HC Deb 31 October 1902 vol 113 cc1311-72

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 8:—

(12.10.) COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

hoped 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 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 (Aberdeen, S.)

We have no lady Members of the House at present.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said 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 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 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 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 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."

*(12.35.) THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)

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 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 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 GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said 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 HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said 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 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 BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tonbridge)

said 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 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 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 (Halifax)

What a shame !

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN

said 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 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.

(1.8.) LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)

said 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 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 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,) Manchester, E.

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 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 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 (Greenwich)

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 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 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 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.

(1.35.) LORD HUGH CECIL

said 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.)

(2.30.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

thanked 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 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 HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

thought 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 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 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 ANSON

said 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 therefore would not be likely to interfere with the ordinary course of religious teaching in the school.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

said 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 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.

(3.0.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said 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 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 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. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

said 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- 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.

(3.23.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)

was 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 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 KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)

said 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 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. GOULDING (Wiltshire, Devizes)

said 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 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 HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said 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 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. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

said 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 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 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 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 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 BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said 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 LORD into the division lobby against an Amendment which would have a very evil effect on the Bill.

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 CECIL

said 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. BALFOUR

said 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 CECIL

said he did not know what his right lion, friend meant by "control."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said 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 CECIL

said 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 HARCOURT

said 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 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. PEMBERTON (Sunderland)

said 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 FERGUSSON

was understood to say that he thought it was most desirable that the denominational managers 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. COHEN (Islington, E.)

agreed 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 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 CECIL

said 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.

(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. WHITLEY

asked, 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 ANSON

said he was not prepared to discuss the new Clause 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-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government proposed to go into Committee on the Financial Clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he should be glad to consult the convenience of the House on that point.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

pointed out that the Resolution might well be discussed before the Committee came to Clause 13.

MR. WHITLEY

said 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. BALFOUR

said that all the new Clauses would be discussed at the end of the Bill, but the Resolution would be discussed before.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

asked 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. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)

said 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 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 HARCOURT

said he desired not to go into a general discussion of the Clause, but to say a word on the position in which it left 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-GEORGE

supported 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 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'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

hoped 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.

(5.28.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose 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
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.