted in it, and therefore could vote for it. But when it came to be put in operation this vagueness would not do, and the defects of the Bill would come out. Hence it was that they wanted to know exactly what the Bill meant before it left the House of Commons.
MR. M'KENNAhoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not consider half an hour sufficient in which to discuss the question that Clause 8 stand part of the Bill. He objected to both the form and the substance of the Clause. That was described as dealing with the maintenance of schools, whereas, as a matter of fact, it did nothing of the sort. It was the only Clause in the Bill which professed to set up and define the relations between the local authority and the managers, and its fatal defect was that the principal relations were not definitely stated, but merely inferred. Complaints were frequently made of legislation by reference, but legislation by inference was far worse.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 453.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fenwick, Charles

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

Aird, Sir John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Finch, George H

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc, Stroud

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moulton, John Fletcher

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Fisher, William Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fison, Frederick William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Anstruther, H. T.

Flower, Ernest

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Paulton, James Mellor

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pemberton, John S. G

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Philipps, John Wynford

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Price, Robert John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Graham, Henry Robert

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balfour. Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Grant, Corrie

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bartley, George C. T.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

Ratcliff, R. F

Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin

Grenfell, William Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Rea, Russell

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Beckett, Ernest William

Groves, James Grimble

Rickett, J. Compton

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Gunter, Sir Robert

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bignold, Arthur

Hain, Edward

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bigwood, James

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Rolleston, Sir John F L

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bond, Edward

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Boulnois, Edmund

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Shackleton, David James

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Sharpe, William Edward T

Burns, John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Shipman, Dr. John G

Burt, Thomas

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Caldwell, James

Helder, Augustus

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Cameron, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Horner, Frederick William

Soares, Ernest J

Campbell Bannerman, Sir H.

Horniman, Frederick John

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

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

Jacoby, James Alfred

Stroyan, John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Kemp, George

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kimber, Henry

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lambert, George

Thornton, Percy M

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Tollemache, Henry James

Charrington, Spencer

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Leng, Sir John

Valentia, Viscount

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lewis, John Herbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lloyd-George, David

Wallace, Robert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lough, Thomas

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowe, Francis William

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macdona, John Cumming

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Crae, George

Wylie, Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Younger, William

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Kenna, Reginald

Yoxall, James Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Faber, George Denison (York)

Markham, Arthur Basil

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and Mr. Henry Hobhouse.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E (Wigt'n

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

NOES.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

Carew, James Laurence

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Thompson, Dr E C (Monaghn, N

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

Cripps, Charles Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Tully, Jasper

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Warde, Colonel C. E

Davenport, William Bromley

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Galloway, William Johnson

Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sir James Ferguson and

Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Mr. Laurence Hardy.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Round, Rt. Hon. James

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Aird, Sir John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

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

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fison, Frederick William

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Flower, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Foster, Phillip S (Warwick, S.W

Pemberton, John S. G

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Galloway, William Johnson

Percy, Earl

Bartley, George C. T

Gardner, Ernest

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Garfit, William

Plummer, Walter R

Beckett, Ernest William

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bentinck, Lord Henry C

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Beresford, Lord Charles William

Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

Purvis, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bignold, Arthur

Graham, Henry Robert

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Bigwood, James

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

Bill, Charles

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bond, Edward

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Rolleston, Sir John F. L

Boulnois, Edmund

Gunter, Sir Robert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bousfield, William Robert

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hain, Edward

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hall, Edward Marshall

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.J

Butcher, John George

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Seely. Maj. J.E. B. (Isleof Wight

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

Seton-Karr, Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Sharpe, William Edward T

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

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

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Helder, Augustus

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J. (Birm

Horner, Frederick William

Stroyan, John

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A (Worc

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chapman, Edward

Hozier, Hon. JamesHenry Cecil

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

Charrington, Spencer

Kemp, George

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Thornton, Percy M

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kimber, Henry

Tollemache, Henry James

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Valentia, Viscount

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Warde, Colonel C. E

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

Crossley, Sir Savile

Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

Davenport, William Bromley

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wylie, Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth

Younger, William

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Macdona, John Cumming

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H.E (Wigt'n

NOES.

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc, Stroud

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Caine, William Sproston

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Caldwell, James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B

Burt, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

1368

1369

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Price, Robert John

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Rea, Russell

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Shackleton, David James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lloyd-George, David

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Crae, George

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

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Trevolyan, Charles Philips

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mather, Sir William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Yoxall, James Henry

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Moulton, John Fletcher

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

(5.35.) Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165 Noes, 69. (Division List No. 454.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Charrington, Spencer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Aird, Sir John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Graham, Henry Robert

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Grevile, Hon. Ronald

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Groves, James Grimble

Arrol, Sir William

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bam, Colonel James Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

Cross, Alexander, Glasgow

Hain, Edward

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Bartley, George C. T

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Beckett, Ernest William

Davenport, William Bromley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bentinck, Lord Henry C

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Beresford, L'rd Charles William

Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Helder, Augustus

Bignold, Arthur

Duke, Henry Edward

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bill, Charles

Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Horner, Frederick William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Bond, Edward

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Boulnois, Edmund

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kemp, George

Bousfield, William Robert

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Dembigh)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

Butcher, John George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kimber, Henry

Campbell, Rt Hn.J. A (Glasgow

Fisher, William Hayes

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Fison, Frederick William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Flower, Ernest

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Forster, Henry William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbysh

Foster PhilipS (Warwick. S.W

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.)

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A (Worc

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

Chapman, Edward

Gore, Hn G. R. COrmsby (Salop

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Purvis, Robert

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Macdona, John Cumming

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

Thornton, Percy M

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Tollemache, Henry James

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tomlinson, Sir William Edw. M

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G

Rollertson, Sir John F. L.

Valentia, Viscount

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Warde, Colonel C. E

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Welby, Rt Col A.C. E. (Taunton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J

Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Seely, Maj J.E. B.(Isle ofWight

Willoughby de Eresby Lord

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sharpe, William Edward T

Wylie, Alexander

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Younger, William

Pemberton, Jonn S. G

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Percy, Earl

Spencer, Sir E. (W Bromwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

Plummer, Walter R

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stroyan, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

NOES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

Paulton, James Mellor

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Philipps, John Wynford

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Price, Robert John

Burt, Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Caine, William Sproston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Shackleton, David James

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G

Campbell Bannerman, Sir H

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Soarnes, Arthur Wellesley

Dalziel, James Henry

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lough, Thomas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dunn, Sir William

M'Crae, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

M'Kenna, Reginald

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

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

Fenwick, Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mather, Sir William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Grant, Corrie

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Moulton. John Fletcher

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nussey, Thomas Willans

It being after half-past five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
MR. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the l6th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock till Monday next.