HC Deb 11 December 1906 vol 167 cc153-205

moved—"That the question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords Amendments to the Education (England and Wales) Bill be put with respect to the Amendments as a whole." He said,—I think I may with advantage first of all take notice of an argument which has been used in regard to our conduct of this business, and which I think, though not a weighty argument, deserves some little attention. We have been accused of inconsistency because yesterday we first of all invited the House thon and there to take the Lords Amendments to the Education Bill into consideration, and afterwards moved the adjournment of the proceedings with a view to having the opportunity which I now take of moving the Motion which stands in my name. There is no inconsistency there. Hon. Members are perfectly familiar with the practice of a Member in charge of a Bill to move that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" merely for the purpose of instantly reporting progress in order to obtain a stage when there is some necessity or expediency in delaying the further progress of the Bill. That is exactly the circumstance in which we were placed yesterday, because the Motion which I now make, when it is on the Paper, takes precedence of any other Motion, and therefore it could not come on yesterday; nor could we have given any notice of it that would not have superseded the whole question of taking into consideration the Lords Amendments. Now, at any rate, we come to the Motion which indicates the manner in which we believe these Amendments ought to be treated. There were two courses obviously open to the Government. They might have proposed that the House take into consideration one after another all the many Amendments which have been made in another place; or they might have moved in ordinary form either that these Amendments be considered on this day three months or that they be laid aside. If we had listened to the dictates of hasty temper, or of any desire or hope of a conflict between the two Chambers, we should have taken the latter of those two courses. But we were restrained from doing so by several considerations. It would have involved the waste of a year's work upon this great subject, the abandonment of an honest attempt on our part to find a solution for our hot and difficult problem. It would have involved the continuance of a bitter struggle which, I am afraid, does no good to the cause of education in this country. It would have hampered most seriously the administration of education in England and Wales, and it would have complicated to a great extent reforms upon which this country had set its heart in respect of other matters. Well, these considerations of themselves were enough to make us shrink from taking the violent course to which I have referred. We desire not to shut the door against compromise. We do not desire to see the coup de grace given to this measure, however imperfect different people may think it, until we are certain that coup de grace is intended in any quarter. For those reasons, as well as for other reasons, which I will presently refer to, seeing another course which has many advantages, we resisted the temptation, if we ever were tempted, to treat the Lords Amendments in that summary manner.

Then the alternative, according to precedents, was that the House should be invited to consider these Amendments seriatim—one by one through the whole list. Now let me point out to the House that this is not a usual case. It is not the case of one or two, or half-a-dozen Amendments which we thought objectionable, which we thought blemishes upon the Bill. It is not the case of a Bill which we considered was marred and damaged by what had been done to it. It is the case of a Bill which has been altered in tone and spirit, and purpose and intention, and which has been perverted to a purpose directly antagonistic to those purposes for which it was sent up from this House. Let the House bear in mind the fundamental difference that has prevailed in this country for many years between those who are in favour of a national system of education and those who care for a! denominational system. What has been the traditional policy of the Liberal Party in regard to this great subject? There are some of us old enough in Parliamentary age to remember the Act of 1870 when it was discussed in this House. Then it became clear, I think, that the great body of the Liberal Members of Parliament wished to have as large a step taken as possible towards the establishment of a national system of education. And if the other system was recognised, I will even say tolerated, it was because of its existing already and its doing, no doubt, in its detailed work useful service to the country. We pass on, and anyone who carries his mind back will remember that on every occasion that the question was dealt with legislatively the Liberal idea came nearer and nearer to a national system; and it was, I am afraid, the desire of others who did not belong to our Party to promote and foster the denominational system. Then, when we came to the Bill of 1902 we regarded it as an attempt on the part of denominationalism to capture national education, and they accomplished it to a great extent by what I think was the dangerous, and may ultimately prove the disastrous, policy of obtaining support from the rates. As Archbishop Temple said, they placed themselves on the slippery slope of the rates. But we opposed it. These events show a consistent purpose on this side of the House, and our desire in that direction has been continued and intensified down to this date. Our Bill as it left this House did not profess for a moment to be a symmetrical or a logical system of educational government. It could not be with the material we had to deal with, and with the circumstances in which the educational system of the country was placed. But it was an honest endeavour to bring it back as nearly as we could to the national ideal, with an indulgent, and I will even say a generous recognition of the interests and desires of those who worked upon and favoured the sectarian model. The object of our Bill was to increase and develop the national ideal in national education. What have we before us now? We have that Bill penetrated by Amendments nearly every one of them in the direction opposed to that ideal, and bringing us back near and nearer to the other system and theory of educational organisation. How are we to deal with a Bill which comes to us in a form diverted, or perverted, I will say, from the purpose of those who introduced it and passed it through the House? Precedents point, no doubt, to dealing with these Amendments seriatim, one after the other. But these Amendments, taken separately, might have a very different complexion from what they present when we view them all together. In order to understand the change that has been made in the Bill you cannot take one Amendment here and one Amendment there. You must look at the effect of the whole scheme. As I say, precedents are in favour of dealing with these one by one. But whose precedents were they? They were the precedents of the Liberal Party, because it has always been the Liberal Party on whom has fallen the brunt of the work of maintaining such conflict as was necessary with the pretensions and attempts of the House of Lords. But it is the business, not only of a new Parliament, as my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, but of the Liberal Party, especially in a matter in which they themselves are the most experienced persons, to establish new precedents rather than follow the old in all cases. The Leader of the Opposition has had a different experience altogether. I have sometimes thought that he speaks in reference to this subject, both inside and outside the House, as a sort of unrecognised mouthpiece of the House of Lords. Nay, he goes a little further. We have seen him quite recently assuming the character of a sort of director-in-chief. He is a man having authority over Houses; and he says to the one, "Go," and he goeth; and to the other, "Do this," and he does it. Therefore I decline altogether to be lectured on proper constitutional conduct in matters between the two Houses by the right hon. Gentleman. It is we and those who went before us who always have had to maintain the constitutional protest against any encroachment, or any approach to encroachment, upon what we think constitutional practice by the House of Lords.

But how would this method of dealing with the Amendments seriatim work in practice? I find that there are at least forty Amendments of substance to which we could not possibly agree, and they are related and inter-related one to another, they overlap each other and play up to each other, and give accumulative effect to each in such a way that you cannot deal with them separately. I take the very first Amendment to Clause 1 as an example. It says that in every school there shall be an opportunity for religious instruction. This proposal in itself is alluring to many people—to most people, probably. It is so innocent, too. It has a good, wholesome, convenient, respectable flavour about it. No definition of the religion. Something or other! But that Amendment which seems so innocent and even attractive in itself assumes a different character altogether when you read into it all the other Amendments made in the Bill, which show what was meant by those who made them. We therefore invite the House to deal with this matter in globo, and consider the Amendments as a whole, for that is the only way in which we can judge of their full effect. For my part I am still not without hopes that an accommodation of our differences may be found. But the chances of such an accommodation would be imperilled, if not destroyed, if we launched on the consideration and the discussion of individual Amendments when still unaware what concessions may after all satisfy the wishes and the opinions of those who control matters in another place. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite is going to object to this mode of dealing with those Amendments, I want to know—does he wish to save the Bill or to destroy it; does he wish to slam the door upon conciliation, or does he wish to keep the door open? If he does wish to save the Bill and to keep the door open, then the best thing to do is that which we have adopted—namely, to clear the Bill of those Amendments. Most of them are familiar to the House. Most of them were moved in Committee in this House. Therefore they are not new or strange Amendments. We have seen them, and the House has rejected them. It is my honest belief that those who voted for them in another place voted for them one by one, thinking what nice, charming, innocent Amendments they were, and had no opportunity until the last moment of realising what their cumulative effect might be. Then I say that if we get rid of these Amendments what we should like to see done would be to take the Bill as it left this House as a basis, and build into it certain alterations, certain Amendments, such as were indicated by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education yesterday, which would bring the Bill into closer harmony with the wishes and desires of those who favour a system of denominational education. I repudiate the idea of any want of consideration for the House of Lords. We hear of the Amendments being flung back in the face of the House of Lords. I believe, as I have said, that they have been led on little by little to this impasse to which they have brought us. Let them look ahead at the whole field, and I believe they will be startled to find what is the true nature and bearing of their work, and even now, therefore, I firmly believe that it is not only possible, but even probable, that counsels of moderation and peace will prevail. I beg to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords' Amendments to the Education (England and Wales) Bill be put with respect to the Amendments as a whole."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

Before the Prime Minister got up to propose the Resolution he has placed on the Paper I not only hoped, but expected, that I should be spared the task and the House the weariness of hearing me say anything more upon the subject of education and the principles which ought to govern the House in dealing with it. I had hoped he would confine himself to the terms of the Motion and that I should thereby be enabled to follow his example. But I must preface some comments on the more strictly relevant part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech by one or two observations on the extraordinary version which he has given of Liberal policy, as he calls it, in regard to education, and the extraordinary theory which he has laid down as to the general educational scheme at which this country ought to aim. He has told us in so many words that there are two ideals of education—one which he is pleased to describe as denominational, and the other as national. I need hardly say it is the national system, whatever that may be, which he conceives himself to be supporting; it is the denominational system which we on this side are supposed to be advocating. If by a national system he means a system that, as far as secular instruction is concerned, is put -upon a broad basis, fitted in its primary and secondary parts as a carefully articulated whole and placed under competent local authorities acting in conjunction with the Board of Education and this House—why, Sir, we are all in favour of that, and it is the Party on this side of the House who have established it. If he means by a national system, as he must mean, in connection with this religious controversy, a scheme in which the nation, acting either through this House or through the local authorities appointed by this House, are to settle the religion of each child, then I say that is not the ideal of my friends, and I do not believe, if they would examine their hearts and consciences, that it is really the ideal of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The ideal which we ought to have in regard to religious matters is not the national ideal as expressed by the Prime Minister now, but the ideal he expressed not long ago—namely, that every child should be brought up in the religion—that is to say, the denominational religion—of his parent until he is old enough to select his own form of creed for himself. That is my ideal. When hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, talk in this glib fashion they are really going back to the ideal of a national Church held in the time of Laud—a Church which was to be set up by the nation, and which, when it was set up, was to see that every child in the nation was brought up according to its tenets. Sir, that is two centuries old. It has been abandoned by every thinker of every school of thought in this country, and now we are going to have the same ideal, rejected in the form of a Church for adults, brought back in the form of a system of education for children. We are all agreed in our desire for a national system as far as secular learning is concerned, and some of us have done a good deal to institute such a system; but we are not agreed and ought not to move a single step in the direction of making it more difficult for the parent to have his child educated in his own religion. All our efforts should be devoted to the attempt, so far as practicable, to make it possible that every child should be brought up in the voluntary schools of the country in the religion which its parents desire. Let that be repudiated formally by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they please. That is our ideal. As far as I am able to trace any single scheme in the Lords' Amendments, it seems to me that the connecting thread of policy running through them is to give that parental freedom. The House will forgive me for having again after the long speech of yesterday gone into the educational aspect of the education controversy.

I now refer to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was not concerned with our ideas of education, either on this side of the House or on that; I come to the actual procedure, the unexampled, and, I think, wholly unjustifiable procedure which the right hon. Gentleman is recommending to the House as its responsible leader in the controversy which has now unfortunately arisen between the two Houses. He does not deny that it is entirely novel, but the patent for it he jauntily claims on the ground that it has been the business of his Party to manufacture hitherto all the expedients by which this House has been able to deal with the House of Lords, and that improvements upon those methods naturally fall to those who have so long practised them. Let us examine what this new method is. In the first place it is a now form of gag. The House is not to be allowed, as it always has been allowed, to discuss the Amendments in the only form in which they can be discussed—that is, seriatim. It is to treat them in globo. The good and the bad alike are to be rejected by one common operation, to meet with one common fate, and to carry out the idea of the Roman emperor who desired that the citizens of Rome had one neck that he might cut it. Even if all the Lords Amendments were bad such procedure could not be justified. But these Amendments are not all bad, at least I suppose not, because a great many of them were proposed by Lord Crowe in behalf of the Government. You are going to reject all these without discussion. You are going to lump them up in globo, with all the more peccant portion of the House of Lords Amendments, and all of them you are going to condemn by one summary and unheard of process. And what is the justification for this course? The right hon. Gentleman says the alternative open to us, if we are not to kill the Bill ourselves by parricidal hands, is to take the Amendments one by one, and that that is a process which will take so long that we cannot undertake to embark upon it. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no such difficulty. I recognise now, as I have always done, that the four days which were suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself were as much as, with one solitary exception, has over been devoted to the discussion of Lords Amendments. I made it perfectly clear through the ordinary channels of communication, that, as far as my friends were concerned, we were quite content to confine our attention to the small number of Amendments we thought really elementary and vital, and to let go without discussion the incomparably larger mass of Amendments which crowd the Order Paper. The nine or ten Amendments which we desired to see discussed were exactly the Amendments on which from an opposite point of view the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been concentrated, and exactly the same Amendments on which from their special point of view the Irish representatives would desire to speak. I do not believe there were more than nine or ten or eleven questions on which the House would have desired to say a word, and there would have been no difficulty. I do not think it is any breach of Parliamentary confidence to say that when I left town late on Friday I believed an arrangement had been come to between the two sides on the basis of a four days discussion on these Amendments. I learned with the profoundest astonishment on Saturday morning that the four days indicated in an answer to a Question had been abandoned and a wholly new method of procedure adopted. I am justified in sweeping aside as wholly irrelevant to this discussion the shallow plea put forward by the Government that this plan, with all its defects, was forced upon them by the material impossibility of getting through the discussion on the Lords' Amendments within the four days allotted to them. What other motive, can we imagine, has animated the breasts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? My firm belief is that they were most reluctant to embark on the kind of debate that would have been forced upon them. The whole scheme of the Lords Amendments, which seems so appalling to the Prime Minister and so strange and terrible to the Minister for Education, can be defended point by point out of their own speeches. This wickedness which the Lords have committed they committed at their instigation. the Lords have founded themelves on the utterances of the most responsible Minister for all the broad principles at the bottom of their Amendments. [An Hon. Member—"Quote."] I am not going to quote all the speeches; I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman desires it; but if he is so very anxious to deal with this point, I will give him one or two examples, if he likes. I will take one on which I understand there is a really stronger feeling than on any other—I mean the Amendment of the Lords which in single-school areas permits Church children, or Roman Catholic children, or any other children whose parents desire some kind of teaching not contemplated by the Cowper-Temple clause, to be obtained if the children are in sufficient number and no other school is available. That, I infer, is almost the wickedest thing the Lords have done. Well, I listened, with a sympathy, which grew ultimately from mere repetition into weariness, to the interminable speeches made to me during the Bill of 1902 on the hardship suffered in the single-school areas by the parents of children who did not happen to approve the religious education given in that single school. [An Hon. Member: What did you do with the clause?] If the hon. Member will not interrupt me, but will look at the Act of 1902, he will see I did a great deal. But we are not now on the Act of 1902. That grievance has, and I am glad it has, been totally repealed, so far as the children of Nonconformist parents are concerned, by the Bill of the present Government. There is now no area in the country where the children of Nonconformists cannot obtain the religion which the parents desire in the public elementary schools at the public expense ["No, no"], and I am glad of that. But what you are grudging is that at the denomination's expense, or at the parents' expense, liberty to obtain the education desired by the parents should be given in the school area where the only school is a provided school. The view of the Minister of Education goes far beyond the Lords Amendments. Both in his speeches and his writings up to a very recent date he has frankly admitted that, so far as the equities of the case are concerned, he would like to see facilities given not merely in single-school areas, but throughout the whole country. The House of Lords have not gone that length; they have not gone half that length; they have not gone within a measurable distance of that ideal; but that ideal to its whole extent was the ideal that commended itself to the Minister for Education. If the hon. Gentleman is not content with that illustration I can give him another. It relates to the Clause 4 schools. The Government have said over and over again that they want to make Clause 4 a reality, a really genuine concession to those who want denominational education. As Clause 4 went to the Lords it was a mere sham. It did not even begin to carry out this object. We were all in the happy position of hearing soft words spoken by Ministers to the Nonconformists behind them, and who then turned round and spoke equally soft words to the Irish Members below the gangway. That kind of negotiation is one which can be carried on successfully and effectually in two separate chambers where they are no reporters. It cannot be carried out effectually and successfully across the floor of the House, when any Member of this House can come down upon the Minister and ask "Do you mean this or do you not—do you allow in Church schools the teacher to be chosen with a view to giving religious instruction?" I do not wonder that the Government do not want to face the debate on the whole series of points arising on Clause 4. And what fell from the Leader of the Irish Party yesterday more than ever convinces me that the last thing they ought to want is to face that debate. The hon. Member was, indeed, extremely obscure in his indications of policy; but while it was obvious that he was dying to come to some kind of understanding with the Government, it was equally obvious to me that the basis did not exist for it and that it was impossible, for the Government, in the open, and obliged to answer plain questions about plain matters of fact connected with the Bill, would be obliged to quarrel either with their friends behind them, or with their friends below the gangway on this side. Without asking hon. Members to conform to too high a standard of public virtue, I confess I must think they are justified, from their own point of view, in trying to escape from an impossible and most embarrassing position by an expedient which will effectually enable them to escape, whatever damage it may do to the constitutional procedure of this House. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is good enough to say that he thinks I have spoken here an elsewhere as if I had some title to interfere in the management by the House of Lords of their own affairs and in the policy which that House is to adopt. No charge can be more unfounded. I do not come here either to say what I think the House of Lords ought to do or how this particular procedure will affect them or ought to affect them in connection with this and other Bills. That is their own affair. He said, as the Minister for Education yesterday said, that he would speak of the House of Lords with all courtesy; and indeed he laid it down as a universal rule that Ministers in this House ought always to speak of the House of Lords with courtesy. That is a critical maxim which, like all important critical maxims, I presume is to be deduced from the practice of the best authors; and, I take it, when he laid down the proposition that all Ministers of the Crown ought always to speak of the Lords in courteous terms it was after a careful and minute study of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But, in truth, I should have thought that a more insulting procedure could not be adopted by one House in regard to the other, and I think that may be another reason why it commends itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that if a thing is to be done they probably prefer doing it in a manner which is plainly and obviously offensive to those against whom it is directed rather than to take the more usual and, I should have thought, the far more courteous and conciliatory method.

That was a very astonishing declaration which the Prime Minister made when he said that his object really was to pursue a policy of peace. Conciliation is what he has been aiming at. This Motion, whatever it may look like on the surface, is, if you look at its interior meaning, really an olive branch sent to the House of Lords. It is moved with the object of producing harmony between the Houses. Let me examine whether there is the smallest plausability in that contention. We send back the Bill to the House of Lords, with three or four vaguely sketched points on which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education says that he and his colleagues are open either to reason or to pressure. If he wants the House of Lords to enter into this plan, why does he not tell us frankly what he wants to do? Is the leader of the majority in the other House to call at Downing Street and say he has studied carefully the suggestions of the Minister for Education, but for the life of him he cannot see what it is that is to be done, but if the Minister will be courteous enough to give him the necessary information he will consider the matter? Or is the Prime Minister going to Lansdowne House to ask how far the Lords will give way? What is this adumbration of a treaty between the high contracting parties in this case? Is it not manifest that the House of Lords will not be in a position to know what the view of this House is if you refuse to allow this House to discuss the matter? The Government have changed their minds already, whether in deference to Members behind them or not, in regard to procedure, and their policy of last Thursday is not the policy of to-day. What security has anybody got that if the House of Lords were to introduce an Amendment it would be accepted by this House? There might be some security if the Amendments were by the Government here laid down in plain terms which would give their exact intention, for then we should hear what is thought of them by the Nonconformist Party, by the Irish Members, by various Members of the House, even by the Opposition, if they count for anything in that matter at all. But I venture to say there is no human being in the House who can tell with regard to any kind of arrangement between the Houses, whether, if adopted by the Lords, it would be accepted by this House. You refuse to us the only means of obtaining information on that point by passing this Resolution, and having refused information on this, the only vital point, you ask in obscure words others to come into obscure consultation with you.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I want the Bill to survive or not. I do not want it to survive in the form in which you propose to send it back to the House of Lords by your Resolution. Rather, far rather, would I see the Bill perish and the country given further time to consider upon what lines we should deal with parental rights in regard to the education of children than I would allow this most crude, most unjust measure to be placed on the Statute-book. The Lords Amendments have been described by hon. Members opposite as having introduced a leaven which has utterly destroyed the original methods of the Bill. In my opinion the Amendments have done something materially to mitigate the evils in the Bill. They have done a great deal to preserve parental rights where they exist and to restore them where they do not exist. I think it would be a lamentable calamity if it were understood that the interpretation to be placed on the result of the general election was that parents in this country were henceforth to find themselves bound hand and foot, so far as the religious education of their children is concerned, in the trammels of what the right hon. Gentleman calls this national system of education. No man can say what will be the fate of a measure treated in this tyrannical, irresponsible fashion by the great majority sitting opposite. They have, of course, the power to carry the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman; they can if they please start this new precedent, and which I doubt not will in future be frequently called up if once started, to regulate the relations between the two Houses; we will have no part or lot in starting a precedent which may have such calamitous consequences. Quite apart from the evil results of the precedent as regards the future, I say the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman deprives us of a legitimate opportunity for discussing in detail points upon which sections of the House are divided and which the House would deal with in the only fashion they should be dealt with, and which would give the House of Lords the knowledge it must have, if it is really to survey with effect the situation with which it has to deal. Above all, the right hon. Gentleman has shown by his speech that the ideals of education cherished by himself and his friends are ideals tainted at their source, and are utterly inconsistent with any sound plan by which we may hope to educate the youth of this country in the religion of their fathers. I shall oppose the Motion.


Many ingenious interpretations have been placed, at different times, and by different people, upon the results, of the late general election, but it has been reserved for the right hon. Gentleman to discover that what the people really wanted when they returned the present majority to Parliament was not popular control, but parental control, in relation to public elementary education. The right hon. Gentleman has by some lapse of memory quoted some words as having been said by the Prime Minister, at some time, somewhere, that a parent ought to have the right to bring up his child in the religion in which the parent believes until the child is old enough to form his own opinion. Well, so say all of us. But that is not the question: the question is whether the parent is to have that right to such education for his child in a school provided and maintained at the public expense.


But does not pay for religious teaching.


He pays for the maintenance of the school. It is that point, as the Prime Minister has said, which constitutes the turning point between a national and a denominational system, and if on that point the general election can be said to have turned at all, the decision was in favour of a national system and public control. But this is only indirectly relevant to the Question before the House. My complaint against the speech we have just heard is that the right hon. Gentleman has ignored, or it seems to me he has ignored, the central dominant fact of the situation distinguishing this case, so far as my knowledge and research goes, from all preceding cases in which the House of Lords has refused to acquiesce in legislation passed by this House. What is this case? If you take the Amendments made by the House of Lords, if you look at them in their number, complexity and character, they amount, not so much to a reconstruction, but to a reincarnation, an absolutely now Bill, which goes by the old name. It is not, therefore, a mere question of considering this or that clause, or of accepting or rejecting an Amendment of any detail; here under the guise of Amendments we have proposals which completely alter the spirit, purpose, aid effect of the Bill. The whole picture is altered, the whole landscape is changed, the whole scene is submerged so that not the most discerning eye can trace any of its original features except here and there in a broken and mutilated form. Apparent rari nuntes in gurgite vasto. We should have been perfectly justified in the circumstances if we had asked the House either to discharge the order for considering the Lords Amendments, or had recommended the postponement of consideration for three or six months. We should have been perfectly justified, I say, if we had wanted to do as has been suggested, to flout or insult the House of Lords or to kill the Bill, and if we desired to shut the door to any possible agreement, that is the course that undoubtedly would have been taken. But we do not want to kill the Bill.

May I, in all candour, state to the House why we do not want to kill the Bill? In the first place, because, apart from all these religious difficulties which encumber the earlier clauses and the first part, the Bill contains invaluable provisions for the betterment of our system of national education. There is the medical inspection of the children; the enlarged powers for the provision of play centres; elastic means for the delegation of powers from county councils to local bodies; improvements in supervision—these are provisions which anybody really interested in the development of our educational system and willing to put the welfare of the children beyond the controversies of sects would be sorry to see sacrificed. In the next place, as regards the religious difficulty itself, so far as it is dealt with by the Bill, we believe now, as we believed in the summer, that the Bill as sent up to the House of Lords—susceptible as we knew and always said it was to modification and amendment within the scope and operation of its general provisions—was a Bill which offered a solution—not a very logical solution, I do not think we shall ever get that—but a workable.settlement of religious controversies. Further, we on these benches feel, and so I am sure do a great many Members opposite feel, that a time has come for a truce in this barren, desolating warfare, which for so many years has hampered all proposals for educational progress. An additional and final reason for desiring, earnestly desiring, that some legislation on this subject should this year pass into law, is that from an ad- ministrative point of view, whatever the decision of the House of Lords may be upon the West Riding case, now sub judice, from an administrative point of view legislation is urgently needed, not only to soothe the consciences of passive resistors, but in order, as I fear will very soon be found out if the Bill does perish—to promote and maintain the interests of the non-provided schools. On all those grounds, which traverse the whole field of controversy, the Government are most anxious to keep the Bill alive, and that is the reason we did not take the course, tempting as it was to the natural man, of asking the House to postpone consideration of the Lords Amendments, thereby killing the Bill on the floor of the House of Commons.

As to discussing the Amendments seriatim, I think, having regard to their number and character and the time at our disposal, such a discussion would be a sheer waste of time. It is quite true that some of the Amendments, like that to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, could be wiped out in a moment us with a sponge, and to them we should not have hesitated to apply that summary and drastic process. But as regards the bulk of them, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said, they are so co-related and interdependent one upon another that to discuss them seriatim would be nothing short of a squandering of time and energy. We gave much consideration to the subject, and we were of course influenced by the unbroken course of precedent. The more we examined the Amendments the more we felt clear that it would be perfectly idle to proceed by any form of compartmental closure, for it would have had to come to that. It is ridiculous to say there are only nine or ten Amendments on which attention would have been concentrated, and that with the general consent of the House discussion on all others would have been foregone. The right hon. Gentleman might have been speaking for himself; did he speak for the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone?


Yes. I was speaking for all those Gentlemen who follow me.


In that case I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent and novel state of discipline that prevails. Although on the present occasion we shall not be able to put it to the test, I hope that on some future occasion he will be able to show that he exercises dominating and undisputed sway.


Of course, I quite agree that occasions on which it is possible to answer for a Party are not very numerous, but I made myself acquainted with the views of my friends, and I was able to assure the Government that, as far as we were concerned, the discussion could be compressed in that way.


I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman gave that assurance in perfectly good faith. But he could not speak for hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and they are entitled to be heard. He could not speak for my hon. friends who sit behind me. Surely it does not rest with the Opposition to determine which are and which are not the most important Amendments. It does not rest with the Opposition to say upon which of those Amendments the House should come to a decision. There are all sections and bodies of opinion here, and each one of them on a matter of this kind is entitled to make its own case. I say on behalf of the Government that, without prejudice one way or the other, and after most careful consideration of the possibility and even probabilities of the case, we came deliberately to the conclusion that there could be no security that by any system of compartmental closure Amendments of great importance would ever be reached at all, or that anything like an adequate proportional amount of time would be given to the various Amendments.

If that was the case, there was only one other course open to us, and that is the course we ask the House to adopt—namely, to consider the Amendments as a whole. I think all the arguments I have been endeavouring to submit to the House point directly and indirectly to that end and conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman says he would much have preferred, I dare say he would, the discussion of these Amendments point by point because, as he tells us—it is a bold statement—in that way they could all be defended by points out of Ministers' speeches. Well, if they care, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, who have got these speeches in their memories or in their pockets, can in the course of the general discussion confront Ministers who sit upon this bench with their utterances in the past, and they can point out inconsistencies, if there be such, between what they have said and what they have done; and they can convict my right hon. friend of having found for the first time in the House of Lords gentlemen who could put into adequate English and statutory form his concealed and disguised intentions. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that any oratorical or dialectical advantage which they could have gained by the successive discussion of particular Amendments will be equally open to them in the general discussion to which we invite the House. In these circumstances the Government have come to the conclusion which they ask the House to adopt. Having regard to the number and character of the Amendments and the conditions of time which dominate our present discussion, we have taken the only possible course. If there be a desire to come to a reasonable accommodation on this matter, that it will in any way prejudice the prospect of such an accommodation I entirely deny. On the contrary, I think a discussion of this kind, ranging over the whole field and bringing into prominence points of possible agreement, as well as of actual difference, may afford a most valuable indication as to the direction in which we may ultimately come together. Be that so or not, it is our intention to ask the House to send back these Amendments to the House of Lords with the distinct intimation that if they will propose Amendments in place of them which are within the spirit and compass and purpose of this Bill, which do not mock its spirit, transcend its compass, and defeat its purpose—if they will do that those Amendments will receive from us most respectful consideration.

LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)

said that with reference to the adoption of the three-fourths majority instead of four-fifths in regard to Clause 4 it had been stated that only about thirty Catholic schools would be excluded. That was not the case, because a three-fourths majority would exclude the extended facilities from 170 schools. Some vague phrases had been used in reference to teachers—


I fail to see how the arguments which the noble Lord is using are relevant to this Motion. They may be relevant to the next Motion to disagree with the Lords' Amendments, but they are not relevant to the Motion that these Amendments be considered en bloc.


Then I will, subject to your ruling, reserve my remarks until the next Motion is made.


said it would be for the convenience of the House if Mr. Speaker would lay it down that the discussion on this Motion must be confined to the question of procedure.


That is obviously the more convenient course. On the second Motion there will be very wide latitude, because all the Amendments of the Lords are included.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

moved to insert after the word "Bill," the words, "except with respect to the Amendments on page 1, line 10, of the Lords' Amendments." The object of the Amendment was to admit of a discussion on the Lords' Amendment which provided that no school should be recognised as a public elementary school "unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set set apart for the purposes of religious instruction." The policy which he and some of his friends recommended to the House might be stated in a very few words. Their contention might be stated in the form of a syllogism. Their major premise was contained in the Lords' Amendment to which he was now referring. It was a proposition which had the support of the House as a whole, because, by an overwhelming majority, they rejected a proposition that there should be no religious instruction given in the schools. The minor premise was that the parents had the right to select the religious instruction to be given to their children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that no one disputed that proposition. Did not the conclusion follow that the religious instruction given in the public elementary schools must be religious instruction of which the parents approved. That was the whole contention which they had tried over and over again to put before the House. If he had made the point clear to the House, he did not think any hon. Member, wherever he might sit, would find it very easy to controvert either the major or the minor promise, and he was certain that if the premises were admitted the conclusion must also be accepted. He hoped the Government would allow the House to discuss the Lords' Amendment to which he referred. He could not believe that a majority of the House were against the proposition contained in the Amendment. The Prime Minister said, "Oh! but that proposition involves a great deal else." He agreed that it involved the whole position for which they were striving. It involved the proposition that an educational system was on a wrong basis which persisted in the theory that it was the ratepayer who was to select the religious instruction, whereas in all conscience and justice it ought to be the parent. It only involved that conclusion because it was the natural and logical outcome of the first proposition. If they were not prepared to deny the first proposition, then the rest of their case followed logically and necessarily from it. It was for that reason he was particularly anxious that this question should be submitted to the discussion of the House.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University),

in seconding the Amendment, said the fact that it had been moved illustrated the disadvantage of pursuing the policy suggested by the Prime Minister. They had before them in this Amendment of the House of Lords a distinct affirmation of the policy with respect to which it was very desirable that they should have the opinion of the whole House. In the course of the discussion it had been stated more than once that the Amendments made by the House of Lords were absolutely opposed to the principle of the Bill as it left this House, Not a single instance, however, had been quoted in which an Amendment made by the House of Lords could be considered as opposed to the intentions of the Bill as frequently expressed in the House of Commons. Having carefully considered the Amendments, he thought that, while it might not be possible for this House to agree to them all, it must be admitted that the House of Lords had endeavoured to put into the clauses what was intended by the Minister of Education and others who had spoken on the Bill. The Amendment referred to by the noble Lord seemed to follow directly and logically from the Resolution of this House when they were asked to consider whether secular or some form of religious instruction should be given in the public elementary schools. The Prime Minister had made a strange contrast between national and denominational teaching. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman considered these two words were in any way in opposition to each other. National education was the education approved by the nation, and if the nation decided that what was called "denominational instruction" should be introduced into some of our schools, surely then denominational teaching would become a part of a national system of education.

Amendment proposed— After the word 'Bill,' to insert the words 'except with regard to the Lords' Amendment in page 1, line 10."—(Lord R. Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


I imagine that any observations now in order are those which give reasons, for or against why the Amendment to which the noble Lord refers should be exempted from the operation of the Resolution we are discussing. Therefore, I cannot, of course, go into the merits of the Lords' Amendment. I see no reason why it should be exempted. The noble Lord began by putting his argument in the form of a syllogism, and that would rather puzzle us if it were to become general in Parliamentary practice. He starts with the major premise that religious instruction ought to be given in the public elementary schools. Well, as an ex- pression of desirability, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, but I am by no means sure that it is in the interest of the object which we both desire that religious instruction should be made compulsorily to be given by the local authority. Therefore, I am afraid that in the noble Lord's major premise there lurks a certain ambiguity which so often makes the logical form of no particular use in public debate. I see no reason why this particular Amendment should stand by itself. I see no reason why it should not be discussed by the noble Lord or by any person who feels very strongly on it when we come to the discussion of the Amendments as a whole. It is an Amendment which, I confess, I have always had difficulty in understanding, and I hope very much it will receive consideration and that it will be carefully explained to us by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It seems to me to be our old friend with the long name—pan-denominationalism. Without going the length of saying, as my hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell did, that pan-denominationalism means pandemonium, I am by no means satisfied that it would receive the general support of the people of this country or the managers of schools if it were really put in force. I am by no means satisfied that it would be received with the general approval of the people of the country or of the managers of the schools. I am not at all sure that a Unitarian child or a Baptist child would receive in the village schools to be transferred under this Act the religious instruction which the parents would desire. I doubt whether in the present state of feeling in the country it would be found tolerable or possible to follow this pan-denominational teaching. There had been ample discussion on the point in the House before the Bill went to the Lords, and it was felt that it would be physically and morally impossible. I hope that an opportunity will be afforded in the lengthy debates which we may have on this subject to have full information as to what this clause as it now stands really means.

SIR. A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)

said he wished to point out the great difficulty in which the House was involved by the course which the Government intended to adopt. He understood that in his unavoidable absence from the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted that there would be no attempt to come to an arrangement after this debate.


Nothing of the sort was said.


said that the course proposed to be followed, which at one time the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to, was that the Lords' Amendment should be taken and a decent opportunity afforded to discuss, not all the minor Amendments, but each important Amendment. He regretted that that arrangement had not been carried out. They understood from the Prime Minister last Friday that this week the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would appear before the House in the character of Hercules struggling with a hydra; but yesterday the President of the Board of Education had appeared in the character of Tarquinius Superbus and wished to cut off all the Lords' Amendments with a stroke of his cane. He thought that the character of Hercules was far more appropriate to the right hon. Gentleman.

*COLONEL WILLIAMS () Dorsetshire, W.

said that the local education authorities were very important bodies, but, after all, they were only local authorities who had their own local duties to discharge. The House of Commons was a much bigger authority, for that Assembly spoke for the nation as a whole. He hoped that the House of Commons would speak once for all and say that in the opinion of the country it was right and fitting that the nation should declare itself as a Christian nation and one which believed in religion. They ought to lay down to the local authorities that, while they could manage their local affairs as they thought best, they must not forget that as a Christian nation Parliament insisted that the children of the nation must be brought up as Christian children. He thought that this was an Amendment which might well be accepted. An hon. Member on the Ministerial Benches had exhorted the House to follow the example of the United States and say that no religion should be taught in the schools. He had returned from a visit to America only a fortnight ago, and he had been assured that many thoughtful men there were coming to believe that a purely secular education in the primary schools was not for the advantage of the nation, and that some sort of religion should be taught in their schools. In several British Colonies definite religious instruction was given in the elementary schools, and some Colonies, which had adopted a purely secular system, were returning to the old system in which religious instruction was given, while in others strenuous efforts were being made to that end. It was for that reason that he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said that, although he agreed on general terms that the majority of the House desired that some religious instruction should be given in the primary schools, yet it seemed to him that it was perfectly impossible for the Government to take any other course than they had adopted. His only excuse for rising was to protest against the suggestion of the late Chief Whip that it was possible for the Government to make an arrangement by which the multitudinous Amendments made by the Lords on the Bill could be discussed in three or four days. Although, with all the varying opinions on the Ministerial side of the House, many disapproved of some portions of the Bill, they disapproved vehemently of the reasons which hon. Gentlemen opposite gave for opposing the Bill. He should oppose the Motion of the noble Lord and other Amendments which were designed to break up the system which the Government proposed.


said that, when he saw the Amendment on the Paper, he could not help feeling that it was to be regretted that they had passed away from the old system of mentioning the intention of the Legislature in the preambles of Bills. He was certain that the words now objected to would have been unanimously accepted in such a preamble. There was a feeling abroad in our Colonies and in the United States in favour of more religious teaching and that a pure secular education led to national deterioration. He believed that a secular education in schools would be a great calamity, not only to this country, but to civilisation and that the omission of the words in opposition to it would be a reactionary Anendment.

*SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

said he would not have intervened in the debate, but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset and the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan. He had had the advantage of visiting America on more than one occasion and had recently spent some weeks in. the United States, where he came in contact with many people deeply interested in education. He neveronce heard any sentiment expressed in favour of religious instruction being introduced into the primary schools. On the contrary, educationalists in the United States rejoiced that they had escaped from the religious difficulty which had haunted and hurt our education system for the past thirty-six years. His own opinion was that in this country we should have the same system as in the United States, where the public authority carried on the secular instruction, leaving it to the churches to carry on the religious teaching. Ever since the Act of 1870 and throughout the whole thirty-six years of its working we had example after example of the evil wrought by the religious question. He hated the controversy, because it checked and crippled education. When school boards were created he was asked to serve, but declined because of the religious bitterness introduced in the contests. It was this which had handicapped us in our competition with other nations, by impairing education and diverting our thoughts from that which we ought to think about first—the education of the children. On that ground he never became a member of a school board, but with many other Members of this House he had tried to bring about a finish of this squabble. He voted with many misgivings against the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Burnley in favour of secular education, as he was willing to make one more attempt to settle this difficult and vexed question. He believed that there were scores of hon. Members who would vote for the secular solution to settle it now. Surely it was a scandal to the name of Christianity that after thirty-six years we were unable to arrive at any common method of teaching its fundamental truths. That was a scandal that rested upon all the churches of this country; it rested more heavily upon some than upon others. He had gone on for thirty-six years watching this struggle hoping that it might cease, and he hoped the time might come soon when it would cease. The Government had behind it one of the largest Liberal majorities ever seen, and he urged them to use it to secure a settlement. He hoped that the Government would send the Amendments back to the House of Lords for their re-consideration, for only very small additional concessions could be accepted if a settlement was to be arrived at.


said the hon. Member was not confining himself to the Amendment, but was speaking at large.


said that, having been privileged to unburden his soul on the Motion generally, for which he was grateful, he wished to say, as to the Amendment, that it was one to which he should give his most vigorous opposition.

*MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

was never more surprised than when he heard the contempt which was thrown upon this Amendment both by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education. The Prime Minister talked of it as innocent, but meaningless, and the Minister for Education dealt with it in even stronger terms. The main criticism which was passed upon it was that it was inconsistent with the Act of 1870. Judging by the speech of the Minister of Education anything which was inconsistent with that inviolable statute was bad, and yet that measure had been torn to tatters by the Bill of the same right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the House ought to be afraid at the point which they had now reached of passing Amendments to a statute which in many respects had become obsolete. In regard to this particular Amendment, there was none in the whole list of the Lords' proposals upon which one would more gladly go to the country and find out the will of the nation than upon this. He believed that the ordinary man, whether he was religious himself or not religious, wished that some religious teaching should be given to his children. The question had been put whether they should upset the Act of 1870, but he thought the answer to that was, first of all that this Bill already upset that Act, in shattering the great voluntary school system and with it destroying a great religious organisation and corporate attachment binding the scholars to their respective communions.


said the hon. Member was now discussing the Lords' Amendment which he was not entitled to do. He could, however, show cause why the Lords' Amendment particularly referred to in the Amendment should be excepted from the general rule which they were discussing.


said he would try to confine himself within the narrow limits which Mr. Speaker had laid down, but he would point out that not only were the whole of the arrangements of 1870 upset, but there was now in the country a new force consisting in a growing body of secularists. At present it was true they were in a minority, but they were a militant minority, and although small were well organised. It seemed to him that the real issue before the country in this Bill was whether education should be secular or religious. It was religion itself that was in jeopardy under this Bill. The Bill as drafted halted between two opinions.


said he was afraid he did not make himself clear to the hon. Member when he last spoke. The hon. Member was trying to discuss the Lords' Amendments, but that he could not do at the present stage. There would be a further stage at which he might do that. The hon. Member was confined to discussing whether at the future stage this particular Amendment might be discussed. At the present stage he must confine himself strictly to the Amendment before the House.


said in that case he would reserve his further remarks.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said it had been objected by the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals made amounted to Pan-denominationalism, but he thought that this Amendment did not necessarily introduce Pan-denominationalism, because it would be quite possible to pass it and yet for teaching to go on under the section, and the same Cowper-Temple teaching to be given as before. Those who had spoken on behalf of the Government had said that they were particularly anxious to get the Bill through. He asked whether their chances of getting the Bill through would be endangered if they allowed this Amendment to be considered by itself, and if they allowed the House to agree with the least contentious of the Lords' Amendments.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said the Minister for Education had stated that he saw no reason why this particular Amendment should be exempted from the ordinary operation of the Resolution of the Prime Minister, and that they need be under no apprehension, because it would be competent for them, as soon as the proposal before the House was disposed of, to discuss this as well as the other Amendments which had come down from the other House. That was true, but the scheme of the Government would only enable them to discuss this Amendment as well as others, and they would not be allowed to come to a decision upon it. The Government was not afraid of discussion in the House, but apparently it was afraid of a decision, and that seemed to be the reason which had actuated them in adopting the policy they had pursued. Nearly everyone who had spoken had intimated in the plainest possible terms that he saw nothing to object to, and indeed agreed with the Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said the same. The Amendment met with general acceptance in all quarters of the House, and he believed that if it were excepted from the ordinary operation of the Resolution it would be adopted. He regretted that the Government had not had the courage to allow them to discuss this particular question and to decide upon it, and if his hon. fried went to a

division he should certainly go into the Lobby with him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes,104; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 487.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber, George Denison (York) Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Fardell, Sir T. George Parkes, Ebenezer
Balcarres, Lord Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Baldwin, Alfred Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt Hn. A.J. (CityLond. Fletcher, J. S. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banner, John S. Harmood- Forster, Henry William Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Haddock, George R. Remnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hambro, Charles Eric Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hamilton, Marquess of Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bowles, G. Stewart Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hay, Hon. Claude George Saltor, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, W. Clive Healy, Timothy Michael Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Heaton, John Henniker Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Helmsley, Viscount Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Carlile, E. Hildred Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hills, J. W. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cave, George Hornby, Sir William Henry Starkey, John R.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Houston, Robert Paterson Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs'h.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Keswick, William Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Thornton, Percy M.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lane-Fox, G. R. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Courthope, G. Loyd Liddell, Henry Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craik, Sir Henry Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N Lowe, Sir Francis William Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Younger, George
Doughty, Sir George Magnus, Sir Philip
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Du Cros, Harvey Morpeth, Viscount Alexander Acland-Hood and
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Viscount Valentia.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beck, A. Cecil Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Acland, Francis Dyke Bellairs, Carlyon Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.
Agnew, George William Berridge, T. H. D. Byles, William Pollard
Ainsworth, John Stirling Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Cairns, Thomas
Alden, Percy Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon) Cameron, Robert
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Billson, Alfred Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Armitage, R. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Chance, Frederick William
Astbury, John Meir Brace, William Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Atherley-Jones, L. Bramsdon, T. A. Cheetham, John Frederick
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Brigg, John Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bright, J. A. Churchill, Winston Spencer
Barker, John Brodie, H. C. Clough, William
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brooke, Stopford Clynes, J. R.
Barnard, E. B. Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh. Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Beale, W. P. Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beauchamp, E. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm Burns, Rt. Hon. John Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd
Cory, Clifford John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Perks, Robert William
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hudson, Walter Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)
Cowan, W. H. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hyde, Clarendon Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cremer, William Randal Idris, T. H. W. Pollard, Dr.
Crombie, John William Illingworth, Percy H. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central
Dalmeny, Lord Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E
Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Jardine, Sir J. Radford, G. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jenkins, J. Rainy, A. Rolland
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Johnson, W. Nuneaton) Raphael, Herbert H.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kearley, Hudson E. Rees, J. D.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kelley, George D. Kendall, Athelstan
Dobson, Thomas W. Kincaid-Smith, Captain Renton, Major Leslie
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James Richardson, A.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Lambert, George Rickett, J. Compton
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lamont, Norman Ridsdale, E. A.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Langley, Batty Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Elibank, Master of Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lehmann, R. C. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Erskine, David C, Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Essex, R. W. Levy, Maurice Robinson, S.
Evans, Samuel T. Lewis, John Herbert Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Everett, R. Lacey Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roe, Sir Thomas
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lough, Thomas Rogers, F. E. Newman
Fenwick, Charles Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rose, Charles Day
Ferens, T. R. Lyoll, Charles Henry Rowlands, J.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lynch, H. B. Runciman, Walter
Findlay, Alexander Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'gh Russell, T. W.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Mackarness, Frederic C. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Maclean, Donald Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Freeman, Thomas, Freeman Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Arthur, William Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Fullerton, Hugh M'Callum, John M. Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Crae, George Seaverns, J. H.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Hugh, Patrick A. Seely, Major J. B.
Glover, Thomas M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Gooch, George Peabody M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick D.)
Grant, Corrie M'Micking, Major G. Sherwell, Arthur James
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Maddison, Frederick Shipman, Dr. John G.
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mallet, Charles E. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Manfield, Harry (Northants) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Griffith, Ellis J. Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln Sloan, Thomas Henry
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Markham, Arthur Basil Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Gulland, John W. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston Snowdon, P.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Marnham, F. J. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Massie, J. Soares, Ernest J.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r.) Masterman, C. F. G. Spicer, Sir Albert
Hart-Davies, T. Micklem, Nathaniel Stanger, H. Y.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Molteno, Percy Alport Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.
Harwood, George Money, L. G. Chiozza Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Montagu, E. S. Strachey, Sir Edward
Haworth, Arthur A. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Morley, Rt. Hon. John Summerbell, T.
Hedges, A. Paget Morrell, Philip Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Helme, Norval Watson Morse, L. L. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hemmerde, Edward George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Myer, Horatio Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Henry, Charles S. Napier, T. B. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw Thomasson, Franklin
Higham, John Sharp Nicholls, George Tillett, Louis John
Hobart, Sir Robert Norman, Sir Henry Tomkinson, James
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Toulmin, George
Hodge, John Nussey, Thomas Willans Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Holdon, E. Hopkinson Nuttall, Harry Ure, Alexander
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Verney, F. W.
Hooper, A. G. Partington, Oswald Vivian, Henry
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Paul, Herbert Walsh, Stephen
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N. Paulton, James Mellor Walters, John Tudor
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds S.).
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent Whitehead, Rowland Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wardle, George J. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer Winfrey, R.
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Yoxall, James Henry
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Watt, H. Anderson Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Whitbread, Howard Wilson, Hn. C.H.W. (Hull, W.) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
White, George (Norfolk) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R. Pease.
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth)

moved to add at the end of the Question the words "except in regard to Clause 4." He said he intervened in this great controversy with considerable hesitation. He sincerely accepted every portion of the Bill and had voted for every clause. After the Minister of Education granted the right of appeal under Clause 4 that clause might be regarded as a fair compromise. It was quite true that half the Roman Catholic schools were excluded from its operation. but he supported it because he had greater confidence in the local authority than hon. Gentlemen opposite. He knew that in London, and in South London particularly, they had acted with great generosity to the Roman Catholic schools. He welcomed any suggestion of concession. After the speech of the Minister of Education yesterday it was manifest that there was in the mind of the Government some consideration, which would admit of these small poor Roman Catholic schools being brought within the operation of the clause. It would in his opinion be peculiarly becoming if these concessions were made, not at the suggestion of the House of Lords, but by this House to hon. Members representing Ireland. It was as well to remember that the Irish Party in past years had been the comrades of English Liberals in many a hard-fought battle for English reform. This year they had been fellow workers with the Liberal and Labour Parties on social questions, and it would therefore be becoming for the Liberals in this House to meet them at once. The Leader of the Irish Party yesterday had stated plainly his desire to support the Government, and if they would put down their proposed concessions in an absolutely clear form they would carry with them the whole of the Irish Party. The Bill would then go to the House of Lords with double the strength it otherwise would have. If the Govern- ment proposed changes in Clause 4, why should they not do it at once with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies? In regard to the homogeneous schools, he considered the difference between urban and rural to be unreasonable and unworkable. The figure of 5,000 was an arbitrary one. What town in England with half that population would not be insulted if it were called a village? In this connection he wished to call attention to the moderation of the Irish demands. They plainly said they did not want the Clause 4 special facilities in single school areas. Another point of importance with regard to homogeneous schools was that of the influence of parents.


The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the Amendment. All he is entitled to do is to give reasons why the Amendment should at some future time be discussed.


said he would merely say that it was advisable for the Government without delay to introduce Amendments. He would ask them to observe what had been the result of not introducing Amendments which they were known to be in favour of. At Huddersfield the Conservative roll was increased by 500, while the Liberal poll was decreased by 500, and that was entirely due to the transference of 500 Catholic votes. He was afraid that if concessions were not made Nonconformists would hurry their Party on to the rocks—certainly in Lancashire and Yorkshire seats would be lost if there were any by-elections. In East Manchester there were 1,800 Irish Catholic voters, and at the last election they voted solidly for the Liberal candidate and put him in at the top of the poll. If these concessions were not made and there were a by-election in East Manchester to-day there was no doubt that the Irish Catholic votes would go over to the Conservative candidate, and he would be returned by a large majority. As an Irishman and a Catholic, he would refuse to accept any advantage for his own religion that would injure the Nonconformists of England. He knew that all the civil rights possessed by Catholics were owing to the good will and justness of heart of the Free Churches of England; but he begged his friends on that side of the House to hesitate before they drove the large Irish electorate of Lancashire, South London, and other places where they mostly congregated, into the arms of the Tory Peers. That was a fate from which he was anxious to save his fellow-countrymen. He desired to see the alliance between the Liberals and the Catholics in this country maintained, and with that object he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

MR. WALSH (Lancashire, Ince)

seconded the Amendment. He said he did so with some hesitation, first of all because of the high constitutional issues that were involved in that day's proceedings, and, secondly, because of the exceeding difficulty of keeping in order. Men of high medical attainments, men of legal attainments, and some professors in Universities had all fallen, not exactly under Mr. Speaker's ban, but under his gentle admonition. He seconded the Amendment on quite other grounds than had been advanced by the mover. A great deal had been said both on the Second Reading and in the Committee stage about concessions to Roman Catholics. Time after time he had heard the Minister for Education avow that Clause 4 was frankly denominational—recognising as he did certain existing conditions from which it was difficult to get away—and they with equal frankness ought to recognise that fact and to disavow the terms of Clause 4 as being in the nature of a concession. It did not extend merely to Roman Catholics. He knew very many schools in the Church of England which had just as much claim as Roman Catholic schools, and, indeed, to the credit of Clause 4, it would give them the same measure of justice as the Roman Catholics. It would also give to Wesleyans the same rights wherever the clause was brought into operation, and therefore he refused to consider it as a concession to Roman Catholics at all, but a concession to that condition of things described by the Minister in charge of the Bill as frankly denominational. Let them consider the appeals made on that side of the House. During the debates he had felt how strong, convincing, and sincere were those appeals. As to the clause being made mandatory, he absolutely agreed with all his associates and a large number on the other side. He felt certain that the appeal for the parents' committee ought to have been granted. He himself had been for many years engaged in the work of negotiation, and did not believe in the policy of bluff. A thing, if it were right, ought to be done for itself and because it was right, and not because of the possibility that might hereafter come into existence of making arrangements or bargains with other people. He was convinced from the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that they believed the appeals made from each side of the House were based upon moderation and right, and it was upon those lines and not upon those of political expediency, that they ought to recognise the inherent justice of the clause and deal with it. No Member of this House more recognised the high constitutional issue and the gravity of the issue involved in these proceedings than he did. On the general principles of the Bill he and his friends had been heartily in support of the Government, but he believed they ought to put themselves right in this House and meet their friends as far as they possibly could, not merely the Roman Catholics, but every case in which Clause 4 could be brought into operation. He held that the further extension of Clause 4, which might very well result from the discussion of these Amendments, would have the effect of strengthening the hands of the Government in the conflict in which they might possibly be engaged. The Government, if it was to enter into that battle, should enter into it as a strong man armed, having done its best to meet every possible appeal for fairness, and knowing that the chances of success were much greater because it had its quarrel just. On these grounds he seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Question, to add the words 'except in regard to Amendments to Clause 4."—(Mr. C. J. O'Donnell).

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."


said the hon. Member of course knew that in pleading on behalf of Clause 4 he was preaching to the converted. He had never been unwilling to see that clause strengthened; but, anxious to be in order, he was not entitled to deal with the subject except in so far as reasons had been urged for exempting this clause from the purview of the Resolution now before the House. But Clause 4 would be as likely to receive discussion upon the Resolution as if it were separated from the Resolution. There would be nothing to prevent that discussion, and there would not be the restrictions that accompanied the Committee stage. He would do his best to deal with the various points presented in the course of the general discussion, but it was not advisable to make this exception.


said he should vote for the Amendment, for he recognised the advantage of discussing a particular question isolated from a number of others. If they were asked to deal with nine or ten important questions at the same time it was manifest they could not divide upon a distinct issue or obtain a definite answer upon it. They did not all know what was the policy of the Government in regard to Clause 4 or how far they would be willing to modify their original proposal to meet the views of the House of Lords, or whether they intended to modify them at all. He saw no chance of having a clear, precise, sharply-cut discussion upon what was the most important clause in the Bill, and this could not be had unless it was isolated from the vague, general, and necessarily loose discussion which must take place if they embodied in one Resolution all the complex questions contained in the Lords' Amendments. For those reasons he should support the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 488.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. Craik, Sir Henry Liddell, Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Long, Col. (Chas. W. (Evesham)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Doughty, Sir George Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowe, Sir Francis William
Balcarres, Lord Du Cros, Harvey Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A T.(CityLond. Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Magnus, Sir Philip
Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey) Faber, George Denison (York) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Nield, Herbert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fletcher, J. S. O'Brien, William (Cork)
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.) Forster, Henry William O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Bowles, G. Stewart Glovor, Thomas Percy, Earl
Boyle, Sir Edward Haddock, George R. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hamilton, Marquess of Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Bull, Sir William James Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashford Rawlinson, John Frederic Peel
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hay, Hon. Claude George Remnant, James Farquharson
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Healy, Timothy Michael Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Heaton, John Henniker Rothschild, James Farquharson
Carlile, E. Hildred Helmsley, Viscount Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S.Edmds Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cave, George Hornby, Sir William Henry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Houston, Robert Paterson Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hunt, Rowland Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Starkey, John R.
Clynes,, J. R. Keswick, William Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lane-Fox. G. R. Summerbell, T.
Cox, Harold Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) Wardle, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Thornton, Percy M. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) C. J. O'Donnell and Mr. Walsh.
Valentia, Viscount Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Walrond, Hon. Lionel Younger, George
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Crombie, John William Hodge, John
Acland, Francis Dyke Crooks, William Holden, E. Hopkinson
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Dalmeny, Lord Holland, Sir William Henry
Agnew, George William Dalziel, James Henry Hooper, A. G.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, David (Montgomery Co Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Alden, Percy Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Armitage, R. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hudson, Walter
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N Hyde, Clarendon
Astbury, John Meir Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Idris, T. H. W.
Atherley-Jones, L. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Illingworth, Percy H.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Dobson, Thomas W. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jardine, Sir J.
Barker, John Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Jenkins, J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Barnard, E. B. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Elibank, Master of Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Beauchamp, E. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm Erskine, David C. Kearley, Hudson E.
Beck, A. Cecil Essex, R. W. Kelley, George D.
Bellairs, Carlyon Evans, Samuel T. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Berridge, T. H. D. Everett, R. Lacey King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Faber, G. H. (Boston) Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Fenwick, Charles Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Billson, Alfred Ferens, T. R. Lambert, George
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lamont, Norman
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Findlay, Alexander Langley, Batty
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brace, William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Bramsdon, T. A. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lehmann, R. C.
Brigg, John Fuller, John Michael F. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Bright, J. A. Fullerton, Hugh Levy, Maurice
Brodie, H. C. Gibb, James (Harrow) Lewis, John Herbert
Brooke, Stopford Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh. Gooch, George Peabody Lough, Thomas
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Grant, Corrie Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lyell, Charles Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Greenwood, Hamar (York) Lynch, H. B.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Griffith, Ellis J. Mackarness, Frederic C.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Maclean, Donald
Byles, William Pollard Gulland, John W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cairns, Thomas Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Arthur, William
Cameron, Robert Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Callum, John M.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) M'Crae, George
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hart-Davies, T. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Micking, Major G.
Chance, Frederick William Harwood, George Maddison, Frederick
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mallet, Charles E.
Cheetham, John Frederick Haworth, Arthur A. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hazel, Dr. A. E. Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Clough, William Hedges, A. Paget Markham, Arthur Basil
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Helme, Norval Watson Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hemmerde, Edward George Marnham, F. J.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras,W Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Massie, J.
Corbett, CH (Sussox, E. Grinst'd Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. Masterman, C. F. G.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Henry, Charles S. Micklem, Nathaniel
Cory, Clifford John Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Molteno, Percy Alport
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cowan, W. H. Higham, John Sharp Montagu, E. S.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hobart, Sir Robert Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cremer, William Randal Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Morrell, Philip Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd Tillett, Louis John
Horse, L. L. Robinson, S. Toulmin, George
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Robson, Sir William Snowdon Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Myer, Horatio Roe, Sir Thomas Verney, F. W.
Napier, T. B. Rogers, F. E. Newman Vivian, Henry
Newnes, F. Notts (Bassetlaw) Rose, Charles Day Walters, John Tudor
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Rowlands, J. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Nicholls, George Runciman, Walter Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Norman, Sir Henry Russell, T. W. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wardle, George J.
Nuttall, Harry Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Partington, Oswald Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Paul, Herbert Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyd ) Waterlow, D. S.
Paulton, James Mellor Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) Watt, H. Anderson
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Perks, Robert William Sears, J. E. Whitbread, Howard
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Seaverns, J. H. White, George (Norfolk)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke Seely, Major J. B. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Pollard, Dr. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Whitehead, Rowland
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central) Sherwell, Arthur James Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Price, Robt John (Norfolk, E.) Shipman, Dr. John G. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Silcock, Thomas Ball Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Radford, G. H. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn
Rainy, A. Rolland Sloan, Thomas Henry Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Raphael, Herbert H. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rees, J. D. Stanger, H. Y. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rendall, Athelstan Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Renton, Major Leslie Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Winfrey, R.
Richardson, A. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Yoxall, James Henry
Rickett, J. Compton Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ridsdale, E. A. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Pease.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomasson, Franklin
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Main Question again proposed.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he wished to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Education before the main question was put. In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated two or three possible changes which the Government might adopt. Would he take the House of Commons as well as the House of Lords into his confidence, and put those Amendments upon the Paper?


The hon. Member seems to be wandering from the Motion now before the House. What he says may be perfectly relevant to the next question, but it is hardly relevant to this one.


said there were two reasons why they should deal with these Amendments en bloc. The first was the nature of the Amendments, and the second was the nature of the Assembly that made them. To deal with these Amendments otherwise than en bloc would be impracticable. To go through them one by one would be to fall into the trap which had been laid for the Government and their supporters.


said he did not think any trap had been laid.


said that at any rate he did not think that was the way they should approach the discussion of the Lords' Amendments. It would not only be impracticable to deal with them otherwise than en bloc, but it would be a most dangerous precedent. The House of Lords practically adopted the principle of the Bill by giving a Second Reading, and then they introduced Amendments which interfered with that principle. In deciding how they were going to discuss this matter the House must take into consideration the character of the Assembly with which they were dealing.


Of course I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say, but I rather fail to see the relevancy of that to this particular Motion.


said their decision whether they would consider the Amendments in detail or en bloc depended on the question whether the institution with which they were dealing had given a guarantee of its good faith in the past. If the House of Lords accepted the Second Heading of a Bill, and then, as in this case, introduced an entirely new Bill, it was a matter for comment how this House was going to deal with the House of Lords in the future negotiations. He would take the Speaker's ruling as to whether that was out of I order.


I would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman is going to say.


In answer to your invitation, Mr. Speaker—


I gave no invitation. The hon. Member began a statement which was possibly disorderly, and I said that I did not see the relevancy of it to the Motion.


said the Motion of the Prime Minister dealt with the way in which they should conduct their negotiations with the House of Lords. If they were dealing with the House of Lords, acting in good faith, that was a reason for discussing the Amendments in detail; but if the House of Lords were not acting in good faith, that was a reason for dealing with the Amendments en bloc. He had the authority of a right hon. Gentleman who was still a Member of this House upon the character of the House of Lords. He said— You are dealing with a vast, overwhelming, preponderating, huge dead-weight of prejudice, of passion, of interest, of bigotry, of blind class and party spirit, impenetrable by argument, immovable by discussion; beyond the reach of reason, and only to be driven from their hereditary and antiquated entrenchments, not by argument, or by reason, or by discussion, but by force. If that were a true description of the other place, he suggested that they should deal with that other place en bloc and not in detail. If the other place was not amenable to argument, discussion, or reason, surely there was no point in discussing this matter in detail.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said nobody had been more anxious than he had been for years for a conflict with the House of Lords, and he agreed that an outsider not possessed of information must always hesitate to give an opinion adverse to the Government on a question of procedure in a conflict between the two Houses. But he asked himself, as an opponent of the House of Lords, was this good card-playing? When they made a move in a game it was a bad move unless they remembered what their opponents would do next. It must be remembered, however, much as they were opposed to the House of Lords, that it contained a number of men who, to say the least, were not fools. He would recall some of the men they had known in the House of Commons for twenty-five years, who, he would assume, were now coaching the Conservative Party and were considering the question of the great conflict that was apparently looming before them. He would take Lord St. Aldwyn, Lord Goschen, and the Duke of Devonshire. They were all opposed to the Government and to this Bill. There was a legion of men behind them of equal capacity. But the Government made a move in the game. It seemed a very simple move. It seemed a very simple move to get rid of all the Amendments by sending them back to the House of Lords with an intimation that the Commons could not accept them. The course of procedure between the two Houses, he took it, would be that the House of Commons would send up a message to the Lords saying that they were unable to acept their Lordships' Amendments to the Education Bill. The Lords, of course, had not read the White Paper or the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education in which he suggested that there were certain Amendments which the Government would be happy to accept. Now, could any one suppose that the three or four gentlemen who were leaders in another place, could not concoct a message which would euchre the Government? And that was what the Lords would do if they had any sense. Was it to be supposed that there were no men in the House of Lords who were as skilful, eager, and watchful as the occupants of the Treasury Bench at this game? He himself could draw out fifty respectful messages which would throw the responsibility of the loss of the Bill on the Minister for Education. He maintained that though the House of Commons had been flouted many times in the past by the House of Lords they had never been made ridiculous before. Care should be taken that they were not making the Commons the door mat of the Peers. He presumed that the Peers took notice of the Journal of the House of Commons, and they could note that this was the first time in the history of the British Constitution that this House refused to pass Amendments moved by the Government themselves, and accepted not by a majority of Conservatives in another place, but by the entire Peers—Radical, Liberal, and Conservative. Suppose then that the Peers sent back a respectful message that they had always been most happy to consider any Amendments on their Amendments, but that they were unable to deal with the rejection of their Amendments in the shape in which they saw them noted in the Journals of the House. It should be remembered that there was a plain and constitutional way of meeting the Peers and that was by a Motion put from the Chair that the Lords' Amendments be now considered. It was open to the House to say "no" to that Motion. That was done in 1881. But the Government had not adopted that constitutional way of rejecting the Peers' Amendments; and they had put the Peers on the side of the English Constitution, and it was the Government who had made an inroad upon it. But that was not all. A lurid light had been thrown on the position by the rejection of the two Amendments moved that night—the Amendment dealing with Clause 4, and the Amendment about religious education. It must be remembered that the Government must go to the country some day on these issues. He took it that the supporters of the Government were serious in their Radical heart in their declaration that they wanted a conflict with the Peers. He himself was aching for a conflict with the Peers, but he wanted to choose the ground for that conflict. There was great force in the speech made the previous day by the hon. Member for Waterford who said that on this Bill they would go into the conflict with the Peers with their hands tied. Supposing they did that and agreed to the rejection of the Amendments, they might take another course and send another message stating that they concurred with the Commons in the rejection of all their Amendments, including the Government Amendments, except the one to which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone referred, viz., that the children of England should have half an hour every day in the week to hear the Word of God taught—would the Government and their supporters go to the country on such an issue? Therefore, when he heard hon. Gentleman opposite approving and applauding the course the Government was about to take he asked himself why all those Amendments had been passed in an Assembly in which were some of the most capable Englishmen of the day. The Government, in his judgment, by adopting the course they had taken might have saved time but had lost the day. Did the Government imagine that all their opponents were fools? Were they going into this war with the Peers on the suggestion that all the generals in the Peers were like the generals which the late Government sent out to South Africa? Looking at this matter as an opponent of the Peers and an opponent of the Bill he could not commend the generalship of the Government in their endeavour to carry their measure. Of course, they would all be wiser in the course of the next few days; but it often happened that when all these matters had been arranged and squared the proceeding was like a conflict on the stage when one of two combatants fell down to slow music. As an opponent of the Bill he wished to express his regret that the Government had chosen this battleground for their controversy with the House of Lords. Everybody knew that there was force in the argument addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to the desirability of passing some measure which would get this thorny question out of the way. But suppose this Bill was lost where would they be next session? The Nonconformists would appeal to the Government to bring in the Bill again in some shape or form. The Irish Nationalists would demand some satisfaction for their position. Two big Bills could not be run in the same session, and there was a big Budget to be considered and discussed at length. Then, they knew that in the third session a Welsh Disestablishment Bill was promised. Therefore he thought that the advice given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was sound from the point of view of Parliamentary tactics, and even from the point of view of those who were in favour of the passage of this Bill. He had said nothing on the merits of the Lords' Amendments, but confined himself solely to the question of procedure; and he had to submit that as there still remained a fair modicum of sense in the Upper House, the Government had not yet said "check" to the Lords.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said he desired to point out that the question mainly considered by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken was, what would be the next card to be played by the Government. Supporters of the Government on both sides of the House were not at one as to the card to be played; but from their speeches it was clear that the game which the Government were playing was not the game of education, but the game of securing some kind of triumph over the House of Lords. The House of Lords in making these Amendments were absolutely within their constitutional rights. Some of the Amendments had been actually proposed by the representative of the Government in the other House; there were others of them which the Minister for Education had expressed himself willing to consider, and there were some which he was not willing to consider at all. If the Government were desirous of carrying the Bill he did not see what was to prevent them from taking the Amend-

ments one by one, adopting those which were their own or which they were prepared to accept, and asking this House to reject those to which they entirely objected. Then the Lords would have something before them to go upon and some compromise might be arrived at. But if the Government said, "We reject the whole of the Amendments, then it was probable that there would not be any compromise and that the Lords would return the Amendments to this House. Was that what Ministers wanted? Did they want to kill the Bill and throw the blame for its destruction upon the other House? If so, he thought that this poor device would not avail the Government when the question came to be submitted to the country.

*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

asked how it arose that these Amendments were to be thrown back at the heads of the Members of the House of Lords. When the Bill passed out of this House and went to another place and when it came back it had an inscription upon it which was significant. The hon. Member for Northampton made some observations upon Clause 1, but he apparently did not notice the words at the commencement of the Bill— Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, etc. He ventured to say that if His Majesty desired them to act with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal they ought to do so, and that when that advice was given it ought to be received with something like courtesy and not treated with contumely as the Government proposed. The hon. Member for Northampton last night by his speech would have despoiled the House of Lords of its prerogative. It seemed to him that this was another attempt on the part of the Government to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Question put.

The House divided. Ayes, 317; Noes, 89. (Division List, No. 489.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Agnew, George William Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)
Acland, Francis Dyke Ainsworth, John Stirling Armitage, R.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Alden, Percy Ashton, Thomas Gair
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kelley, George D.
Astbury, John Meir Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Atherley-Jones, L. Dobson, Thomas W. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Laidlaw, Robert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barker, John Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Lambert, George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lamont, Norman
Barran, Rowland Hirst Elibank, Master of Langley, Batty
Beale, W. P. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beauchamp, E. Essex, R. W. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hex'm) Evans, Samuel T. Lehmann, R. C.
Beck, A. Cecil Eve, Harry Trelawney Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Bell, Richard Everett, R. Lacey Levy, Maurice
Bellairs, Carlyon Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lewis, John Herbert
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Fenwick, Charles Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David
Berridge, T. H. D. Forens, T. R. Lough, Thomas
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Findlay, Alexander Lyell, Charles Henry
Billson, Alfred Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lynch, H. B.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire) Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Mackarness, Frederic C.
Bottomley, Horatio Fuller, John Michael F. Maclean, Donald
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Fullerton, Hugh M'Arthur, William
Brace, William Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Crae, George
Bramsdon, T. A. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brigg, John Glover, Thomas M'Micking. Major G.
Bright, J. A. Goddard, Daniel Ford Maddison, Frederick
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gooch, George Peabody Mallet, Charles E.
Brodie, H. C. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brooke, Stopford Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh. Griffith, Ellis J. Markham, Arthur Basil
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James (Aberdeen Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Gulland, John W. Marnham, F. J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Massie, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Masterman, C. F. G.
Burnyeat. W. J. D. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Micklem, Nathaniel
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Molteno, Percy Alport
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Hart-Davies, T. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Byles, William Pollard Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Montagu, E. S.
Cairns, Thomas Harwood, George Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cameron, Robert Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Haworth, Arthur A. Morrell, Philip
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Morse, L. L.
Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Hedges, A. Paget Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cawley, Sir Frederick Helme, Norval Watson Myer, Horatio
Chance, Frederick William Hemmerde, Edward George Napier, T. B.
Cheetham, John Frederick Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw
Churchill, Winston Spencer Henry, Charles S. Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Clarke, C. Goddard Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Nicholls, George
Clough, William Herbert, T. Arnold Wycombe) Norman, Sir Henry
Clynes, J. R. Higham, John Sharp Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hobart, Sir Robert Nussey, Thomas Willans
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W Hodge, John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Holden, E. Hopkinson Partington, Oswald
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hooper, A. G. Paul, Herbert
Cory, Clifford John Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Paulton, James Mellor
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Cowan, W. H. Howard, Hon, Geoffrey Perks, Robert William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hudson, Walter Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Cremer, William Randal Hutton, Alfred Eddison Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke
Crombie, John William Hyde, Clarendon Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crooks, William Idris, T. H. W. Pollard, Dr.
Dalmeny, Lord Illingworth, Percy H. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Dalziel, James Henry Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, David (Montgomery, Co. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jardine, Sir J. Radford, G. H.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Jenkins, J. Rainy, A. Rolland
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Raphael, Herbert H.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N Kearley, Hudson E. Rees, J. D.
Rendall, Athelstan Shipman, Dr. John G. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Renton, Major Leslie Silcock, Thomas Ball Ward, W. Dudley(South'mpt'n)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) Simon, John Allsebrook Wardle, George J.
Richardson, A. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Rickett, J. Compton Sloan, Thomas Henry Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ridsdale, E. A. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Waterlow, D. S.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Watt, H. Anderson
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Soares, Ernest J. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Roberts John H. (Denbighs.) Stanger, H. Y. Whitbread, Howard
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) White, George (Norfolk)
Robinson, S. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Whitehead, Rowland
Rogers, F. E. Newman Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rose, Charles Day Summerbell, T. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palme
Rowlands, J. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Runciman, Walter Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'
Russell, T. W. Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Williamson, A.
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Thomasson, Franklin Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Tillett, Louis John Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Toulmin, George Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Verney, F. W. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sears, J. E. Vivian, Henry Winfrey, R.
Seaverns, J. H. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Yoxall, James Henry
Seely, Major J. B. Walsh, Stephen
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Walters, John Tudor TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Sherwell, Arthur James Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Pease.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber, George Denison (York) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Anstruther-Gray, Major Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Fletcher, J. S. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond. Forster, Henry William Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Haddock, George R. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Hamilton, Marquess of Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hay, Hon. Claude George Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bowles, G. Stewart Healy, Timothy Michael Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Boyle, Sir Edward Heaton, John Henniker Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Bridgeman, W. Clive Helmsley, Viscount Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bull, Sir William James Hervey F.W.F.(Bury, S.Edmd's Starkey, John R.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hornby, Sir William Henry Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Houston, Robert Paterson Stone, Sir Benjamin
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Cave, H. George Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lane-Fox, G. R. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Lowe, Sir Francis William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down. North) Magnus, Sir Philip Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Mason, James F. (Windsor) Younger, George
Craik, Sir Henry Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Sir
Du Cros, Harvey Nield, Herbert Alexander Acland-Hood and
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan O'Brien, William (Cork) Viscount Valentia.

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

Ordered, "That the question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords Amendment to the Education (England and Wales) Bill be put with respect of the Amendments as a whole."