HC Deb 03 July 1906 vol 159 cc1642-733

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury),

in moving to omit Subsection (1), said he believed he was echoing the sentiments of all people who valued religious denominational instruction when he said that the facilities for instruction on two days in the week given under Clause 3 would be only a sham, unless the religious instruction was allowed to be given by teachers who believed in that particular denominational instruction which the owners of the schools and the parents of children attending the schools wished o have taught there. He would be told that the teacher was not the person to give it, but that it was the duty of the ministers of the various denominations. He frankly admitted that some ministers were perfectly qualified to give the instuction, but all teachers were not born ministers of religion, and all ministers of religion were not born teachers. It was generally admitted that to impart secular instruction a teacher had to undergo a careful course of training and to possess the ability to impart instruction and to control children. If those qualities were necessary in order to give secular instruction, he thought they must admit that persons who had to give denominational instruction should also possess them. He anticipated that he should have the support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, for hon. Members would remember his exceedingly eloquent and telling speech of May 22nd on the Amendment, the object of which was to drive all religious instruction from the day school, when he said that the national teachers were becoming more skilled every day, and knew the way to a child's mind better than anyone else, and asked what the child would have to look to if the teacher did not help it. Prom that he (Mr. Hicks Beach) thought he might infer that, if the teacher were to be allowed to give undenominational teaching, he ought surely to be allowed to give denominational teaching as well. He believed he should also have the support of the Government, because by their Bill, as it at present stood, they admitted the principle that the teacher was a person who ought to give religious instruction, whether of an undenominational character, or whether of that particular kind which was allowed in schools of urban areas in five days in the week. The Minister for Education, in reply to a deputation of representatives of the Jewish schools, went so far as to announce his intention with reference to Clause 4, that the schools should be carried on just as they were now, and that it was certainly the intention of the clause that the teachers should remain the same as they were. If chil- dren in schools in urban areas were to be allowed the privilege of being taught by the teachers in religious subjects on five days of the week, was it not rather a. slur on the children in rural schools that-they were not also to be allowed that privilege? The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education also asked the Committee to look at this subject, not from the standpoint of the House of Commons but from the standpoint of the child; and said the child would find there was something wanting if the teacher was not allowed to give him religious as well as secular instruction. He believed there would also be something wanting if the teacher was allowed to give the child undenominational teaching for three days a week and was not allowed to give him denominational teaching on two days a week. Naturally a child would ask why was it that his teacher was allowed to teach him certain things three days a week and not to give him instruction on the other days? He would ask whether his teacher really believed in the doctrines which he was not allowed to impart to him. The teacher would have to reply that he believed in them, but that owing to-the extreme foresight of the great Liberal Party, who had always boasted about religious equality, he was not permitted to afford the religious instruction desired. He did not know what the child would think upon receiving that answer, but he could only hope that one result would be to make an impression upon the child's mind which would lead him when he grew up to never vote for any Liberal candidate. He believed that the teachers valued the privilege of giving this religious instruction as much as any part of their duties, and were by no means anxious to give it up. No doubt he should be told that the Government had received a mandate to abolish tests for teachers, and that under the existing system Nonconformist teachers; were cut off from appointments in Church schools; but he would have more respect for that cry if it were not a fact that the best paid pests were to be found in the provided schools, and if he did not believe that there were not sufficient Nonconformist teachers to fill up the-posts of head teacher in the provided schools, without saying anything of those posts in the non-provided schools. He believed, moreover, that this Clause 7 was nothing more nor less than another flank attack upon the Church of England. The President of the Board of Education had said that the minority must suffer, but he believed that the result of this clause would be that the majority would suffer and the minority would benefit. He believed that this was an attack upon the Church of England, because under Clause 4 100 per cent, of the Jewish schools would be enabled to give their own religious instruction through the teachers, and 77 per cent, of the Roman Catholic schools would be in the same position, while only 25 per cent, of the Church of England schools would be saved for the purposes designed by their founders. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)

Question proposed,"That the words 'a teacher employed in a public elementary school 'stand part of the clause."

MR. ACLAND (Yorkshire, Richmond)

said this was one of the most important points of the Bill. The Committee would doubtless be told that what was desired by the Amendment was simply freedom to teach, and that it was illiberal to refuse freedom of any kind. But he thought the sub-section as it stood made for a more important freedom, the freedom to be really free. If it was omitted they must say good-bye altogether to the idea that they were getting rid of tests for teachers. In the county, part of which he represented, they had, as it happened, as chairman of the committee charged with the appointment of teachers an archdeacon of the Church of England, a most fair-minded man, who would do his duty in selecting teachers to the best of his ability; but it would, in his opinion, only be that man's duty to see to it, if the Amendment were carried, that there were sent to Church schools only such teachers as would be willing to give Church of England instruction. That would be so m a large number of counties, and if it were not done by the education authority it would be the duty of the clergyman of the parish concerned to do everything he could to see that the same action was taken. He would get to see the records of all the candidates for the post of teacher, he would find out which of them would give the denominational teaching, and he would make it quite clear that one of these must be appointed, if peace and quietness in the village were desired. They had gone a very long way in meeting particular cases with regard to denominational teachers. The Catholic case was a very special and peculiar one, demanding special treatment. But they were not willing to go one inch further than they had gone already in the direction of letting religious questions interfere with the appointment of teachers. Let them consider what would happen in the case of a teacher who had hitherto given religious instruction and was willing to continue it after the passing of the Act. He would of course receive a special salary, and would naturally desire that all children should receive the instruction, because it would be impossible in a small school to give both denominational and Cowper-Temple instruction at the same time. He would succeed in making all the parents apply for the special teaching, and on two days of the week the other teaching would disappear. A man might then come to the village wishing for the Cowper-Temple instruction, which he had a perfect right to demand for his children. The teacher who had settled down to give denominational instruction would find that he was put to a great deal of inconvenience and financial loss, and would find the presence of the newcomer very inconvenient, and would make his life or that of his children difficult. Then there was the case of a teacher who had been appointed without inquiry beforehand as to his religion, and who was not willing to give denominational teaching. It would be a very hard thing for such a teacher, who would find him or herself opposed to the predominant power in the village, and it would be very difficult to settle down happily there. The only possible course was to say that the teacher must serve one master only. Hi might do exactly what he liked out o school hours in regard to instruction, but during the school hours he was the servant of the education authority only and not of any sect or denomination People charged the Bill with doing nothing for education, but there were really plenty of places where it made for educational progress—though it was true you had to look for them The sub-section as it stood ought to make for educational improvement. The condition of things in the scattered schools in the rural counties hitherto had made for stagnation. There was too much stagnation in the schools, and that was not right. A good secretary of the education authority under this Bill, with power for the first time to review and make all appointments and promotions, would be able to organise the teaching in the villages and put it on a much better footing. He would be able to take a promising assistant teacher in a large school and give him the position of head teacher in a small village school, with a promise that if he succeeded there as a head teacher he would promote him to a larger school. Putting good teachers into these small village schools was the best way of keeping the schools up to the mark. But all this would be made much more difficult if the Amendment was adopted. He thought all the educational development for which they hoped would be effected by making the educational question the only question to be considered in making these appointments. It would be a very bad thing for a teacher to be labelled as a persona grata or a persona ingrata in High Church schools, because such a thing was likely to interfere with the educational requirements of the staffing of the schools. He also put it on the ground of religion. He thought very strongly that it was in the true interest of religion that the Church of England and other Churches should realise from the first that they were going to be put in a different position, in some ways at any rate, by this Bill; that they should organise their teachers and make their arrangements from the first, the time most suitable for so doing. They would soon have offered to them certain rents for the use of buildings, and that would be one use for them. The great Churches could organise a splendid system of visiting and resident teachers to give proper denominational teaching if they began when these rents were first paid, and did not allow them to be absorbed for some other purpose. They ought also to consider the recent offer of 75 per cent, of building grants to all public training colleges. If that meant anything it meant that many teachers' training colleges would be built, and many teachers turned out from those training colleges who-would have no guarantee of any special fitness to give denominational instruction. The proportion of trained teachers in the English Church schools must therefore decrease. Any authority which had to staff these schools would be bound more and more to staff them with teachers who were unable or unwilling to give denominational teaching. Was it not better that the Church should face the state of things and organise a proper system of teachers for denominational instruction with the funds available for that purpose? It was amazing to see the lightness of heart with which any teacher trained in any Church Training College was entrusted with the special and delicate task of giving denominational teaching. If such teaching was given it should be given by a man who had had a great deal more special training than was afforded by two years residence in a training college, the whole of which time was occupied in studying for the examinations in secular subjects by which he passed out of the college. Then there was one final argument; they were told the teachers desired to give this special religious instruction. He admitted that a great many of them did, for two very considerable reasons. In the first place, there was the well-known hatred of any outside interference, which they very much disliked, and which they brutally described as"the parson in their school." They were disturbed by what they thought would be the introduction of an outside element in their school, and naturally they desired to keep their school to themselves. That was the first reason why they were anxious to give this teaching in the future. The second was that they would get extra salary for so doing. They were, therefore, a class who would agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, if any class would, that his Amendment ought to be adopted. But what was the opinion which they found expressed by a majority of seven or eight in a meeting of fifty or so of the Executive Committee of the National Union of Teachers? They passed a resolution approving of Sub-section (1) as it stood, and hoped that it would be made law. That was a strong argument in favour of the sub-section. The fact that the one class which had any real temptation to wish that no alteration should be made in the law had, through their most responsible representatives, declared in favour of the proposal of the Government was a very strong fact. He thought on the whole those who sat on the Liberal side of the House appreciated the importance of this proposal of the Government, but in his view it would be better if this Amendment was now disposed of rapidly in order that the Committee might get on to other matters of great importance which it was hoped would be discussed to-day.

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said he must commence his observations by saying how much he admired the eloquence and spirit with which the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire had dealt with the question. He said that all the more strongly because he was unable in any way to accept the conclusions at which the hon. Member had arrived. He spoke to the Committee as one who represented a larger number of teachers, he believed, than any Member of the House. In the constituency he represented there were 1,200 teachers, and 300 or 400 of those were employed in schools in England. He was sure he was voicing their views, quite as strongly as a small majority at a meeting of fifty members of the Union of Teachers, in saying that they resented, as much as they would resent any test that could be imposed upon them, this embargo on the most sacred part of their teaching. One of the practical difficulties of this matter was this: Where were they going to get teachers to come in for forty minutes in the morning and to leave their work thereafter? In a school of 800 children they required twenty or twenty- one teachers of secular education, and they could not have only one teacher for religious instruction any more than they could have one teacher for secular instruction. How could they bring in twenty or twenty-one teachers for forty minutes and then turn them adrift? But a greater difficulty was with regard to the discipline of the schools. Did not hon. Gentlemen think that that would be interfered with by a man coming in to take up the task of religious instruction in which the regular teachers were forbidden to take part, or to perform what they on that side believed was the most important duty which teachers could perform? But he would not dwell upon the technical or mechanical difficulties, although everyone acquainted with the inside of a school knew how serious they were. What he wished, to speak of was the intellectual work of the school. They grappled with difficulties in their educational advance; they made experiments and they made mistakes; but if there was one thing which in recent years they had advanced towards more than another, by a comparison of all the views of those most interested in the subject and a comparison with the methods indifferent countries, it was that education was not the gathering; of a few elements of information, but that it was a whole, a whole in which one part was dovetailed into another. If they lost sight of that the work became mere mechanical drudgery. Were they to give up the training of character and the formation of moral conduct in the schools? The teacher might teach truth, duty towards one's neighbour and so on; but if he went into questions of the higher sanction that would be entering on forbidden ground. Would hon. Members who sent their children to the higher schools of the country be content that the headmaster should be cut off from the most sacred part of the instruction of the young? Lock at the reformatories. How long would those schools perform their work if the teacher was debarred from touching upon religion? It was argued by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division that the teacher must serve one master only, but was it not the case that there had been hitherto two authorities in the elementary schools? He had often noticed during these debates how much that fact was neglected. There was the authority of the State and the authority of the local controlling power. The State was purely secular. Never had the Board of Education as representing the State any right to interfere with religious instruction, even to ask whether it existed in the school or not. The State paid nothing for it, and all that it did was to see that there was not too much religion and that it was taught under certain restrictions. The Religion was attended to by the local authority, but the teacher served both authorities. The hon. Member for North Camberwell yesterday quoted certain words of ethical doctrine from the Code. The very fact that they appeared in the Code excluded the possibility of their being religious, because under the Education Act of 1870 the Code was forbidden to touch any religious question at all. He contended, therefore, that the teachers heretofore had satisfactorily carried on their work in obedience to these two authorities, the one having the supervision of religious education and the other of the purely secular. Why should not the teacher carry on the higher and most important part of religious teaching? He wished to treat the matter also in the interests of the teachers themselves. Were they going to deprive the teacher of what he had hitherto felt to be a great part of his work, namely, the building up of the character of the pupil? He would appeal especially to his fellow Members from Scotland. What were they proudest of in the elementary education of Scotland? Was it not the parish schoolmaster of old days whom they were proud to recognise as one of the best specimens of his race? What would the old parish schoolmaster have thought if religion had been excluded from his sphere of education? Would his school have held the place it had in the history of Scotland, or built up Scottish citizens for the great work they had done for the Empire? Were they going so far to forget these traditions, to be false to them, to underrate the great work they had done, by telling the teachers that they might teach their pupils secular subjects, that they might cram them with elementary knowledge, that they might, if they were so disposed, give them a few precepts of more or less ethical force, but that when the pupils' enthusiasm was awakened to more sacred things they must curb their desires in that direction?


expressed admiration of the manner in which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment made his points so clear, and also complimented the hon. Member behind him for the admirable reply he had given. Both these hon. Gentlemen bore ancient Parliamentary names, and he thought there was no doubt that they would maintain the reputation of those names in time to come. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It would, in homely vernacular,"knock the bottom out of their own Bill," and it would make it difficult to answer the question which would be put to them from many quarters,"What are we going to get for our million of money?" The privilege of paying rent was not one which commended itself to the inhabitants of this country. They would naturally expect that if they did that there should be some difference in the mode in which the schools were conducted, and something to indicate the recognition of the right of the public in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had spoken of this Bill the other day in a manner which attracted his attention. It was not a complimentary manner. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt a master of compliments, but he had not happened to be within earshot of any of them. He said the Bill was a bad Bill, but it was a Bill very difficult to mend. There was truth in the statement, not that the Bill was bad—that he admitted to be controversial—but that this was not a Bill of which they could at any moment take up a clause and amend it so as to turn it inside out. It was an undenominational Bill, and its object was to establish, at all events in the rural districts, an undenominational kind of religious teaching, to enable the existing councils when they thought fit— as most of them had thought fit in the past, and would in the time to come, he hoped, think fit—to arrange for a form of religious teaching which he would go to the grave convinced met the desires and wants of the great masses of the country. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made a speech from which it might be supposed that the unhappy teacher under this Bill would never have any opportunity of enforcing on his pupils the divine sanctions of religion, or in any way of getting at their hearts and imaginations through that great and holy channel. That was not so. All teachers would tell him that it was not only through the catechisms and formularies of a Church that they were able to give religious teaching in its most effective form. Although he did not ask them to be satisfied, if they were not so minded, with the kind of teaching which it was the Government's object to establish in all the schools except in those frankly denominational schools contemplated by Clause 4, he did protest against announcements that there was to be no religion in those schools at all, and no opportunities given to the teachers to use religious examples and exercise religious influence. That was not the Government view. Yet the hon. Member drew a picture of a teacher in one of these schools cut off rudely from all opportunities of doing good in the way that he wished to, as if a great barrier were to be erected between him and his pupils which he could not cross, simply because he could not use the formularies and catechisms of the Church. The reason why the clause was necessary was that in the greater part of the schools the ordinary teacher would be giving undenominational teaching as part of his duty. In the large majority of cases that would be so There might be exceptions, and although what he had laid down was applicable to nine-tenths of the whole situation it might not be perfectly applicable to the remaining one-tenth. They contemplated that this Cowper-Temple instruction was to be given by the ordinary teachers because it was to be the school instruction and ought to be given by the teachers. The mover of the Amendment had laid stress on a teacher's believing in the definite instruction he was giving, and there was no means of securing that an ordinary elementary teacher believed in special dogmatic teaching. They could not dive into the depths of a man's mind, or tell how far a bishop of any church believed in the doctrine he was preaching; and from both Church of England and Nonconformist preachers he had heard discourses which led him to doubt if the preacher believed the doctrine he was expounding in the sense in which ordinary plain people believed it. They could not absolutely secure that; and that being so, they could not do better than leave it to voluntary effort. In that there was some security that the pupil would get the definite precise teaching. Even then there would be no absolute guarantee of belief, for no church had yet succeeded in accomplishing that, but there would be more chance of sincere belief by voluntary effort than by any other method. He had got into trouble when he had spoken of the canonical duty of the clergy; but surely it was recognised as part of the duty of the clergy to instruct the young in their own creed! There was no need to remind the clergy that it was a duty which they, in the first instance, should undertake. At any rate he thought he was justified in reminding the clergy of the Church of England that this was not a duty that they could impose upon State aid. He was amazed to hear the hon. Member who had just sat down say it was impossible to get such teaching in large schools. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire that the new duties would call forth new energies, which would enable the Church of England, never slow in discharging its educational duties, to provide religious instruction to the children whose parents desired it—they would continue to give that instruction and in a more organised form. He was afraid it was too often true of ministers of all religions that they too readily assumed that the school children were receiving the most satisfactory form of religious instruction. Nothing was more easy than to assume that all was going well if one did not inquire. Let one keep away from schools, reformatories, workhouses, prisons and he might become optimistic and believe that all was going on well. But let him go into a Church school, listen to the teaching given, watch the intelligence of the children, see how far they understand, and it would be admitted that religion was shockingly badly taught in the majority of schools. If this clause was bad it was bad with the badness of the Bill, which proceeded on an undenominational, but religious basis. He believed the children would continue to receive the religious instruction called for by the country, and that it would be good teaching according to the qualifications of the teacher. He emphatically denied that they were cutting off religious teaching when cutting oft' denominational teaching to be given by the ordinary teacher. In the case of schools provided for by Clause 4, the teaching would be given by the teacher of the school, for the reason that the denominational character of the schools was recognised. Of course if they believed that undenominational teaching was repugnant to a Protestant community the Bill would be an impossibility; but basing themselves on experience of the past, and knowing the wishes of parents, the Government felt themselves on firm ground, and could not consent to the Amendment.

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

said the right hon. Gentleman had followed his usual formula when he said the Bill must necessarily be a j bad Bill from the point of view of the Opposition, but in the attempt to defend the Bill on its merits and by reason he sometimes got into trouble. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they could not gauge the qualifications of a teacher to teach children the highest truths of religion. That might or might not be true, but if true it was as true of Cowper Temple teaching I as of denominational teaching. The right hon. Gentleman had also told the Committee that ho was prepared to go to hi-j grave with the firm unalterable conviction that the Cowper-Temple teaching was the form of religious teaching the mass of parents among his fellow countrymen desired.


In schools.


said it was not a very easy proposition to resolve, and one of the difficulties was that of naming any form, from the literary and moral instruction of Dr. Clifford to the dogmatic Christian instruction in the Catechism. Which of these two things, which differed as far as north and south, and as far as two sets of opinions on this great subject could differ, was the right hon. Gentleman going to his grave in the belief that the parents of this country desired for their children? He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell them which form of this municipal religion the parents of the children really wanted. Until they knew, they were utterly at sea as to what this religion really meant. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he admired Cowper-Temple teaching, he certainly did not mean merely literature and morality, as Dr. Clifford did.


He is not a syllabus.


said Dr. Clifford was not a syllabus, but he was a force. He was the admitted leader of a particular school of religious thought who held with vehement conviction not merely that denominational teaching ought not to be admitted, or encouraged, or paid for in our elementary schools, but also that there was no logical resting-place between denominational teaching and something which was not religious teaching, but literary teaching. It was perplexing that they should have sitting in the front Bench opposite two gentlemen who both told them that the people of this country, at all events in the country districts, only required one kind of religious teaching, and when they were asked what kind of religious teaching, one indicated that he meant literature and morality, and the other that he meant what everybody would describe as dogmatic, though not denominational, Christian teaching. He would like a little more agreement among Members of the Government on this important point. The inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He had told them that, although they could not judge whether a teacher was or was not fit to teach denominational religion, they could judge whether he was fit to teach Christian religion. What a strange distinction; what an amazing paradox! The defence of this clause made by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division was much clearer and more forcible than that made by the Minister for Education. It was quite clear that the hon. Member regarded this clause as an attack upon the Church of England. He said it was quite true they had duties to the Church of Rome, which they had attempted honestly to carry out in Clause 4, but they had no duty to the Church of England, except to destroy her present position. The hon. Member, following the example of many who held that opinion, had told them that by destroying the present position of the Church of England they would do that Church a great deal of good; that there would be developed a great body of trained denominational teachers, who would go from voluntary school to voluntary school, and do all the denominational work that was required of them. He did not know whether that was a practical scheme or not, but if the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to aid the Church of England in becoming a more effectual educational machine, why did he not apply the same health-giving process to the Church of Rome? He thought that what the hon. Gentleman really wanted was to turn the Church of England out of all the schools from which it was possible to exclude her. He could not do it in the urban areas without also injuring the Church of Rome. But in the country districts the Government and the hon. Gentleman avowedly meant to do all they could so to modify our education laws that the Church of England would be excluded from her own schools, and the method of teaching which she had adopted would be allowed no longer. He did not think he was exaggerating the animus observable among a large number of gentlemen opposite. They had attempted to supplement a rather crude and ungenerous policy by something which seemed to him to be absolutely rotten from the beginning, and which their own speeches showed to be rotten. Let them take the example that occurred in the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division. The hon. Member said it would be unfair to the teachers to require them to teach Church of England dogmas. A teacher might go to a village where the teachers had been in the habit of giving Church of England teaching, and if he was unwilling to give that teaching he might be subjected to social pressure, and his life made very uncomfortable. The hon. Gentleman's argument, if it was worth anything, was as valid against sub-section (1) as it stood, as it would be against the Bill if this sub-section were excluded, because a teacher who went to a village where Cowper-Temple teaching had been given, and was unwilling to teach undenominational religion, would be subjected to the same pressure and the same social ostracism. The hon. Member had described the Amendment as an interference with freedom. If it was a step in the direction of freedom to prevent teachers from giving denominational teaching, which they were willing and anxious to give, the hon. Member should go a step further towards perfect freedom, and say the teacher who was willing and anxious to teach undenominational religion should be forbidden to teach it He thought that in the speeches of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and of the hon. Member for the Richmond division, there was no allusion to the interests of the children themselves. There was one admission in the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division. It was unfair, he said, to the teachers to make appointments in village schools of teachers who were qualified to teach the kind of religion which the parents desired. Unfair to whom? He seemed to think the teachers existed only to give secular instruction; that religion was an"extra" and ought not to be considered in the qualifications of the teacher. To ask a teacher whether he was able to deal with reading, writing, and arithmetic, and secular instruction generally, was right, but to ask whether he was also qualified to teach religion, denominational or undenominational, was unfair to the teacher. He was utterly unable to put himself in the frame of mind of those who deliberately constructed their Bill for the avowed purpose of preventing people who were ready to teach something which they believed from teaching that something to those who were anxious to be taught.


It could be taught in the Sunday schools.


asked whether freedom was to exist on only one of the seven days of the week? What he was | really unable to understand was how hon. Gentlemen could, from the mere dislike of the Church of England [MINI- STERIAL cries of"Oh."]—


I deny that I have any dislike of the Church.


said he was quite unable to understand why those who desired to exclude the Church of England from her present position as a teaching body in elementary schools should be so over-mastered by that desire that they would, without seeing how paradoxical was their position, really prevent those who desired to teach from teaching those who desired to learn. That was an utterly indefensible scheme, and if anybody told him that that, or anything like it, was the view of the country when this Bill was discussed on the platform, he replied that they did not really understand what the view of the country was. He believed them to be under the wildest delusions on that point. The Minister for Education had said they could not accept the Amendment because, if they did, what should they answer when the question was put to them,"What are you spending your million on?" Had it really come to this—that the Government came down to this House and suggested that out of their not too flourishing finances a million should be expended with the avowed object of preventing those teaching what they were qualified to teach to those who were desirous of learning it? They posed as the advocates of ecomony, they claimed to be the real guardians of the money of the taxpayers, and then they came and proposed to spend that money in order to destroy the position of the Church they disliked, although at the same time they prevented the children of the country getting the education the parents desired for their children. That was what they were doing under this sub-section.


said he hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the grant of money would be repeated when the question came to be discussed as to how this money should be allocated. The precise scope of this sub-section, which the Amendment proposed to omit, was to prohibit the teacher who, receiving his salary from the State, had become a State officer, from devoting his time and services to the interests of a particular denomination by no means co-extensive with the State whose employee ho was. He did not see how that was an attack upon the Church of England which simply reduced the Church of England to the same position as other religious bodies of having to provide for its own propaganda among its own children and other people's children. The Church demanded that this State officer should teach doctrines at the expense of the State, including Noncon- formists, to whom those doctrines were in some cases abhorrent, and in many cases dangerous from the point of view of their own faith. That, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was the right of the Church, and, if they attacked that right, the right to perpetrate that gross inequality and injustice, they were attacking the Church, they were manifesting a dislike of the Church. The Nonconformist bodies had expanded and prospered upon the voluntary system. They had heard a good deal about the sacrifices which the Church of England had made; but they did not hear of the vitalising sacrifices which the Nonconformists had made. They did not regret them nor did they put their hands into the pockets of their fellow-citizens in order to repay them for those sacrifices. They had pushed their creed into the lowest slums of our great cities, and not content with that, they had carried their energies into the uttermost parts of the earth. They had done that on the voluntary principle. They had not asked for State aid; on the contrary they had spurned State aid; and they had thereby intensified the spirituality of their work. It was possible for those who did not avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church of England to believe that that Church would gain by the application of those principles; but why should they be charged with having a dislike to the Church of England? He wondered how the right hon. Gentleman would like it if he were charged with a dislike of Nonconformity? He was not going to make any charge against him. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had so far examined his feelings towards Nonconformity as to know whether he liked it or not, but, judging simply by his policy,, he seemed to regard Nonconformity as a very objectionable form of faith, and to consider that the needs of Nonconformity, from the point of view of its propaganda,, were sufficiently met by school teaching which did not concern itself with the special doctrines of Nonconformity at all. The right hon. Gentleman desired to maintain the grievance against which the country so emphatically pronounced at the last election, and to continue the system under which the Church of England should be able to draw taxes, tithes, and rates from non-assenting members of the community and so save itself from the cost of conducting the propaganda and the spread of its own particular doctrines. In these schools, the property of the State, it was to be unjust, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the teacher should serve the State rather than some particular denomination. Having taken over the schools as their own property, paying rent for them, they were to leave them substantially under the control of the Church, because, of course, they were to teach their own doctrines and they were to have teachers who understood their doctrines. They knew what was the very essence of Church teaching. It did not consist in the hymn or the prayer or the Bible. He had heard the Bible referred to throughout the debate by hon. Gentleman opposite as a sort of Nonconformist volume. [OPPOSITION cries of"Oh" and"Withdraw."]


said he must request hon. Gentlemen not to keep on calling" Withdraw."

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

I trust, Mr. Chairman, you will use your influence with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to induce him not to make use of unnecessarily provocative language.


said they had had Bible teaching referred to as if it were a Nonconformist function, satisfactory to the Nonconformists but repulsive in many cases, if standing alone, to those of other denominations. Why should they be told by one of the Bishops that Cowper-Temple teaching, simple Bible teaching, was a dread alternative, and by another that it was the thing they wanted to avoid. If they said these things they laid themselves open to the charge that they regarded Bible teaching as a Nonconformist and not a Church of England mode of teaching, and they were treating it as a Nonconformist creed of faith which was not to be treated as a Church of England creed of faith. The grievance of hon. Members opposite appeared to be that they were not allowed to have in schools which were transferred to the State and for which the State had to pay—that they were not to be allowed to have those schools and those teachers devoted to the propagation of a particular creed of their own. Originally the Party opposite put forward a plea for some kind of equality to be afforded by all-round facilities, but the moment all-round facilities came to be dealt with in this debate they were told that they were impracticable. The contention of hon. Members opposite was grossly unjust to other religious denominations and represented a policy which had been condemned by the country and he hoped would be condemned by the House.


said the Solicitor-General had provoked many who sat upon the Opposition side of the House, and it was not the first time that he had used provocative language. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's interventions in these debates passed his comprehension. He did not know whether the learned Solicitor-General felt it necessary after the events of last night to fan the fires of religious hatred, for his speech amounted to an expression of hatred towards those who differed from him in religious matters. That sort of speech did not move him to anger. On the contrary he preferred it to much that they had heard on the other side. He should like to have a verbatim report of it distributed as a leaflet at every meeting which they, on that side, addressed. It revealed the real motive behind this Bill and its ultimate objective, and made it plain that the Bill was an attack upon the Church of England. Such attacks were part of the traditional apparatus of the Party to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belonged. They helped the Party when in political difficulties and raised the spirits of those amongst their supporters who believed that the doctrines of the Church of England were false and that the doctrines that they themselves held were true. For men who indulged in persecution on that ground he had some respect, because they thought they were doing good to their fellow countrymen and at any rate they had the courage of their convictions. Theirs was an intelligible position, although old fashioned, but still it was entitled to respect. What he did not think was entitled to any respect was the newer mode of explaining this Bill and clause as really a blessing in disguise to the Church of England, and the designs of the Government as much wiser and better than those of the pastors of the Church, who understood her true interests and how her children might be brought up to be true and believing members of that great and ancient institution. The Solicitor-General had told them that the Nonconformists had done a great work in the slums, but he did not refer to the work which the Church of England had done in those places, although everybody knew that the Church of England had made enormous sacrifices in regard to them. The Solicitor-General had taunted them with regarding the Bible as a Nonconformist volume. He should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that statement before some of their meetings in the country. He would find that the interruptions in this House were as nothing to the kind of interruption he would encounter there, in consequence of the stormy passions which such a statement would arouse. How could the hon. and learned Gentleman ask them to believe that this clause was not of an invidious character? It was admitted that Clause 4 would help the Roman Catholic Church more than the Church of England, and that the Church of England must look to Clause 3 for any facilities they might enjoy under this Act. It was admitted that the Free Church Catechism, from the first syllable to the last, would be taught by teachers if this Bill were passed in its present shape, because it was included under Cowper-Templeism. [The SOLICITOR-GENERAL dissented.] It had been subscribed to by four Nonconformist Denominations, Baptist, Congregationalist, Wesleyan and another. This was an invidious clause in an invidious Bill aimed directly at the Church of England. By this prohibition which was laid upon teachers they were returning to methods long since abandoned of naked religious persecution. This disability was put on a large number of men simply because their religious beliefs were not those held by the majority who supported His Majesty's Government. The chief objection to the"all-round" facilities which were to be afforded was that they would bring persons into the school other than the teacher, and that the teacher's place would be taken by somebody else. This, moreover, was only to happen in the case of the Church of England, whose whole system of education was to be uprooted, and the standard of whose religious education was to be impaired, because the Government insisted that in the case of the Church of England,, and only in the case of the Church of England, the teacher was not to be permitted to give the religious instruction which he had given in the past and which he desired to give in the future.

MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

said it was remarkable that, while in other respects the freedom of the teacher was most jealously safeguarded, suddenly in this clause they came upon a harsh compulsion, which was exercised only in the case of a teacher in a transferred voluntary school. The teacher on the regular staff was forbidden to give the teaching of the denomination to which he belonged even in the hours set apart for that distinctive form of religious, instruction. Surely it was as much an infringement of liberty to forbid a man to teach religion, if he wished to do so, as to compel him to teach it, if he did not so wish. On what grounds could that compulsion be justified? Why must an outsider be introduced when there was a competent teacher on the spot? The Minister for Education rightly set aside one ground that had been put forward in the early part of the debate, that it was in the interest of educational efficiency. His reason was quite different. He said that this was an undenominational Bill, and that if this sub-section was bad, it was"bad with the badness of the Bill itself." If that was so he would put this question to the right hon. Gentleman: Why give facilities at all? And still more, why say, as he had repeatedly declared, that the facilities under Clause 3 were intended to be a reality and not a sham? This sub-section could not have been better framed if it had been specially designed to make the facilities under Clause 3 nugatory. Everybody knew that there were very few persons, especially in country districts, besides the teacher who, between the hours of 9 and 9.40 in the morning, were free to give others religious instruction. The only other persons were the clergyman and perhaps a retired teacher; but of these, again, only a few were qualified to teach effectively. It was a most difficult thing to give a simple Bible lesson to children. How many in that House could do it? He personally had been teaching during a great portion of his life, but he would feel serious doubts as to his own power. The children needed the best teaching that could be got, and it was a wanton wrong to deprive them of the services of the skilled teacher whoso heart was in the work. What would be the impression left on the minds of the children when they saw the teacher silenced whom they most respected? They must conclude that the religion of their parents was a mere adjunct, a thing tacked on loosely to secular education, outside the teacher's duties, outside of school hours, something which could not matter much so far as their daily life was concerned. This prohibition affecting the teachers was, in his view, one of the most important features of the Bill."Who is the teacher?" was a more important question than"What is the syllabus?" Above all, in elementary teaching the first essential was to have a trained teacher. He asked the Committee to contrast the requirements for secular and for religious teaching respectively. The idea of secular education had been deepened and vitalised. New and great demands were made on the teachers. They were not content to accept the leavings of other professions. They looked for men who were trained to their difficult task, trained to patience, tact, and sympathy; men who were enlightened by knowledge, inspired by enthusiasm, whose spirit was quickened by daily contact with the fresh minds of the children; men whose simplicity and sincerity went straight to the heart of the young; who spoke out of a full heart and a full mind and did not serve up fragments of knowledge, old and cold. When, however, they came to examine the Bill they found that in religious instruction it ignored the need of knowledge, of trained sympathy, and of intelligent control. In no part of the Bill was there any direction that the man who taught religion, Cowper-Temple or any other, should possess any knowledge of this subject. And this particular clause silenced by direct enactment the trained teacher who often prized as his highest privilege the right of teaching what to him were living and breathing truths. The clause lowered the place and dignity of religious instruction and would in its working inflict a grave injury on both religion and education.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, B.)

said that if anything could have induced him to support a this sub-section it would have been the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire, for whom he prophesied a brilliant career in this House. But he differed entirely from the conclusions to which the hon. Gentleman had come. The hon. Member said the chief merit of the sub-section was that by means of coercion it provided a way for teachers being free. He did not deny that there were cases where coercion was needed in order to obtain freedom, as in the case of great industries. But if people sought freedom in that way they must be extremely guarded in the way they proceed. The teachers were denied the right, when they volunteered to do so, to teach the religion in which they believed. He readily accepted the provision of the following sub-section to exempt teachers from religious tests and give them liberty to refuse the duty of teaching a religion they did not feel called upon to teach; but he wished to know on what principle of logic they said that a teacher should not be allowed to teach the religion of the Church of England if he was willing to teach it, and believed in it, while he was allowed to teach Cowper-Temple religion. Was that their idea of freedom? There were many people in this country who did not believe in Cowper-Temple religion, and there were a growing number who did not believe in Christianity in any shape. If a teacher said he could not teach any religion he ought to be allowed liberty to refuse to teach it. But why did they give the teacher liberty to teach Cowper-Temple religion and refuse him liberty to teach Church of England religion? He could not see that at all. The hon. Member had said that if a teacher came to a village school and said he could not teach religion, pressure might be brought to bear on him. But the principle of the Government was this: because Cowper-Temple religion was acceptable to the Nonconformists and a large section of the Church of England, the teacher might teach it, but they would not extend to him liberty to teach Church of England or any other religion. The liberty of the teachers, therefore, was liberty for those who agreed with the Government and not for those who did not. That was not his idea of liberty, and it was not consistent with the traditions of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire had said that the rights of Catholics were safeguarded under Clause 4, but that was not true. Clause 4 provided that" where extended facilities are so afforded, the local education authority may also, if they think fit, permit the teachers employed in the school to give the instruction desired." That permission would not be required but for the first sub-section of Clause 7, and that was why they were opposed to it. The sub-section was coercive and interfered with the liberty of the teacher.


said he was lost in wonder at the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side with regard to this clause. They had constantly been saying that the Bill was an insult to the Church of England, but the attitude which they were now taking up was an insult to the Church of England parson. What were they asking for? They were asking that the religious denominational teaching in transferred voluntary schools should be given by the trained teachers and not by the clergymen of the Church of England. What was their object? Did they allege that the clergyman was unwilling to perform that duty? The Minister for Education had said that it was the canonical duty of the clergyman to teach the young, and in the country districts they had plenty of time to perform that duty. The clergymen in the country districts ware both underpaid and underworked as a rule, and a little more work in this direction would not do them the slightest harm. Did hon. Members say that the Church of England clergymen were incompetent to perform this duty? The late Patronage Secretary had said they were going to put religious teaching in the hands of those who were least qualified to give it, meaning of course the parsons. Surely if the parson was qualified to teach adults he was qualified to teach the children. Did they not hold children's services and did they not consider themselves competent to hold them? It was the clergyman's business to teach the young, and surely hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side were not prepared to say that clergyman of the Church of England were incompetent to do that. A clergyman who was genuinely interested in his work and wanted to take the utmost advantage of his office would be only too pleased to have the young people under his care at the most plastic period of their life, because they would afterwards come to him with their religious difficulties as they got older. Having regard to all the circumstances, he was at a loss to understand how hon. Members could desire the omission of this clause.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said that the hon. Member had misinterpreted the position of the Opposition. He had stated that they desired to substitute entirely trained teachers for the clergymen, but that was not so. What they wanted was the alternative of getting the best possible teacher to give specific instruction, and that was the object of this Amendment. If they could get a clergyman, why not allow him to go in? They did not want to abolish the possibility of having a trained teacher, because if that teacher volunteered, and if, in the opinion of the parents, he was a satisfactory teacher, surely he was the best possible person to undertake the teaching for the discipline of the school. Why should he be excluded by this clause? Hon. Members had twitted the Opposition with taking up an inconsistent position, but they had failed entirely to realise that their own position was very inconsistent with their former views on this question. They used to hear a good deal about sacerdotalism, and there were perpetual accusations in the last Parliament that the policy of the late Government was nothing else but sacerdotalism. This clause was going to prevent a teacher from teaching this very thing, and it introduced the clergyman or the priest. Was that sacerdotalism?


Why are you fighting it?


said he had already explained that the Opposition were fighting or alternatives, and the hon. Member's own position was one of sacerdotalism. He could not congratulate the Ministerial Front Bench upon their defence of this sub-section, for he had expected some argument which would appeal to an impartial mind. What had the President' of the Board of Education said? He had merely observed that the Bill was difficult to amend; surely that was a very feeble argument. If they thought an injustice was being done, they were within their rights in making some effort to remove it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the teacher might be able during the time of secular instruction incidentally to bring in a little religious instruction. It seemed to him that it was poor consolation and a poor defence of this subsection to hold that out as an inducement. There was no guarantee that there would even be this incidental: religious instruction. The Solicitor-General had made some remarks which caused some irritation, and had said that the policy of the Opposition was grossly unequal. When they considered the provisions of Clause 4, surely everyone of those criticisms could be directed against the Solicitor-General himself. Why was Clause 3 to be excluded in this matter when Clause 4 was included? The teachers who were to teach ordinary facilities under Clause 3 were not to be allowed to teach those ordinary facilities but they might teach extended facilities under Clause 4. He could not see the reason for that distinction, and it was not fair, because it was giving a privilege to the schools under Clause 4 which was not given to the schools working under Clause 3. He could not see any reason for this difference being made except that Clause 4 most specially applied to Roman Catholic schools and was a bid for the Irish vote, and Clause 3 only applied to them in a much less degree. The hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire had spoken of this provision as a charter of freedom for the village teachers. It was a charter to them to teach what the hon. Member desired, but it was not a charter of absolute freedom. Then, again, this was only a charter of freedom to urban schools and not to rural schools. He did not see any reason why trained teachers should not be allowed to give specific teaching if they were competent, if they volunteered, and if the parents desired it. It would be grossly unfair if this sub-section was adopted.


did not see how the hon. Member opposite could made out that this subsection was a fair provision. Under it the teacher might be allowed to teach Cowper-Temple religion, but why should he not be allowed to teach any other form of religion? Why should the teacher be allowed to teach only that form of religion, namely, the Cowper-Temple teaching, which satisfied hon. Members opposite? It simply was not fair, and it could not possibly recommend itself to those who did not believe in Cowper-Temple religion. The more one looked into this scheme the more one came to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, the object of the Bill was to endow one form of religion at the expense of other forms. Church of England people, Catholics, and other denominations had to pay their share of the rates, yet in the vast majority of the schools this new form of religion was to be taught and practically none other. That was a one-sided arrangement. It would be much fairer, if they were going to put this disability upon the teacher, to say that he should not be allowed to teach any form of religion at all. There would then be, at any rate, some semblance of fairness. The facilities under Clause 4 might or might not be given. The local authority might or might not allow the teacher to teach any particular religion. They were entirely at the mercy of the local authority, and they were at the mercy of whoever might happen for the time being to be the head of the Education Department. Under these circumstances he really did not see how they could expect that those who did not believe in the Cowper-Temple form of religion should be satisfied with this. He confessed that the whole discussion was fraught with a good deal of embarrassment and pain. There was not the slightest desire on his part or on the part of any Catholic Member intentionally to say anything which would be in the slightest degree offensive to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They did not in the slightest degree find fault with those who were satisfied with simple Bible teaching. They were entitled to their opinion, and it had their respect, but they did claim that those who could not accept that particular form of religion should have their opinions respected also, and that there should not be a hard and fast rule laid down that under this Bill, which was supposed to deal with the people of the country generally, making it impossible for any teacher to teach any religion but the Cowper-Temple form. They were going to be called upon to pay their fair share of the rates. They did not complain on that account; all they asked was that as they were going to pay man for man the same proportion as Nonconformists and members of other denominations, they should at least get the same fair play which was to be given all through this Bill to those who were satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching. It was far better for everyone concerned that there should be a policy of give and take so that there might be the hope of the Bill attaining success instead of being passed in a shape which would leave many denominations dissatisfied, and give rise to fresh agitation and disturbance in the country, and so necessitate the whole matter being re-discussed in the House at an early date.

MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

said the speech of the Solicitor-General had given very great pain on the Opposition side of the House and they felt that they had been very much misrepresented and something very much like slandered. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of their having a feeling of repulsion to Bible teaching. That was exactly the opposite to what was really the case. They founded themselves on Bible teaching. The Prayer Book was founded on Bible teaching, and so was the Catechism, and they only claimed the right of teaching and interpreting the Bible in their own way. What they claimed for themselves they conceded to every Dissenter in the country. This clause seemed to be the climax of a long series of confiscations of religious freedom and the rights of con science. Church teaching was to be confiscated in favour of that approved by Dissenters. The rights of Church parents were to be confiscated by and to give place to the rights of Dissenting parents. The freedom of the local authority in acting for the parents of the children was to be curtailed. The children's rights and interests were utterly forgotten and ignored. And now it was the teacher's turn. He was to be straight-waistcoated and to have his liberty abridged. Why should not the teacher have the liberty of teaching what he sincerely believed in to those who were anxious to learn? It was the only thing he could teach well—that in which he believed. If he were allowed to teach it they would double his influence; if they prevented him from teaching it, they would half his influence. Why should they introduce this interloping outsider?


Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the clergy?


said he was not specially referring to the clergy. Undoubtedly the clergy would not be able to get in to give this teaching, as they would not have the time. The first thing they would get would be a disorderly class, for the influence of the teacher would be weakened. If they tried to introduce this clause into Scotland it would be rejected with scorn. If they tried to introduce it into Ireland it would be met with rebellion. He believed it would be only possible to maintain it in England if faith failed them, and they were willing to adopt moral teaching without the sanction of worship and of religion.


said there were many Amendments to be considered this evin-ing and he hoped the Committee would come to a decision on this one.

MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)

said that unless there were good reasons it was a strong measure to prohibit a man from teaching what he wanted to teach. One reason given was that the teacher was the servant of the State. A postman was also a servant of the State, and no one would debar him from giving religious instruction in a school. Another reason was that in villages if they allowed the teacher to teach the Catechism they would create a special demand for those who were willing to teach the Catechism and exclude others, and that this would be unfair to the teachers, or some of them. What he suggested was that there would be no disadvantage to the community in having teachers who were willing to teach the Catechism so long as they had other teachers who were willing to give Cowper-Temple teaching. He urged that the clause should be confined to schools where there was only one teacher.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said there had been an extreme paucity of arguments from the Government side of the House in support of the clause. There was no argument in the speech of the Solicitor-General. It was simply a denunciation of the Church of England. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that Churchmen were complaining because they were asked to provide for their own propaganda he failed to remember what the position hitherto had been. All that they asked was that they should be allowed to employ and pay for teachers who were willing to teach. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Nonconformists schools had thriven without the aid of the State he should remember that the very form of teaching favoured by Nonconformists had been provided at the expense of the rates. Under these circumstances a reference to a manual giving the history of elementary education in this country might assist the Solicitor-General. The hon. Member for Barnstaple had dwelt on the duty of the clergyman to teach in the rural school, but he had said nothing of the similar duty that might fall to the clergyman in the urban schools. The hon. Member had said that no hardship could possibly arise from the exclusion of the ordinary teacher of the school from the giving of religious instruction, because the clergyman would come in and teach, but he should bear in mind that there was an appreciable number of rural villages where the clergyman had left the giving of religious instruction with perfect confidence to the teacher who was willing to give the instruction,, while he looked in from time to time and occasionally took part in the teaching. There were other cases in which the clergyman could not teach. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman. had himself tried his hand at teaching. If he had he might have found that everyone had not the capacity for it. It was not everybody who could approach the mind of a child in a rural elementary school. This clause had been called a charter of freedom for the teachers. So far from being a. charter of freedom, it appeared to him to impose a definite disability on the teachers. They were told also that it was a boon to the villages. He really wondered what picture of a rural village was present to the mind of the hon. Member who talked in that way. The squire was not always walking up and down the village streets scowling at the Nonconformists. The clergy were not always preaching against the wickedness of the Nonconformity. Nonconformist children were not always skulking about the streets cowed and abashed in the presence of Church of England children. The great bulk of the rural villages in educational matters were working very smoothly, and they would go on doing so until this Bill was brought into operation, if it was ever brought into operation. Then he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly those who represented rural constituencies, would find the change not so much for the better as they supposed.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)

said that an hon. Gentleman who addressed the Committee this afternoon had charged hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House with inconsistency in the arguments they had brought forward. It seemed to him that there was a great measure of inconsistency in some of the arguments of hon. Members on the other side. The demand made on the other side was that a teacher, if he was to give religious instruction, should have the qualification for the task. That would make it absolutely certain that there must be tests. They could not know whether a teacher was fit to give special religious instruction unless they had tests. There were few Members of the Committee who would not admit that the two prominent things which this Bill was brought in to meet were, first of all, the existing tests in regard to teachers; and secondly, the question of local control. If this sub-section were cut out of the Bill the tests would be maintained, and that would be a gross injustice to many thousands of teachers throughout the Kingdom. It would entirely prevent their having equal chances of promotion. Unless hon. Members oppossite were prepared to maintain that the tests for teachers should still continue he did not see how they could ask to have the sub-section excised. He had no doubt the Committee would by an overwhelming majority reject the Amendment, and by so doing they would get the thanks of the great body of teachers throughout the Kingdom. In a letter in the Schoolmaster the writer, who signed himself"High Churchman," said that he loved the Church, but loved freedom more, and he would rather that a hundred were prevented from teaching than that one should be forced against his inclination to give dogmatic teaching.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said the hon. Member for

North-West Norfolk had stated that in the division on this Amendment they would settle the question of religious tests for teachers. He wished to point out that under the Bill there were to be different classes of schools. There would be tests for the teachers in some of these schools. It was very clear, therefore, that in regard to the State-aided schools they would still have a test. The"four-fifths" schools would, under this clause, remain in exactly the same position as at present and they would have exactly the same tests. Turning to the provided schools, the teachers would have to prove to the local education authority that they were able to give undenominational teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Therefore, again, the local authority must have some test. He insisted that that was a distinct endowment of one particular form of teaching as against others. Therefore, they found that in every class of school a test would still remain.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 318: Noes, 191. (Division List No. 181.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E. Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Alden, Percy Brace, William Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bramsdon, T. A. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd
Armitage, R. Branch, James Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brigg, John Cory, Clifford John
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Bright, J. A. Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Astbury, John Meir Brocklehnrst, W. D. Cremer, William Randal
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Brooke, Stopford Crombie, John William
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Crooks, William
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen) Crosfield, A. H.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Crossley, William J.
Barker, John Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dalziel, James Henry
Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Buckmaster, Stanley O. Davies, David(Montgomery Co.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barnard, E. B. Burnyeat, J. D. W. Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Barnes, G. N. Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Beale, W. P. Byles, William Pollard Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Cairns, Thomas Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bell, Richard Cameron. Robert Dobson, Thomas W.
Bellairs, Carlyon Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Dodd, W. H.
Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt) Cawley, Frederick Duckworth, James
Bennett, E. N. Channing, Francis Allston Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)
Berridge, T. H. D. Cheetham, John Frederick Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Bertram, Julius Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall
Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford) Clarke, C. Goddard Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Cleland, J. W. Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Billson, Alfred Clough, W. Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Clynes, J. R. Erskine, David C.
Essex, R. W. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roe, Sir Thomas
Evans, Samuel T. Lough, Thomas Rogers, F. E. Newman
Everett, R. Lacey Lupton, Arnold Rose, Charles Day
Faber G. H. (Boston) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rowlands. J.
Fenwick, Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Russell. T. W.
Ferens, T. R. Lynch, H. B. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Findlay, Alexander Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Mackarness, Frederic C. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Maclean, Donald Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Arthur, William Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)
Fullerton, Hugh M'Callum, John M. Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne
Furness, Sir Christopher M'Kenna, Reginald Sears, J. E.
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Seaverns, J. H.
Gill, A. H. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford. W.) Shackleton, David James
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Micking, Major G. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Glendinning, R. G. Maddison, Frederick Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Glover, Thomas Mallet, Charles E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Manfield, Harry (Northants) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Grant, Corrie Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Snowden, P.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Menzies, Walter Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Grove, Archibald Micklem, Nathaniel Soares, Ernest J.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Molteno, Percy Alport Spicer, Albert
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mond, A. Stanger, H. Y.
Hall, Frederick Money, L, G. Chiozza Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)t
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Montgomery, H. H. Steadman, W. C.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hart-Davies, T. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale Morley, Rt. Hon. John Strachey, Sir Edward
Haslam, James (Debyshire) Morse, L. L. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Haworth, Arthur A. Murray, James Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Myer, Horatio Summerbell, T.
Hedges, A. Paget Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Sutherland, J. E.
Helme, Norval Watson Nicholls, George Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Norman, Henry Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Higham, John Sharp Nuttall, Harry Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hobart, Sir Robert Parker, James (Halifax) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Paul, Herbert Thomasson, Franklin
Holland, Sir William Henry Paulton, James Mellor Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E
Hooper, A. G. Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Thorne, William
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Perks, Robert William Torrance, A. M.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton Toulmin, George
Hyde, Clarendon Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Illingworth, Percy H. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Verney, F. W.
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pickersgill, Edward Hare Vivian, Henry
Jackson, R. S. Pirie, Duncan V. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jacoby, James Alfred Pollard. Dr. Wallace, Robert
Jenkins, J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Walsh, Stephen
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Walters, John Tudor
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rainy, A. Rolland Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Kearley, Hudson E. Raphael, Herbert H. Wardle, George J.
Kekewich, Sir George Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rees, J. D. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Kitson, Sir James Renton, Major Leslie Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Laidlaw, Robert Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th Waterlow, D. S.
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Richards. T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) Watt, H. Anderson
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Richardson, A. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lambert, George Rickett, J. Compton Weir, James Galloway
Lamont, Norman Ridsdale, E. A. Whitbread, Howard
Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) ' White, George (Norfolk)
Lea. HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd Whitehead, Rowland
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Levy, Maurice Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Robinson, S. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Levy, Maurice Robinson S. Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lewis, John Herbert Robson, Sir William Snowdon Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Wilkie, Alexander Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) Wood, T. M' Kinnon Pease.
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd)
Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, 8.) Yoxall, James Henry
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Faber, George Denison (York) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Ambrose, Robert Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.) Masterman, C. F. G.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fardell, Sir T. George Meagher, Michael
Anstruther-Gray, Major Farrell, James Patrick Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fell, Arthur Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W. Ffrench, Peter Mooney, J, J.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Field, William Morpeth, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Baldwin Alfred Flavin, Michael Joseph Murphy, John
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond) Fletcher, J. S. Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Flynn, James Christopher Nield, Herbert
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster. Henry William Nolan, Joseph
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.) Ginnell, L. O'Brien, William (Cork)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne Gordon. Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Haddock, George R. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Halpin, J. O'Doherty, Philip
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hambro, Charles Eric O'Hare, Patrick
Blake, Edward Hammond, John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Boland, John Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.
Boyle, Sir Edward Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. O'Malley, William.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Harwood, George O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Brodie, H. C, Hay, Hon. Claude George O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bull, Sir William James Hayden, John Patrick Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hazleton, Richard Partington, Oswald
Burke, E. Haviland- Healy, Timothy Michael Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingtn)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SE dm'ds) Percy, Earl
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Carlile, E. Hildred Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh) Power, Patrick Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hogan, Michael Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hornby, Sir William Henry Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Castlereagh, Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Reddy, M.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Joyce, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Redmond, William (Clare)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kennedy, Vincent Paul Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chance, Frederick William Keswick, William Roche, John (Galway, East)
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Kilbride, Denis Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kincaid-Smith, Captain Salter, Arthur Clavell
Condon, Thomas Joseph King. Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Seely, Major J. B.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Sheehan Daniel Daniel
Courthope, G. Loyd Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Smth, Abel H. (Hertford East)
Cowan, W. H. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cox, Harold Loekwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Craik, Sir Henry Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Starkey, John R.
Crean, Eugene Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cross, Alexander Lowe, Sir Francis William Sullivan, Donal
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Dalrymple, Viscount Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thornton, Percy M.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Macpherson, J. T. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Dillon, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.) Turnour, Viscount
Dolan, Charles Joseph MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Vincent Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Donelan, Captain A. M'Calmont, Colonel James Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Doughty, Sir George M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Kean, John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Duncan, Robert(LanarkGovan M'Killop, W. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Magnus, Sir Philip Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George .TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.) Young, Samuel Alexander Acland-Hood and
Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart- Younger, George Viscount Valentia.
MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said that the Amendment he now moved was that a teacher employed in a public elementary school should be allowed to be present during the time allotted for special religious instruction for the purpose of maintaining discipline. This Amendment was, perhaps, not so important as others which had been discussed, but it was still substantial. In regard to the schools under clause 4 and the old board schools, no difficulty would arise, because the teacher in that case would give the instruction; but there would be a difficulty in the case of schools under Clause 3 where denominational instruction was to be given on two days in the week. Unless the teacher were allowed to be present during the time that religious education was given the discipline of the school would suffer. Therefore he thought the teacher ought to be present to maintain that discipline. The religious instruction would be given by the vicar, the Nonconformist minister, the curate, the parish worker, or perhaps by a perfect stranger, and although they all must agree that in many cases these people would be able to maintain discipline, yet there would be many cases in which they could not do so. Under Clause 3, two forms of religious teaching were to be allowed and the danger of that state of things was obvious. The Committee ought to have some enlightenment as to whether the inspector of the Board could or could not come into a school where religious instruction was being given. If the inspector could come in why could not the teacher also be present. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'may be present during the time allotted for special religious instruction for the purpose of maintaining discipline, hut.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)

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


said that the Amendment provided that the temporal power should be present during the time that religious instruction was being imparted; in other words, that the man with the stick should be there. There was nothing in the clause which prohibited the teacher from being present while religious instruction was going on, and he did not think that it was necessary to insert in the Bill an obligation upon the school teacher to be present. He might be engaged in giving another kind of religious instruction elsewhere.


Then he may be there?


replied that of course he might be there. It was entirely a matter of arrangement and not one for statutory declaration. He had no doubt the teacher who had to look after the character of his own school would see that he was occasionally present, until such time as these young and unruly persons could be brought to bear religious instruction at the hands of their pastors and masters. He did not think there was any necessity for the insertion of the words. He did not think moreover that the inspectors of the Board of Education had anything to do with this religious instruction. He thought that religious intruction was a very important thing in connection with these schools, and he would be glad if their inspectors were able to give them reports as to the way in which the religious education was conducted. He thought the teachers would be better for the criticisms of the inspector, but the latter had no locus standi to visit the schools when religious instruction was being given.

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

inquired how, if the inspector might not be present, the clause was going to be carried out.


did not think the presence of the inspector during the hour of religious instruction was in any way necessary to secure full effect being given to the clause. If a teacher gave the religious instruction of a special character which the clause prohibited him from giving, he would be doing an illegal act, and the local education authority could deal with the matter. The inspectors of the Board of Education had never had devolved upon them the duty of inspecting religious education in the schools.


said it appeared that the ordinary teacher must not even strike the tuning fork for the purpose of religious instruction, and what he wanted to know was whether there ought not to be some Archbishop of Cowper-Templeism who would decide whether the unfortunate religious teacher was doing right or wrong. He wanted to put a particular case. Supposing a perfectly conscientious teacher was giving instruction which he thought carried out the provisions of Cowper-Templeism, and the local authority said that it was not the Cowper-Temple form of religion. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the inspector was never going to be present and that it was not his duty to be present. The teacher might be an atheist, and who was to judge between the local authority and him? If there would not be any judge he wanted to know what was the value of this clause. He put that question to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite who thought that they were getting relief from the terrible Church of England. This was really an attempt to blindfold the devil in the dark. The teacher might teach what he liked, and if there was any dispute between the teacher and the local authority and there was nobody to judge, he thought that the last state would be worse than the first.


said he did not know how the hon. Gentleman was going to end his speech or he would have intervened sooner. They wore not dealing with the question of Cowper-Templeism nor even of the supervision of the Church of England. They were dealing with the question of whether teachers should or should not give instruction of a special character, and the Amendment proposed that the teacher should be present at the religious instruction for the purposes keeping orders only.


said his point was that if the ordinary teacher might not be present and the superior authority was not to be represented what was the value of this clause? It was entirely new to-him that the State was not going to supervise the carrying out of the provisions of the clause.


said that religious instruction was no new thing. It had gone on since 1870, and the inspectors of the Board of Education had never had devolved upon them inspection of the religious instruction in the schools. They had never said anything about it and had never criticised it in any way, and under that system Cowper-Templeism had gone on pretty satisfactorily and was likely so to go on.


said they were not talking about Cowper-Templeism at all, They were dealing with religious training of a special character.


supported the Amendment, which he thought would prevent a hostile education authority from forbidding the attendance of the teacher during the hour of religious instruction and so adding further weight to the burden which denominational religion would have to bear under this Bill. They wished to take care by the Amendment that the religious instruction accorded by the religious teacher should not be regarded with dislike and disapproval by the parents of the children to whom it was given. The teaching of religion might he handed over to someone who might injure the school, and their contention was that the teacher should be allowed to be present to keep order and to show by his presence that he did not disapprove of this teaching. He attached great importance to the Amendment, though he had given up all hope that any justice or generosity would come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had entered upon this discussion with some hope that justice would be done, but he had been disappointed. The local education authority might do their best to keep the teacher out, so that the lesson would probably be given under circumstances which would render it of no importance or effect.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 375. (Division List No. 182.(

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F Fletcher, J. S. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Forster, Henry William Nield, Herbert
Anstruther, Gray-Major Gardner, Ernest (Berks, Esat) Nolan, Joseph
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H. Ginnell, L. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)
Baldwin, Alfred Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond. Haddock, George R. Percy, Earl
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Hambro, Charles Eric Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hammond, John Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Remnant, James Farqhuarson
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hay, Hon. Claude George Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Bridgeman, W. Clive Healy, Timothy Michael Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bull, Sir William James Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'd Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffs'h) Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk
Carlile, E. Hildred Houston, Robert Paterson Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hunt, Rowland Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cave, George Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Keswick, William Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf' dUniv.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- King. Sir Henrv Seymour(Hull) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Valentia, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter Dublin, S. Verney, F. W.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Courthope, G. Loyd Lowe, Sir Fancis William Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cross, Alexander Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Warde, Co). C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Dalrymple, Viscount M'Calmont, Col. James Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Doughty, Sir George M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'gh,W.) Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Magnus, Sir Philip Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Younger, George
Fardell, Sir T. George Middlemore, John Throgmorto n
Fell, Arthur Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morpeth, Viscount Ashley and Mr. George Faber.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Bertram, Julius Cawley, Frederick
Acland, Francis Dyke Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Chance Frederick William
Alden, Percy Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Channing, Francis Allston
Allen, Charles P, (Stroud) Billson, Alfred Cheetham, John Frederick
Armitage, R. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Black Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Churchill, Winston Spencer
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Blake, Edward Clarke, C. Goddard
Astbury, John Meir Boland, John Cleland, J. W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Clough, W.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Brace, William Clynes, J. R.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bramsdon, T. A. Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Branch, James Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barker, John Brigg, John Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Brocklehurst, W. D. Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.P ancras, W
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brodie, H. C. Condon, Thomas Joseph
Barnard, E. B. Brooke, Stopford Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd
Barnes, G. N. Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire) Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Beale, W. P. Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Cowan, W. H.
Beauchamp, E. Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Crean, Eugene
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Cremer, William Randal
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Buckmaster, Stanley O. Crombie, John William
Ball, Richard Burke, E. Haviland- Crosfield, A. H.
Bellairs, Carlyon Burns, Rt. Hon. John Crossley, William J.
Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Cullinan, J.
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Byles, William Pollard Dalziel, James Henry
Bennett, E. N. Cairns, Thomas Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.
Berridge, T. H. D. Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hogan, Michael Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Holden, E. Hopkinson Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)-
Delany, William Holland, Sir William Henry Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway Hooper, A. G. Morrell, Philip
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N Morse, L. L.
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras N. Horniman, Emslie John Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Murray, James
Dillon, John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Myer, Horatio
Dobson, Thomas W. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Napier, T. B.
Dodd, W. H. Hyde, Clarendon Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Dolan, Charles Joseph Illingworth, Percy H. Nicholls, George
Donelan, Captain A. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Duckworth, James Jackson, R. S. Norman, Henry
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Jacoby, James Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jenkins, J. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nuttall, Harry
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)
Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)
Erskine, David C. Joyce, Michael O'Connor, T P (Liverpool)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kearley, Hudson E. O'Doherty, Philip
Essex, R. W. Kekewich, Sir George O'Hare, Patrick
Evans, Samuel T. Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N
Eve, Harry Trelawney Kilbride, Denis O'Malley, William
Everett, R. Lacey King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Laidlaw, Robert Parker, James (Halifax)
Farrell, James Patrick Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Partington, Oswald
Fenwick, Charles Lambert, George Paulton, James Mellor
Ferens, T. R., Lamont, Norman Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Ffrench, Peter Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Field, William Layland-Barratt, Francis Perks, Robert William,
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E. Philipps, Col Ivor(S'thampton)
Findlay, Alexander Leese, Sir Josoph F.(Accrington Philipps, J Wynford(Pembroke
Flavin, Michael Joseph Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Flynn, James Christopher Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Fuller, John Michael F. Levy, Maurice Pirie, Duncan V.
Fullerton, Hugh Lewis, John Herbert Pollard, Dr.
Furness, Sir Christopher Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Power, Patrick Joseph
Gilhooly, James Lough, Thomas Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)
Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John Lundon, W. Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)
Gill, A. H. Lupton, Arnold Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.>
Glendinning, R. G Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Radford, G. H.
Glover, Thomas Lyell, Charles Henry Rainy, A. Rolland
Goddard, Daniel Ford Lynch, H. B. Raphael, Herbert H.
Grant, Corrie Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs Reddy, M.
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mackarness, Frederic C. Redmond, John E (Waterford)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Redmond, William (Clare)
Grove, Archibald Maopherson, J. T. Rees, J. D.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S. Renton, Major Leslie
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.) Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Callum, John M. Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Hall, Frederick M'Crae, George Richardson, A.
Halpin, J. M'Kean. John Rickett. J. Compton
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) M'Kenna, Reginald Ridsdale, E. A.
Hart-Davies, T. M'Killop, W. Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Harwood, George M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Roberts, John H (Denbighs)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) M'Micking, Major G. Robertson, Rt, Hn. E. (Dundee
Haslam, Lewis (Honmouth) Maddison, Frederick Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Haworth, Arthur A. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Hayden, John Patrick Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Robinson, S.
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Marks, G Croydon(Launceston) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Hedges, A. Paget Marnham, F. J. Roche, John (Galway, East)
Helme, Norval Watson Meagher, Michael Roe, Sir Thomas
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.) Menzies, Walter Rogers, F. E. Newman
Henry, Charles S. Micklem, Nathaniel Rose. Charles Day
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S,) Molteno, Percy Alvort Rowlands, J.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Mond, A Russell, T. W.
Higham, John Sharp Money, L. G. Chiozza Rutherford, V. H-(Brentford)
Hobart, Sir Robert Montgomery, H. H. Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Mooney, J. J. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Sullivan, Donal Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Summerbell, T. Weir, James Galloway
Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) Sutherland, J. E. White, George (Norfolk)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Sears, J. E. Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Seaverns, J. H. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Seddon, J. Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Whitehead, Rowland
Seely, Major J. B. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Shackleton, David James Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,!?.) Whittaker, Sir Thoma3 Palmer
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) Wilkie, Alexander
Shipman, Dr. John G- Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Thorne, William Wills, Arthur Walters
Sloan, Thomas Henry Tomkinson, James Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Torrance, A. M. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Snowden, P. Toulmin, George Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Soames. Arthur Wellesley Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Soares, Ernest J. Vivian, Henry Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Spicer, Albert Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Winfrey, R.
Stanger, H. Y. Walsh, Stephen Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Walters, John Tudor Young, Samuel
Steadman, W. C. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Yoxall, James Henry
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wardle, George J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Strachey, Sir Edward Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Pease.
Strauss, E -A. (Abingdon) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Stuart, James) Sunderland) Watt, H. Anderson
MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said the Amendment he now moved was intended to extend to the teachers the same religious liberty on week days that sub-section (2) extended to them on Sundays. They had heard a great deal about freedom, and abolition of tests, and mandates for the abolition of tests, but his Amendment would give the teachers liberty to do as they liked, and not as the Government liked. The way in which the Government were carrying out their mandate reminded him of the American who said,"We have absolute liberty; everyone does as he likes, and if he won't do it we make him." The right hon. Gentleman said the local authority would be entitled to ascertain whether the teachers were or were not unfitted to give Cowper-Temple teaching, so that the freedom given here was very one-sided. They were not to be free from tests such as Nonconformists desired, but only in such cases where the tests could possibly be of any advantage to the Church of England. There was a good deal of apprehension in the House as to the attitude of voluntary school teachers on the point. He believed that the large majority of school teachers did not wish to be prevented from giving special religious teaching. The Liverpool and District Voluntary School Teachers' Association, which represented over 600 certificated teachers, had, after very careful deliberation, passed a resolution to the effect that in transferred schools the ordinary teacher should not be precluded from giving religious teaching of a special character. He thought that represented the opinion of voluntary school teachers all over the country. He claimed for the teachers the right to give, or to abstain from giving, religious teaching of a distinctive character. He did not suggest that there should be any compulsion in the matter. He wanted to give the freedom to refuse or to agree to give religious teaching which they thought themselves most capable of giving. He thought that many teachers would find it difficult to adhere to the Cowper-Temple form of teaching. Therefore they ought to be free not only to refuse Cowper-Temple teaching but to give special religious teaching with which they had been familiar for years. It was perfectly absurd to say that by giving to Church schools Church teachers they were interfering with educational progress. If there were more teachers than schools, then they might fail to select the best; but there were not enough certificated teachers to go round, and so this proposal could not interfere with educational progress. It was quite possible that the whole of the children in a school under this Bill might wish the same trained teacher to teach them who had been giving them this instruction before. But they could not have that teacher unless they put in some Amendment such as he had suggested. Anyone familiar with village life for any considerable period must have observed that there were devoted and earnest school teachers who, although fully qualified by secular qualifications to take a post where they might have got higher remuneration than in a Church school, had consented to forego such an appointment because of their devotion to their own religion. They should consider the effect that such an example would have upon village life, and then they would be able to realise that by depriving hundreds of villagers of advantages like that they would be doing a vast amount of harm and no good whatever. He earnestly begged the President of the Board of Education to seriously consider the amount of harm this clause would do as it stood, and the amount of good that could be done by accepting the Amendment. He begged to move.

I Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 14, to leave out the word 'give,' and insert the words 'be required as a condition of his or her employment to give or to abstain from giving.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)

Question proposed,"That the word 'give' stand part of the Clause."


said the hon. Member's speech seemed to say over again what they believed to be a misapprehension of the consequences of adopting this Bill. He wished to point out that there was no strict interpretation by law of Cowper-Temple instruction. He thought the hon. Member's dread of local education authorities came with rather an ill grace from him, because he knew perfectly well that so far from desiring to take this view, the difficulty was to get them to take any interest at all in the matter. There was no reason whatever to suppose that they would spend their time going about trying to find out the precise flavour and quality of the religious teaching which was being given by a, really good teacher; all they were anxious about was to see that the school was kept in good order, and that there was a large average attendance. He would suggest to the hon. Member, who was most fair-minded, that there was no ground for his fear lest the devoted and earnest teacher, who was such an advantage to the village, would be prevented from giving precisely the same religious teaching which he or she had been in the habit of giving, except so far as that teaching was purely catechetical. They did not think they were interfering with the teacher giving sound religious teaching in accordance with his or her convictions. One of the merits of the syllabus of instruction was that in no way did it put any restraint upon the conscience or upon the utility of the teacher, who was able to give without any restriction whatever, that teaching which his or her good feeling would lead him or her to adopt. This Amendment was really bringing up the same facts as the one already disposed of. The Committee had come to a conclusion upon the question of excluding the regular teacher from the task of giving this facility teaching, and they could not consent to an Amendment which would have the effect of throwing open the door to conditions which they could not admit.


said the fact that this clause if passed would silence the teacher was a matter within the knowledge of them all. Devoted men and women had for years past given denominational teaching. This section proposed that they should no longer be allowed to give that form of religious instruction even if they were anxious to give it, and the local education authority desired that they should do so. He did not believe that the majority of the teachers were in favour of this clause. He knew that the Church of England teachers and the teachers of other denominations objected to it. At a meeting of London teachers, at which more than 1,500 of the teachers in London voluntary schools were present, a resolution was passed unanimously strongly protesting against the proposal to forbid the teachers to give denominational instruction and claiming on behalf of every elementary school teacher absolute freedom to give or refrain, from giving any religious instruction whatever, denominational or undenominational. That resolution showed that 1,500 London school teachers objected to be shackled in this way. Surely there was no harm in allowing them to continue teaching what they had taught before? Again, how were they going to enforce this provision? He did not envy the position of the Board of Education if the Board was called upon to punish a teacher who ventured to give teaching of this kind. They were claiming freedom for the local education authority to prescribe that their teachers; should or should not teach. Clause 3 teaching was to be a legal form of instruction, and all they were asking for was freedom to give what had already been sanctioned by Parliament. They were asking for this for the sake of the children. Surely it was admitted that whatever teaching was sanctioned by law ought to be efficiently given. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had told them that teaching given by outsiders would not be so good as the teaching hitherto given by the teachers in voluntary schools. The teacher had influence over the school, and loomed large in the eyes of the children; he was most likely to succeed in getting a hold over their minds and in instilling into them the principles of religion. Therefore, if they wanted effective religious teaching it should be given by the teachers in the schools. They wanted this matter left in the hands of the local authority, who would make terms with the teacher for giving secular teaching, and might at the same time agree to the terms under which, if willing to do so, he should give religious teaching. Nobody was asking that the State should pay for this religious teaching, and he thought that some such provision as was contained in this Amendment was necessary.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

said that in the village schools a pro-

vision like that contained in the Amendment might affect the appointment of teachers. A teacher might be qualified to give secular instruction but he might not be appointed unless he was able to satisfy the local authority that he was qualified to give dogmatic instruction as well. At the back of all this there was also the position of the teacher declining to give any religious instruction at all, but such cases were so few that he thought they might very well dismiss them altogether out of their consideration. His hon. friend desired that religious teaching in the schools should go on. With regard to the single school in the villages the teaching would be the same in the future as it had been in the past.


Order, order. The hon. Member seems to be discussing the question which was discussed this afternoon. I understand that the Amendment deals only with a requirement or obligation laid down in the terms of appointment. We must not again enter upon a subject in regard to which a long discussion has already taken place this afternoon.


said it had been stated that the teachers in voluntary schools as a rule desired to have full liberty with regard to this religious teaching. He wished to point out on the other hand that there were also a great number of people who did not desire that this liberty should be given, and they felt that to give it would interfere with the liberty of a good many other teachers. He could assure the Committee that the teachers generally did not desire this particular Amendment to pass.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 183.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bellairs, Carlyon
Alden, Percy Barker, John Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Bertram, Julius
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Armitage, E. Barnes, G. N. Billson, Alfred
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Beauchamp, E. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Astbury, John Meir Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)
Baker Sir John (Portsmouth) Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bell, Richard Brace, William
Bramsdon, T. A. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Parker, James (Halifax)
Branch, James Hedges, A. Paget Partington, Oswald
Brigg. John Helme, Norval Watson Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Brooklehurst, W. D. Henry, Charles S. Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Brooke, Stopford Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Perks, Robert William
Brunner, J. F. L-(Lanes., Leigh) Higham, John Sharp Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke
Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire) Hobart, Sir Robert Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Holden, E. Hopkinson Pollard, Dr.
Buokmaster, Stanley 0. Hooper, A. G. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Horniman, Emslie John i Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Horridge, Thomas Gardner Radford, G. H.
Byles, William Pollard Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Raphael, Herbert H.
Cairns, Thomas Hutton, Alfred Eddison Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Illingworth. Percy H. Rees, J. D.
Cawley, Frederick Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Renton, Major Leslie
Cheetham, John Frederick Jackson, R. S. Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Jacoby, James Alfred Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Clarke, C. Goddard Jenkins, J. Richardson, A.
Cleland, J. W. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rickett, J. Compton
Clough, W. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Ridsdale, E. A.
Clynes, J. R. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jowett. F. W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S, Pancras, W Kekewich. Sir George I Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd King, Alfred John(Knutsford) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Laidlaw, Robert Robinson, S.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cremer, William Randal Lambert, George Rogers, F. E. Newman
Crosfield, A. H. Lamont, Norman Rowlands, J.
Dalziel, James Henry Layland-Barratt, Francis Runciman, Walter
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lea. Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Schwann., C. Duncan (Hyde)
Dewar. Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
Dobson, Thomas W. Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral). Sears, J. E.
Dodd, W. H. Levy, Maurice Seddon, J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Lewis, John Herbert Shackleton. David James
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lough, Thomas Silcock. Thomas Ball
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lupton, Arnold Sloan, Thomas Henry
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Snowden, P.
Essex, R. W. Lynch, H. B. Soares, Ernest J.
Evans, Samuel T. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Spicer, Albert
Eve, Harry Trelawney Macdonald, JM.(FalkirkB'ghs Stanger, H. Y.
Everett, R. Lacey M'Callum, John M. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Faber, G. H. (Boston) M'Crae, George Steadman. W. C.
Fenwick, Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Ferens, T. R. M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendall
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace M'Laren, H. D.(Stafford, W.) Strachey, Sir Edward
Findlay, Alexander M'Micking, Major G. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Fuller, John Michael F. Maddison, Frederick Strauss, K, A. (Abingdon)
Fullerton, Hugh Manfield, Harry (Northants) Stuart. James (Sunderland)
Furness, Sir Christopher Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Summerbell, J.
Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.) j Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston Sutherland, J. E.
Gill, A. H- Marnham, F. J. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Menzies, Walter Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Glendinning, R. G. Micklem, Nathaniel Tennant, Sir Edward Salisbury
Glover, Thomas Molteno, Percy Alport Thomas, David Alfred Merthyr
Goddard, Daniel Ford Money, L. G. Chiozza Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset E.
Grant, Corrie Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Thorne, William
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)! Morley, Rt. Hon. John Torrance, A. M.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hall, Frederick Murray, James Verney, F. W.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Myer, Horatio Vivian, Henry
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Napier, T. B. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Nicholls, George Walsh, Stephen
Hart-Davies, T. Nicholson. Charles N.(Doncast r Walters, John Tudor
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale Norton, Capt. Cecil William Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wardle, George J.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Nuttall, Harry Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Watt, H. Anderson
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Wiles, Thomas Winfrey, R.
Weir, James Galloway Wilkie, Alexander Wood, T. M'Kinnon
White, George (Norfolk) Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Yoxall, James Henry
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
White, Luke (York, E.R.) Wills, Arthur Walters TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Whitehead, Rowland Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Whiteley and Mr J. A.
Whitley. J.H. (Halifax) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) Pease.
Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.) Ffrench, Peter Nield, Herbert
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. Field, William Nolan, Joseph
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Balcarres, Lord Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Baldwin, Alfred Fletcher, J. S. O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.
Balfour, Rt Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) Flynn, James Christopher O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.) Forster, Henry William O'Doherty, Philip
Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Dowd, John
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Hare, Patrick
Blake, Edward Gilhooly, James O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Boland, John Ginnell, L. O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Boyle, Sir Edward Haddock, George R. O'Malley, William
Brodie, H. C. Halpin, J. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bull, Sir William James Hammond, John Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)'
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hayden, John Patrick Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Burke, E. Haviland- Healy, Timothy Michael Percy, Earl
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hogan, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Carlile, E. Hildred Houston, Robert Paterson Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hunt, Rowland Reddy, M.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Joyce, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, William (Clare)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Keswick. William Remnant, James Farquharson
Chance, Frederick William Kilbride, Denis Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Roche, John (Galway, East)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Courthope, G. Loyd Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cox, Harold Lundon, W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Craig Captain James(Down, E.) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sullivan, Donal
Craik, Sir Henry MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUni v.
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cross, Alexander MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cullinan, J. M'Calmont, Colonel James Valentia, Viscount
Dalrymple, Viscount M'Hugh. Patrick A. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Delany, William M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Gal way M'Kean, John Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dolan, Charles Joseph M'Killop, W. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Donelan, Captain A. Magnus, Sir Philip Wyndham, Rt Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Meagher, Michael Young, Samuel
Duffy, William J. Meysey-Thompson. E. C.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Middlemore, Jn. (Throgmorton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Farrell, James Patrick' Mooney, J. J. Bridgeman and Mr. Cave.
Fell, Arthur Muntz, Sir Philip A.

moved an Amendment, the effect of which, he said, would be to forbid a teacher from giving undenominational as well as denominational instruction. It would put the teacher in the position of not giving any religious instruction at all except under Clause 3. He had listened with attention to the debate with reference to this matter, and had endeavoured to ascertain the objections to the employment of the teacher to give the special religious instruction under Clause 3. In the first place it was said that if once a teacher was allowed to give denominational instruction they would introduce tests by a side wind. Were they not introducing tests if they allowed a teacher to give undenominational instruction? He did not believe that any hon. Gentleman, except perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, had really made himself acquainted with what undenominational instruction meant. He would take for illustration the syllabus of the county of Cornwall. It was a very elaborate and highly dogmatic form of religion, and it might be shortly described as the Free Church Catechism put in the form of a syllabus. He did not wish to throw any scorn on the Free Church Catechism, but anyone who had read that document would agree with him that it was highly dogmatic. He found in the syllabus a provision that at a certain stage in the curriculum the scholars were to repeat with suitable explanations the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and other things. Then he found this note— The teacher shall explain the Holy Catholic Church to mean the whole body of Christian people dispersed throughout the world, and the words 'He descended into hell,' to mean that he descended into the unseen world.' He would not discuss here whether that was or was not the right interpretation of the words, but it was an interpretation which a considerable number of Christians in this country would not accept, and certainly it would not be accepted without explanation. He did not think hon. Members from Ireland would dispute that proposition. He was not competent to say what all the Members of the Church of England would say, but it was quite plain that the Roman Catholics would not accept the meaning given in the note. Suppose a Roman Catholic applying for a teachership were to say:"I see your syllabus. Am I expected to teach that?""Oh, yes." said the local authority"You are expected, but you may refuse." What was to happen? Was that a test or not? Were they to inquire whether a teacher could or could not teach that doctrine, or were they to accept him without inquiry? In the case of an agnostic or an atheist, how were the to ascertain whether such a person applying for a post held opinions which would prevent him from giving effectively and conscientiously dogmatic teaching such, as was contained in the Cornwall syllabus without submitting the teacher to a test? It appeared to him that under this clause they could not allow a teacher to give Church of England teaching, even though willing, because it would inevitably involve look- ing about for a teacher who could give that instruction conscientiously. Precisely the same reasoning applied to undenominational teaching. He could not conceive any reason which could come from the Ministerial side of the House which should prompt teachers to give undenominational teaching if they thought it wrong to do so. The argument was brought forward by the Solicitor-General that because teachers would henceforth be State officers they must have nothing to do with denominational religion. Why should they have more to do with undenominational than with denominational religion? It had been argued that to allow teachers to give denominational instruction would be a-hardship on the minority. He had never been able quite to understand why it was a hardship on the minority to allow teachers to give the teaching which they believed to children whose parents desired that the teaching should be given. He presumed it was because it put the children in a better position to receive the instruction they desired than the minority children who did not desire that instruction. There were many who would reject and disapprove of the undenominational teaching. He took for the sake of example the Cornwall syllabus, though there were others much more offensive from the Church of England point of view. Unless they accepted, his Amendment, they were going to say that the children might be taught that syllabus, and in that sense the teaching was endowed by the State Were the Government going to say that it was a. hardship upon the minority to allow the majority to receive from the State paid teacher the particular religious instruction which the majority preferred? If they did, he submitted that as a mere matter of logic and justice, that position was absolutely indefensible. If they insisted upon forbidding the teachers in the Church of England schools to give teaching which they believed in and in which the children believed, the Government were bound also to forbid teachers-to give undenominational teaching. Otherwise, they would be endowing a. particular form of religion with State funds, and the people of England would understand what the Government were doing. [MINISTERIAL dissent.] He did not expect to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did expect to make some of them uncomfortable. He had had the advantage of discussing this matter with some of the voluntary school teachers, and many of them told him that they were anxious to teach the religion in which they devotedly believed, and which the children were anxious to receive; and these teachers also informed him that the religious instruction which the children received was the only barrier between them and sin and crime. He demanded justice and equal treatment for all religions. If they forbade the teachers to give denominational instruction, then they were bound equally to deny the same privilege to the undenominational teachers.

Amendment proposed— To leave out in Sub-section 1 all the words after 'instruction' in line 14 to the words 'under this Act' in line 17.'

Question proposed,"That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."


said that the arguments in favour of sub-section (1) which had been put forward that afternoon had not been believed in by those who put them forward. Amongst others the speech of the Solicitor-General appeared to him to be equally lacking in logic and in taste. It was as offensive as it could be to those who happened to differ from the Government. It showed clearly that hon. Gentlemen opposite objected not to dogma, but to the Church of England. It was an I outrage both to the teachers and to the parents of the children that the teachers should be prevented from teaching that which they were prepared to teach and which the children were prepared to receive. The measure of liberty left by the Bill was not sufficient. It was utterly inadequate; but it was a measure of liberty so far as it went. According to the speech of the Minister for Education it permitted full Church of I England teaching to be given provided the schoolmaster abstained from mentioning the Church Cathechism. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in his interpretation, that was a considerable measure of liberty and he did not wish it to be restricted, but he objected to the way in which, it was put. It would sometimes lead to evasion on the part of the teachers if they were to be allowed to teach the most orthodox doctrine of every denomination provided they refrained from using the formularies of that denomination. He did not wish to restrict what liberty was given and, therefore, while agreeing with much that had been said by his noble friend, he was not able to support the Amendment.

MR. STUART (Sunderland)

said he very much doubted whether this Amendment was in order, because the Committee had, at an early period of the discussion on this Bill, decided against secular education. If the Committee would look for one moment they would see that the result of carrying this Amendment would be that in all provided schools there would be no religious teaching at all, because it was not possible to give religious undenominational teaching except through the master of; the schools. The only schools in which religious teaching would be given would be those which had facilities under Clauses 3 and 4.


Why would it be impossible to give religious teaching in the provided schools?


Because there was only an arrangement under Clauses 3 and 4 for giving the denominational religious teaching which had existed before. He very much doubted whether this was strictly in order, and it was only on account of the Deputy-Chairman allowing it to proceed that he felt it must be in order. He wished to point out, however, that the Committee had decided at an early period of the discussion on this Bill against secular education.


said that he had spent a day in looking through, the syllabuses of the different education authorities, and he should like to know what was the religion of the Dowager Lady Tweedmouth. The point was of immense importance to Bath, because that lady was to distribute the prizes for religious knowledge to the Bath children. All these syllabuses involved some form of dogmatic teaching, and the teacher who observed them must have passed some form of religious test. There were some extraordinary things in these syllabuses of a most controversial kind. In a syllabus for the North Riding of Yorkshire amongst the orders to the teachers was one which said— It is sometimes said that in a, council school no religious teaching corresponding to such an ideal can be given. What was the ideal? The same syllabus went on to say— It is historically true that the plain and practical Bible teaching which can be given and often is given in such schools is a powerful factor in the formation of the character of the people. History shows that in the days when our nation has been greatest the Bible has been an inspiring force as a record of God's dealing with man, as a revelation of what God is to man, and what man is to God. He should like to ask any hon. member present whether he could deny that that involved some form of dogmatic teaching. He was dealing with this matter with a profound feeling of respect, and his object was to show that this was dogmatic teaching, and the very reason why it inspired him with respect was that it was dogmatic. Under the Barrow-in-Furness Council there was a long list of things to be taught and most admirable they were; in fact they constituted a much more complete religious education than ever he got himself in a Catholic school. He agreed that everything depended upon the spirit in which the religious teaching was given. He would like to ask how they were going to get their religious teachers without tests of some kind? In the Barrow-in-Furness syllabus it was provided— In the Old Testament lesson the lives of persons who are considered to be types of Christians and prophetic allusions to the coming of our Lord should be carefully explained and impressed upon the children. How could any man who was not a believer in some form of religion explain the Bible to the children with regard to the coming of our Lord. How was it to be done? And yet the Committee was told that in Barrow-in-Furness they did not need any tests for teachers. What did it all mean? He perused the syllabuses with the greatest respect for the men who drew them up. He thought they did such men infinite credit, but he said that they necessarily led to dogmatic teaching. He admitted that the Government had a difficult problem in trying to reconcile the various divisions of the Protestant Church into agreeing to have some elementary instruction in Christianity combined with secular teaching, and he ventured to assert that this clause in most cases would turn out to be an absolutely dead letter. There was nothing to prevent the teacher teaching what he liked, as all through the day he could make his views about Christianity felt. He would not support the noble Lord's Amendment in the division lobby, because he thought it was better that the children of Great Britain should get Cowper-Temple teaching than no religious teaching at all, and that if this instruction was given reverently it was a great deal better than that no form of religious views should be expressed. But to state that Cowper Temple doctrine did not involve dogma was to state an absurdity. Instead of attacking the State Church the Government were setting up another State Church. He did not see why the Nonconformists were not entitled to do that. It was like a concurrent endowment, provided that they did not interfere with the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Therefore while he sympathised with the noble Lord he asked him whether he considered it well to try and deprive Nonconformists of the valuable Christian teaching they would get under the Cowper-Temple form so far as it went, and whether those who were Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not be wiser in confining themselves to doing the best they could for their own forms of faith without seeking in any way to infringe on the Christianity of other sects.


said the noble Lord wanted to prevent the ordinary teacher from giving a kind of religious teaching for which he had no great liking, but which he need not therefore treat with disrespect. Personally he was anxious that these debates should increase the stock of knowledge of the people as to what was really going on. If people knew more than they did as to what went on in the ordinary Church schools and in the Board schools they would really feel that the issues involved in these debates were not so terrible as they sometimes were represented. He hoped that the volume containing the syllabuses would soon be published, because he believed they would have the same effect upon others as they had had on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth, namely, that it would be seen that they had produced no disposition on the part of the majority of county councils in the country to injure the religious teaching of the children. The authorities were anxious under these syllabuses to do the best they could with the children under their charge. The syllabuses made no pretence to divine inspiration, and therefore it was not obligatory on every teacher to treat them as if they were declarations of his own Church. The syllabuses merely indicated the line of tuition the teacher had to take up; they did not interfere with his own spiritual independence, or impose upon him such a serious religious or theological obligation as might be supposed if they were treated as a confession of faith instead of as an indication on the part of the authority as to what it wished to be taught to the children. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the Amendment of the noble Lord had settled the Government, and that they had no answer to it. But the noble Lord had not settled the right hon. Gentleman himself, who claimed the right to differ entirely from him and said he could not support him in the lobby. There again he put it to the noble Lord quite candidly that his Amendments really said the same thing over and over again, namely, to have undenominational schools. But the Government had attempted in the great Protestant schools of the country to allow for a definite kind of religious teaching. He had never used the word"undogmatic" as applied to religion. If they undertook to teach religion without dogma there would be neither a Church of Rome nor a Church of England. The foundations of all creeds were those stupendous dogmas which were taught in every school where religion was attempted to be taught to the children. Personally, he avowed that the Christian teaching which was given in the schools of the country was dogmatic teaching, and that was the kind of teaching which the Government believed could be taught without giving it that denominational flavour whose object was to attach children at the earliest possible age to some branch of the Church. That was where they differed. The Government believed that this teaching could be given so as not to interfere with a subsequent union with a religious community, so as not to emphasise the points on which Christians differed, but to seek as far as possible to unite their attention on those points upon which Christians were agreed. The noble Lord's speech was in favour of secular education. He for one would always protest against secular education. It would be a monstrous and unfair thing, in order to get out of a difficulty, to compel parents to send their children to a school where they did not receive some form of definite religious instruction. He asked the noble Lord, therefore, to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and not to continue this tit-for-tat argument. In this Amendment the noble Lord had not the support of his own side. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had made a study of of these syllabuses and who was a devoutly religious man did not wish to prevent the children of this country having some opportunity of getting from the hands of a devout teacher good religious teaching. Nobody did, and therefore he asked the Committee for God's sake not to do anything that would interfere with a good religious teacher giving excellent religious teaching to the children.


thought that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly stated the broad views before the Committee. Nobody on the Opposition side of the House had shown any contempt for Cowper-Temple religion and, if they had, a careful study of these syllabuses would have shown them that there was an infinite amount of good religious teaching to be found in them.


You called it municipal religion.


said that was so. The form of Christianity approved by the municipalities in which it was taught was emphatically municipal religion and the term was used in no offensive sense. On the other hand, there was a large body of opinion who maintained that it was very desirable that a child should be a member of some religious community, and that he should receive, not only during his school life, but when he went out in life, the teachings of that denomination. He regarded the noble Lord's Amendment as a reductio ad absurdum, and he could not say that he desired to see it accepted. But it gave a logical form to the proposals of the Government, which as they stood were neither logical nor just.


said that his Amendment, which had been rightly described as a reductio ad absurdum, had been moved more in order to see what was to be said against it than to see it carried. In fact, he did not think he should like to see it carried. He was satisfied with the very moderate argument that had been urged against it. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? The right hon. Gentleman said—" We must have some religion, but we must have a religion which is not confined to any particular denomination." Many hon. Members supporting the Government took the view that it was not a necessity to be a member of a definite religious body, and that, therefore, it was not essential to teach the children that it was part of their duty as Christians to be members of a definite Christian body. The view of many on the Opposition side, however, was that it was essential, if children were to be brought up as Christians, that they should belong to a definite religious body. [An HON. MEMBER: Which?] It did not matter half so much which, so long as the child belonged to one definite body. He did not believe they would find one in ten of the devout Christians of the country who did not belong to one 01 other of the Christian bodies. The point, however, on which the Opposition differed from most Nonconformists was not as to whether the child should be s member of a Christian body, but whether it was essential that the main part of its-Christianity should be taught in the public elementary school.


said he was afraid the noble Lord was not speaking to the Amendment.


said he was carried away by the desire to explain the views he held on this subject. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


moved to omit Sub-section 2. The President of the Board of Education, in his speech to a deputation from the Jewish community, said the intention of Clauses 4 and 7 was that the teachers should remain the same as they were, viz., those who were most qualified to give the particular religious instruction which had hitherto been given in the schools. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had stated in the House that that would apply to the next generation, of teachers as well as the existing body of teachers. He had also repeated that he adhered to the statement made to the Jewish deputation. He wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman's hope was to be realised that the schools should go on substantially as now under full denominational facilities in conjunction with Sub-section (2); and how the denomination or managers, or whoever was responsible for these facilities, in the future would be enabled to ensure that the teachers would be invested with the same rights and status. So far as he was concerned, he had not the smallest objection to saying that a teacher should not be required to subscribe as a condition of his appointment to any religious creed; but he would point out that the provision in the sub-section was not inconsistent with inquiry into the capacity of the teacher to give religious instruction in the Roman Catholic or Church of England faith in order to ensure that he was competent to carry out those particular duties. He desired to have a precise declaration from the Government as to how far the clause carried out the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman both in this House and to the deputation of the Jewish, community.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 20, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Lord Balcarres.)

Question proposed,"That the words 'A teacher employed' stand part of the clause."


said that Clause 6 was a great step in the direction of secular education, and taking that clause and Clause 7 as they stood, they would have no guarantee whatever for the religious character of the schools. In the latter clause the Government attacked the teachers. He was greatly struck with the remark of the President of the Board of Education that the teaching profession was becoming a great secular profession. He had always regarded the profession as having a religious as well as a secular side. Any departure from that tradition would be mischievous, and, if carried beyond a certain point, fatal to the interests of the country. He had no doubt the Government were perfectly sincere in their statement that they wished the education of the country to be religious, but what security was there that that could be effected under this clause? Were they quite sure that the schools would not become purely secular schools? Supposing a master or mistress who was selected declined to give religious teaching, they could not enforce it. It was quite possible that in the days not far distant there would be a great disposition on the part of teachers to take no part in religious instruction. Connected as he was with training colleges, he could say that a feeling of that kind was beginning to exist, and he was afraid it might spread. He was by no means certain that if the clause became law the conduct of the schools on the present lines and according to religious principles would not become most difficult. He also wished to know whether the word"instruction" covered religious observances. He had in his hand the time-table of the Bradford Council, which was common to their schools and to the Church of England schools. It began the day in each case with a hymn and the Lord's Prayer, and closed with a hymn and prayer. At the end of the morning school a blessing was sought on the family dinner, and when the school met again thanks were given for the bounty of Providence in supplying that meal. He asked whether these religious observances were included in the religious instruction, and whether it would be possible under the clause for a teacher to refuse to perform that dignified office, so beneficial to himself and the children. If he could refuse to do so the school became, to his sorrow, and he believed to the sorrow of the Government also, a purely secular school. It was his strongest desire to avoid such a contingency.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

hoped the discussion would not be so prolonged as to preclude discussion of sub-section (4) in which the interests of teachers were involved. Unless an opportunity were given to discuss that I question now there would be no time on the Report stage.


did not think the Committee need anticipate that much time would be taken up on this sub-section. So far as he could gather, the noble Lord was not against it, and, in fact, he hardly knew of anyone who was. The noble Lord had put to him one or two questions in reference to statements made by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. He was sure the Committee would not expect him to deal with those statements. They had often been discussed and explained by his right hon. friend, and any further explanation that was required should be asked of the President. As to the sub-section itself he thought it was one of the most simple, most admirable, and least contentious in the Bill, and it could not hut improve the status of the teacher, since no penalty of a professional kind could fall upon him through his not belonging to a particular denomination. No one could deny that the suspicion which teachers had that certain openings in their profession had not been given to them unless they professed a certain creed must have a tendency to encourage a profession of religious belief on the part of those in whose minds it did not exist. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan seemed to suggest that in the practical working of the sub-section it might be difficult for the local authorities to succeed in giving religious instruction. He did not think the hon. Baronet need have any fear. The best answer was that the religious teaching contemplated under the the Bill was now being given in 9,000 of the largest schools throughout the country to 3,000,000 scholars in average attendance, without any difficulty of any serious character having occurred in regard to it. The hon. Baronet asked what certainty there was, but it was very difficult to predict with certainty about anything in this world. But he did not think the sub-section would tax the powers of the local authority more than at present. It was clear in the clause that the teacher was freed from every religious test, and any teacher might say that he did not desire to give any form of religious teaching; he need not even give the Cowper-Temple form of religious teaching if he did not desire to do so. On the other hand the Bill provided for the giving of Cowper-Temple teaching in every school if I/he local authority desired it. He did not think a dilemma would arise if a teacher declined to give this form of religious teaching though the local authority wished it. He admitted that in the case of there being only one teacher such a refusal would create a more difficult alternative, but even then it would not cause any serious difficulty in getting an arrangement made. It seemed to him there would be only two alternatives, one of which would be to select a teacher at the beginning who had no objection to giving Cowper-Temple teaching. [OPPOSITION cries of"That is a test."] Was it not enough to say that in more than half the schools of the country the system was now working satisfactorily?


wished to know whether the word" instruction" covered religious observance, such as opening with prayer.


said that was a question of interpretation. In his opinion it would cover what was permitted under Section 14 of the Act of 1870.


said the Parliamentary Secretary had congratulated himself on having given a satisfactory answer to a comparatively indifferent matter, but he ventured to think this was a matter of importance on which they had received no answer at all. The hon. Gentleman had told them that in many thousands of schools Cowper-Temple teaching had been given with the greatest regularity. He quite agreed, but this clause said that no teacher in future was to be required to give religious instruction, and it was laid down in the Code that the teacher should not be required to perform any duty not connected with the work of a public elementary school. Religious teaching, however, had hitherto been part of the work of the public elementary school, and the teacher's agreement therefore bound him to give that teaching. Under these circumstances it was not a matter for surprise that the difficulty had not yet arisen. But what would happen when the teacher was not required as part of his duty to give any religious instruction? Where was that exemption to be embodied? Was it to be henceforth an extraneous duty, and altogether outside the duties of a teacher in a public elementary school? Had the Parliamentary Secretary ever considered this question, and read the Code in connection with this Bill? Would an agreement requiring the teacher to give this instruction be henceforth an unlawful agreement? Would it be enforceable in a court of law? The relation of the teacher to the local authority was that of employed to employer, but he was not to be required to give any religious instruction. What, then, was the security that any religious instruction would be given? A teacher might say" I am not prepared to give religious instruction." The local authority could not require him to do so. How did the Parliamentary Secretary propose-to meet such a case as that?


If one teacher will not give it another will.


asked what would happen where there was only one teacher assisted by pupil teachers in a rural school. This exemption of the teacher was a general exemption. It was very possible, if this feeling against religious teaching prevailed, that there might be three teachers in a school, not one of whom was prepared to give religious instruction. What then? Or supposing a teacher had agreed to give religious instruction and came down one morning and said he had changed his mind and would do so no longer; could the local authority terminate the contract?


said that this method of question and answer was not debate. He thought it would be better if the hon. Baronet would develop his argument.


thought the hon. Gentleman would consider the clause of more importance if he had studied the Code. Seeing that religious teaching could not be required of a teacher, he wanted to know what security there was that such instruction would be given. He wanted to know what was to happen? He presumed that if any local authority made an agreement with a teacher in which the teacher bound himself to give religious instruction the Board of Education, in the event of dispute arising, would say that the agreement was not binding. If that was so, it was a new departure on the part of the Board of Education. Then he would ask how the clause would apply to contracting-out schools and to certified efficient schools. Would the Board of Education decline to give the Parliamentary grant to the former or would they cease to hold the latter efficient if the managers made an arrangement with a teacher that he should give religious instruction? With the latter part of the clause he was in entire agreement. He had always desired the abolition of tests for teachers where they took the form mentioned in the clause; but, having swept away the actual test, they came to the simple relation of employer and employed, and in ordinary employment it was not called a test if a man was asked whether he was able to perform duties he was engaged to perform. Then he came to schools under Clause 4. Under the Bill the appointment of the teacher was reserved, under all conditions of delegation, to the local authority. But the President of the Board of Education, in his answer to the Jewish deputation and in his subsequent statement in the House, had stated that in the schools under Clause 4 the teaching would go on precisely as it had done in the past. How was that result to be attained? How was it to be ascertained beforehand whether the teacher whom the local authority engaged was capable of giving the teaching, Anglican, Jewish, Roman Catholic, which was required in Clause 4 schools? Some inquiry must be made. Was that a requirement within the meaning of the clause? If the local authority were to make no requirement, they falsified the assurance given by the Minister for Education, and if they made a requirement, they broke through the bottom of subsection (2) of this clause at once. He wanted to know, too, how it was conceivable that the promise of the Minister for Education to the Jewish deputation was consistent with sub-section (2) of Clause 7—how it was possible to ensure that special religious teaching was given under Clause 4 unless they made such requirement as to religious teaching as this sub-section would render a statutory impossibility. These questions needed an answer, and he awaited the answer with curiosity.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he did not wish to add to what he conceived to be the difficulties in which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House found themselves in regard to the far reaching and fundamental questions raised by his hon. friend. He wished to ask what was the real meaning and effect of this sub-section. A teacher in a public elementary school would be entitled to a certain fixed salary, which would be paid him for teaching all that was required of him, including payment for such Cowper-Temple teaching as he was ready and willing to give in the school. Supposing the teacher refused to give the Cowper-Temple teaching, was he to be docked j of his salary, and if not, what was the effect of this sub-section? If not, the effect would be that his conscience had become, indeed, of a very considerable pecuniary value, inasmuch as by the exercise of his conscientious scruples he would be doing his employer out of three-quarters of an hour of his valuable services without any pecuniary loss. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the abolition of tests would improve the status of the teaching profession. That was an extraordinary statement, for it amounted to this,— that because henceforth no teacher would be bound to teach religion, the esteem in which he was held would be increased. He could not subscribe to that view. In arithmetic, geography, and other branches of secular education they had most exhaustive tests for the teacher. Inquiry was made as to his fitness to give instruction on these subjects, but the Minister for Education had introduced the extraordinary doctrine that on matters of faith and doctrine, which, by his own showing, were of the greatest possible value in our educational system, no questions were to be asked as to the fitness of the teacher to give even Cowper-Temple teaching. The dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches found themselves was a very real and practical one. What was going to happen in the case of a school looked after by the local education authority employing only one teacher, if that teacher refused, as he had a right to refuse, to give the undenominational teaching? Was that teacher to be dismissed? It was plain to his poor intelligence that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not practically considered the full effect of this clause. They were faced at every turn by considerable dilemmas. They had given no answer to the most obvious questions which had been put to them, and the Bill, as it stood, would inflict serious disabilities on men had done nothing to deserve them. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division unless a satisfactory answer was forthcoming.


said he did not see any difficulty in answering the questions which the hon. Gentleman had put. He though the difficulties had been exaggerated. The teaching of religion would be put, if he might say so, on just the same basis as the teaching of history and geography. [OPPOSITION cries of"Oh, oh!"] They asked the teacher of history and geography if he was competent to teach these subjects, and they asked the teacher of religion if he was competent in a similar way. What had been complained of by teachers was that however qualified they might be to teach history and geography, and whatever University or other degree they might have obtained, they were not allowed to teach these subjects unless they submitted to a religious test. Now the teacher would be tested in regard to his capability of teaching secular subjects only, and there would be no ignominious test applied to him as in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: Why ignominious?] Well, irrelevant test if they liked. He used the word in no invidious sense. He saw no difficulty in the questions put to him, and would answer them in their order. The first question was, whether it would be a matter of contract between the local authority and the teacher they were employing to give this religious instruction. It would, and they would see that they got a good teacher. The second question was, If there were three teachers and none of them would give the Cowper-Temple teaching which the local authority wanted, what were they to do? The answer was, they would get another teacher to do it. The third question was, Supposing a teacher had been employed to give this religious teaching, and a contract was made, and after that the teacher changed his mind and would not give the teaching, what would the local authority do? Well, they would get rid of him, and they would get a man who would fulfil his contract. The fourth question was, Whether the teacher who gave religious instruction would be in the same position as had been in the past the teachers who were asked to play the organ, a demand which could not be enforced. The answer was that the teaching of religion would be a duty connected with the school and obligatory under the Act, and therefore it could be imposed. The fifth question had regard to tests. It was asked what his right hon. friend meant by his statement to the Jewish deputation that everything would go on as it had before. He was glad to see that his right hon. friend had now entered the House, so he would leave that question to him.


said the Committee had had a most amiable explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of the contents of the Bill and of the policy which lay behind the Bill. But though the explanation was amiable, he thought there was hardly a Member in the House who had not been absolutely stunned by it. They really did not know where they were, and he thought the time had come for the Minister for Education to relieve them from the anxieties into which they had been plunged by the speech of his enthusiastic subordinate. He would not deal with the last question to which the Parliamentary Secretary had referred, the only question which the hon. Gentleman admitted he was incapable Of completely solving—namely, as to the explanation of his chief's answer to the Jewish deputation. That the hon. Gentleman said he would leave to the Minister for Education. Whether the hon. Gentleman would have been wiser to have left some of the other questions to be dealt with by the same high authority it was not for him to judge, but he might mention to the Minister for Education some of the perplexities of mind to which he had been reduced by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman had explained that religion was in the same scholastic category as history and geography, in the sense that just as the local education authority required the teacher in an elementary school to teach geography and history they were entitled to require him to teach religion; and just as they were entitled to inquire whether the teacher was competent to teach history and geography they were entitled to inquire whether he was competent to teach religion. The hon. Gentleman had further said that he regarded religious tests as either ignominious or irrelevant—he could not make out which adjective the hon. Gentleman preferred.


Religious tests applied to the teacher of history and geography. That was what I said.


said he should endeavour to deal with the increasing confusions caused by the hon. Gentleman as well as he could. The hon. Gentleman's argument now was that it was irrelevant or inconvenient to apply religious tests to a man who was asked to teach geography or history.


said he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of doing him an injustice. History and geography had been mentioned by an hon. friend behind him, and he had simply used the terms to illustrate the hard position of a teacher who, while fully qualified to teach these two subjects, could get no opportunity of doing so unless he was a member of the Church of England. That seemed to him to be a most intolerable test to apply to a teacher of history and geography. He said further that the various subjects should stand on the same plane.


said he should try to explain his difficulty to a sympathetic audience. He would take the three subjects that had been mentioned'— geography, history, and religion. If a teacher was engaged to teach these three subjects, it was quite clear that those who engaged him were entitled to see that he could teach them. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the local authority were bound to satisfy themselves that he could teach history, and that he could teach geography. By parity of reasoning the local authority ought to satisfy themselves that the teacher could teach religion. He did not think that was denied by the hon. Gentleman. In that case he could not understand why religious tests should be described as either ignominious or irrelevant. The geographical test was not ignominious or irrelevant; nor was the historical test. Why was religion alone of the three subjects mentioned not to be one to which the ordinary methods of investigation were to be applied before the teacher was engaged? That was his first difficulty. The second of his difficulties was much more serious. The sub-section provided that a teacher employed in a public elementary school should not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any religious instruction. Those words at first sight seemed plain, but after the explanation of the hon. Gentleman they had become extraordinarily obscure. He said that under the plan of the Government it was part of the contract of the teacher that he should teach religion. Up to 10 o'clock that evening he thought that a person who entered into a contract to do a thing was required to do it. He now discovered that although the local authority could make a contract with the teacher to give religious instruction, the teacher who had entered into that contract was not to be required by the persons with whom he had entered into the undertaking to carry it out. He was confident he was not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. He had endeavoured to give to the Committee what he conceived to be the effect of the hon. Member's words, and he hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would take that opportunity of intervening if he had in any way misrepresented him. He had been asked what was to be done with a teacher who refused to carry out his contract to teach religion. The hon. Gentleman had given two answers. He had said that the local authority must get another teacher. If teacher A refused to carry out his contract, we must have recourse to teacher B. It seemed to him that so far as religious education was concerned that answer was satisfactory. If teacher A refused to give religious teaching, it was clear that the religious wants of the community would be satisfied if teacher B was found who would do the work which A refused to do. Then, however, the local authority had upon its hands two teachers—teacher A, who would not carry out his contract, and teacher B, who until the contrary was proved might be expected to carry out his contract. If teacher B refused, he supposed there would be a third teacher, C. No local authority, with the passion for economy with which all our local authorities were known to be animated, would like to engage two or three men or more to do the work for which one man was adequate. The problem arose, what was to be done if teacher A had been replaced for religious purposes by teacher B or C? The hon. Gentleman, brought face to face with this problem, rose to the occasion and showed the Committee the way out of the difficulty which had been created by teacher A's recalcitrance. He said simply," If teacher A refuses to do what he has contracted to do, get rid of him." That was the policy of the Government which came in on a mandate to abolish religious tests. Had they come in on a mandate to abolish geographical tests and historical tests? He thought there was a great deal to be said for the policy. He wished the hon. Gentleman had had the conduct of this Bill throughout. According to the hon. Gentleman, geography, history, and religion were three things which teachers were engaged to teach; on every one of them, he presumed, they might inquire into the question of competence, and on each one of them, he presumed, they might dismiss the teacher if he proved to be incompetent. That was a policy against which he had nothing to say. They on the Opposition side, in total ignorance of the policy of the Government in connection with this clause, would have been completely satisfied if, on this sub-section at four o'clock in the afternoon, the Cabinet had announced what they actually meant in this matter. He did not desire—in fact, he disclaimed the idea —that any teacher should be asked to sign a document embodying religious thought It never had been done, he did not think it ever would have to be done, and he for his part had not the smallest objection to its being forbidden by statute. He congratulated the Government on having found an exponent of their policy who had given equal satisfaction to both sides-of the House, and whose speech was a model of precise lucidity, unmistakable in its terms, unambiguous in its general outline, and he congratulated the hon. Gentleman on having made a speech which he could assure him would allay fears and suspicions which had been widely aroused by the less fortunate interpositions of the Ministers near him.


said he thought the speech to which they had just listened was rather unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman or of the dignity of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was himself opposed to any tests being required of teachers. If that were so, they might have been spared a good deal of the criticism in which he had indulged. The clause said— A teacher … shall not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any" religious instruction. That part of the clause was a conscience clause for the teacher, and having regard to the nature of the syllabus teaching which the education authorities required of their teachers, he thought it was a very necessary and proper clause. The clause went on— And shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed. Everybody knew that in times past many teachers in schools which received State aid and rate aid were required as a condition of their appointment to belong to a particular denomination. Questions were put to many of the teachers in voluntary schools, and they had to pledge their honour that they belonged to the particular denomination. That was a test of the kind most in people's minds at the last General Election. That was the test which this Bill was intended to abolish, and did abolish. The subsection proceeded— And shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed, or to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or place of religious worship. Those words were put in to hit a practice prevailing in hundreds of Church schools, where teachers, no matter what their secular attainments, could only get the appointment by promising to go to church and to play the organ at the Sunday school, and otherwise to act as a kind of lay curate. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite were completely mistaken if they thought such conditions did not create in the minds of thousands of teachers a sense of indignity and injustice. Therefore, if this clause got rid of that it would be received with satisfaction at least by the Liberal Party in the country. With regard to qualification, he quite agreed that, supposing a man applied for a position as teacher who had in his leisure written agnostical works assailing the authority of the Scriptures, not in the manner in which they were assailed by high dignitaries of the Church, but in a manner calculated to give offence to those who attached authority to the Bible, then he quite agreed it would be undesirable that such a person should be considered by

any local authority as qualified to give the religious teaching contemplated in the syllabuses which had been mentioned. [OPPOSITION cries of: "That is a test."] No, it was not a test. The local authority might perfectly well and safely be left to exercise its own discretion in this matter of the duties which it would impose upon its own teachers. These teachers might, if they desired to do so, protect themselves from any conscientious burden by refusing to give the religious teaching, in which case the local authority would have to find somebody else. In this Christian country it should not be an impossible task to find another person who did not claim this particular conscience clause. But those teachers who were not willing to give the particular teaching required could claim the protection of the conscience clause.


said he really did not understand what the Government meant. They said in the sub-section— A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as part of his duties to give any religious instruction of a special character. And now they said if he did not give it it he should be dismissed.


I did not say he was to be dismissed.


Yes, you did.


What do the Government mean?

And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words 'A teacher employed' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 416; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 184.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Ashton, Thomas Gair
Acland, Francis Dyke Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Alden, Percy Armitage, R. Astbury, John Meir
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Crean, Eugene Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Cremer. William Randal Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Crombie, John William Har m s worth, RL. (Caithness-sh.
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Crosfield, A. H. Hart-Davies, T.
Barker, John Crossley, William J. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Cullinan, J. Harwood, George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dalziel, James Henry Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Barnard, E. B. Davies, David(Montgomery Co. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Haworth, Arthur A.
Beale, W. P. Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Hayden, John Patrick
Beauchamp, E. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hedges, A. Paget
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Delany, William Helme, Norval Watson
Beck, A. Cecil Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Bell, Richard Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Henry, Charles S.
Bellairs, Carlyon Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)
Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Berridge, T. H. D. Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Higham, John Sharp
Bertram, Julius Dillon, John Hills, J. W.
Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford) Dobson, Thomas W. Hobart, Sir Robert
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Dodd, W. H. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Billson, Alfred Donelan, Captain A. Hogan, Michael
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duckworth. James Holden, E. Hopkinson
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Duffy, William J. Holland, Sir William Henry
Blake, Edward Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hooper, A. G.
Boland, John Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Horniman, Emslie John
Boulton, A. C. F.(Ramsey) Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Brace, William Ellis. Rt. Hon. John Edward Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bramsdon, T. A. Erskine, David C. Hyde, Clarendon
Branch, James Esmonde, Sir Thomas Illingworth, Percy H.
Brigg, John Essex, R. W. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Bright, J. A. Evans, Samuel T. Jackson, R. S.
Brocklehurst, W. D. Eve, Harry Trelawney Jacoby, James Alfred
Brodie, H. C. Everett, R. Lacey Jenkins, J.
Brooke, Stopford Faber, G. H. (Boston) Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh) Farrell, James Patrick Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Fenwick, Charles Jones, Sir D (Brynmor, Swansea
Bryce, J.A.(Invernes8Burghs) Ferens, T. R. Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Ffrench, Peter Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Buckmaster, Stanley 0. Field, William Jowett, F. W.
Burke, E. Haviland- Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Joyce, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Findlay, Alexander Kearley, Hudson E.
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Flavin, Michael Joseph Kekewich, Sir George
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Flynn, James Christopher Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Kilbride, Denis
Byles, William Pollard Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Cairns, Thomas Fuller, John Michael F. King, Alfred John(Knutsford)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Fullerton, Hugh Kitson, Sir James
Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Furness, Sir Christopher Laidlaw, Robert
Cawley, Frederick Gardner. Col. Alan(Hereford, S. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Channing, Francis Allston Gibb, James (Harrow) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Cheetham, John Frederick Gilhooly, James Lambert, George
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Gill, A. H. Lamont, Norman
Churchill, Winston Spencer Ginnell, L. Layland-Barratt, Francis
Clancy, John Joseph Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)
Clarke, C. Goddard Glendinning, R. G. Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Cleland, J. W. Glover, Thomas Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich
Clough, W. Goddard, Daniel Ford Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) Gooch, George Peabody Levy. Maurice
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Grant, Corrie Lewis, John Herbert
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Lough, Thomas
Condon, Thomas Joseph Grove, Archibald Lundon, W.
Cooper, G. J. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Lupton, Arnold
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Gulland, John W. Lyell, Charles Henry
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lynch, H. B.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hall, Frederick Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cory, Clifford John Halpin, J. Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hammond, John Maclean, Donald
Cowan, W. H. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cox, Harold Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Macpherson, J. T. Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye) Strachey, Sir Edward
MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S. Perks, Robert William Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.) Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
M'Arthur, William Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke Stuart, James (Sunderland)
M'Callum, John M. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Sullivan, Donal
M'Crae, George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Summerbell, T.
M'Kean, John Pirie, Duncan V. Sutherland, J. E.
M'Kenna, Reginald Pollard, Dr. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
M'Killop, W. Power, Patrick Joseph Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh. Central) Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
M'Micking, Major G. Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Maddison, Frederick Radford, G. H. Thomas, Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)
Mallet, Charles E. Rainy, A. Rolland Thomas. David Alfred(Merthyr)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Raphael, Herbert H. Thomasson, Franklin
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E
Markham, Arthur Basil Reddy, M. Tomkinson, James
Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Torrance, A. M.
Marnham, F. J. Rees, J. D. Toulmin, George
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Renton, Major Leslie Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Massie, J. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th) Verney, F. W.
Meagher, Michael Richardson, A. Vivian, Henry
Menzies, Walter Rickett, J. Compton Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Micklem, Nathaniel Ridsdale, E. A. Wallace, Robert
Molteno, Percy Alport Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Walters, John Tudor
Mond, A. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Walton, Sir John L (Leeds, S.)
Montagu, E. S. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Montgomery, H. H. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Mooney, J. J. Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd Wardle, George J.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Robinson, S. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Morley. Rt. Hon. John Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Morrell, Philip Roche, John (Galway, East) Waterlow, D. S.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roe, Sir Thomas j Watt, H. Anderson
Murphy, John Rogers, F. E. Newman Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Murray, James Rose, Charles Day Weir, James Galloway
Myer, Horatio Rowlands, J. Whitbread, Howard
Napier, T. B. Runciman, Walter White, George (Norfolk)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Russell, T. W. White, J. w. (Dumbartonshire)
Nicholls, George Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nolan, Joseph Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whitehead, Rowland
Norman, Henry Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer i
Nussey, Thomas Willans Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester) Wiles, Thomas
Nuttall, Harry Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne Wilkie, Alexander
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Sears, J. E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Brien, William (Cork) Seaverns, J. H. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Connor James(Wicklow,W. Seddon, J. Williamson, A.:
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Shackleton, David James Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
O'Doherty, Philip Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)
O'Hare, Patrick Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Winfrey, R.
O'Malley, William Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk. Mid
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Parker, James (Halifax) Soares, Ernest J. Woodhouse Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Partington, Oswald Spicer, Albert Young, Samuel
Paul, Herbert Stanger, H. Y. Yoxall, James Henry
Paulton, James Mellor Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Steadman, W. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Pease.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balcarres, Lord Banner, John S. Harmood-
Anstruther-Gray, Major Baldwin, Alfred Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Rt Hn A.J. (City Lond) Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Banbury, Sir Frederick George. Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Nield, Herbert
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bowles, G. Stewart Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend]
Boyle, Sir Edward Haddock, George R. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Brotherton, Adward Allen Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Percy, Earl
Bull, Sir William James Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hay, Hon. Claude George Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Butcher, Samuel Henry Healy, Timothy Michael Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hervey, F. W. F(BuryS Edm'ds Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Carlile, E. Hildred Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Remnant, James Farquaharson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hornby, Sir William Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cave, George Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Hunt, Rowland Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Keswick, William Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull) Starkey, John R.
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Lane-Fox, G. R. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG(Oxf'dUniv.
Corbett, T.L. (Down North) Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Courthope, G. Loyd Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A.R. Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, Capt. James (Down E.) Long, Col, Chas. W. (Evesham) Tumour, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Cross, Alexander Lowe, Sir Francis William Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dalrymple, Viscount Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon MacIver, David (Liverpool) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Doughty, Sir George M'Calmont, Colonel James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan Magnus, Sir Phillip Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart.
Faber, George Denison (York) Marks, H. H. (Kent) Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants. W.) Mason, James F. (Windsor) Younger, George
Fardell, Sir T. George Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Fell, Arthur Middlemore, John Throgmorton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Alexander Acland-Hood and
Fletcher, J. S. Muntz, Sir Philip A. Viscount Valentia.
Forster, Henry William Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded.

Question put,"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 364; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 185.)

Acland. Francis Dyke Bellairs. Carlyon Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Ainsworth, John Stirling Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport Buckmaster, Stanley 0.
Alden, Percy Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch Berridge, T. H. D. Burnyeat, J. D. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bertram, Julius Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Armitage, R. Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bethell, T.R.(Essex, Maldon) Byles, William Pollard
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Billson, Alfred Cairns, Thomas
Astbury, John Meir Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Causton, Rt, Hn. Richard Knight
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N.E. Cawley, Frederick
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Charming, Francis Allston
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Brace, William Cheetham, John Frederick
Barker, John Bramsdon, T. A. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,
Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Branch, James Churchill, H Winston Spencer
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brigg, John Clarke, C. Goddard
Barnard, E. B. Bright, J. A. Cleland, J. W.
Barnes, G. N. Brocklehurst, W. D. Clough, W.
Barron, Rowland Hirst Brodie, H. C. Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.
Beale, W. P. Brooke, Stopford Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbo'rne Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes. Leigh Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W
Beck, A. Cecil Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen) Cooper, G. J.
Bell, Richard Bryce, J.A (Inverness Burghs) Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grnist'd
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Henderson, J.M (Aberdeen, W. Mond, A.
Cory, Clifford John Henry, Charles S. Montagu, E. S.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) Montgomery, H. H.
Cowan, W. H. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cremer, William Randal Higham, John Sharp Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Crombie, John William Hobart, Sir Robert Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Crosfield, A. H. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morrell, Philip
Cross Alexander Holden, E. Hopkinson Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Crossley, William J. Holland, Sir William Henry Murray, James
Dalziel, James Henry Hooper, A. G. Myer, Horatio
Davies, David (MontgomeryCo. Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N. Napier, T.B.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Horniman, Emslie John Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Horridge, Thomas Gardner Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholls, George
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hyde, Clarendon Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Illingworth, Percy H. Norman, Henry
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickinson, W. H. (St Pancras N. Jackson, R. S. Nussey, Whomas Willans
Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Nuttall, Harry
Dobson, Thomas W. Jenkins, J. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dodd, W. H. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Parker, James (Halifax)
Duckworth, James Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Partington, Oswald
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea Paul, Herbert
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Paulton, James Mellor
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Kearley Hudson E. Pearce William (Limehouse)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Kekewich Sir George Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Kincaid-Smith Captain Pearson, W.H.M(Suffolk, Eye)
Erskine, David C. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Perks, Robert William
Essex, R. W. Kitson, Sir James Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton
Evans, Samuel T. Laidlaw, Robert Philipps, T. Wynford(Pembroke
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Everett, R. Lacey Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lambert, George Pirie, Duncan V.
Fenwick, Charles Lamont Norman Pollard, Dr.
Ferens, T. R. Layland-Barratt, Francis Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lea, Hugh Cecil (St, Pancras, E.) Price, Robert John (Norfork. E.
Findlay, Alexander Leese, Sir J. F. -(Accrington) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter Lever A. Levy(Essex, Harwich) Radford, G. H.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral Rainy, A. Holland
Fuller, John Michael F. Levy, Maurice Raphael, Herbert H.
Fullerton, Hugh Lewis, John Herbert Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Furness, Sir Christopher Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rees, J. D,
Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S Lough, Thomas Renton, Major Leslie
Gibb, James (Harrow) Lupton, Arnold Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th
Gill, A. H. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mton)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J Lyell, Charles Henry Richardson, A.
Glendinning, R. G. Lynch, H. B. Rickett, J. Compton
Glover, Thomas Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Ridsdale, E. A.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gooch, George Peabody Mackarness, Frederic C. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Grant, Corrie Maclean, Donald Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradford
Greenwood, Hamar (York) M'Arthur, William Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Grove, Archibald M'Callum, John M. Robinson, S.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Crae, George Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gulland, John W. M'Kenna, Reginald Roe, Sir Thomas
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rogers F. E, Newman
Hall, Frederick M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rose, Charles Day
Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis M'Micking, Major G. Rowlands, J.
Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Maddison, Frederick Runciman, Walter
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mallet, Charles E. Russell, T. W.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh. Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hart-Davies, T. Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale) Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Harwood, George Marnham, F. J. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Schwann, Sir C.E(Manchester)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Massie, J. Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)
Haworth, Arthur A. Menzies, Walter Sears, J. E.
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Micklem, Nathaniel Seaverns, J. H.
Hedges, A. Paget Molteno, Percy Alport Seddon, J.
Helme, Norval Watson
Shackleton, David James Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. White, George (Norfolk)
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. Hawick, B.) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) White, Luke(York, E. R.)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Thomasson, Franklin Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Silcock, Thomas Ball Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Tomkinson, James Wiles, Thomas
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Torrance, A. M. Wilkie, Alexander
Snowdon, P. Toulmin, George Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Trevelyan, Charles Philips Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Soares, Ernest J. Verney, F. W. Williamson, A.
Spicer. Albert Vivian, Henry Wills, Arthur Walters
Stanger, H. Y. Walker, H. De R.(Leicester) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Wallace, Robert Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Steadman, W. C. Walsh, Stephen Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Walters, John Tudor Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Strachey, Sir Edward Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Winfrey, R.
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk Mid
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wardle, George J. Wood, T M'Kinnon
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Hudd'rsfi'd
Summerbell, T. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Yoxall, Thomas Henry
Sutherland, J. E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Waterlow, D.S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Watt, H. Anderson Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wedgwood, Josiah C. Pease.
Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) Weir. James Galloway
Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Whitbread, Howard
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury
Ambrose, Robert Craik, Sir Henry Hill, Henry Staveley(Staffordsh
Anson, Sir William Reynell Crean, Eugene Hills, J. W.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Cullinan, J. Hogan, Michael
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dalrymple, Viscount Hornby, Sir William Henry
Aubrey-Fletcher Rt. Hon. Sir H. Delany, William Houston, Robert Paterson
Baldwin, Alfred Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Hunt, Rowland
Balfour, Rt. Hn A.J.(City Lond. Dillon, John Joyce, Michael
Banbury. Sir Frederick George Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Donelan, Captain A. Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester Doughty, Sir George Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Keswick, William
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Duffy, William J. Kilbride, Denis
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull
Bignold, Sir Arthur Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lane-Fox, G. R.
Blake, Edward Fabe, George Denison (York) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Boland, John Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)
Bowles, G. Stewart Fardell, Sir T. George Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Boy'e, Sir Edward Farrell, James Patrick Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Bridgeman, W, Clive Fell, Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Brotherton, Edward Allen Ffrench, Peter Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bull, Sir William James Field, William Lundon, W.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Burke, E. Haviland- Flavin, Michael Joseph MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Fletcher, J. S. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Flynn, James Christopher Macpherson, J. T.
Carlile, E. Hildred Forster, Henry William MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Cave, George Gilhooly, James M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Ginnell, L. M'Kean, John
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gordon, J. (Londonderry South M'Killop, W.
Cecil, Lord John J. Joicey- Gordon, Sir W Evans-(T'rH'mlts Magnus, Sir Philip
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Haddock, George R. Marks. H. H. (Kent)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Halpin, J. Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Hammond, John Meagher, Michael
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hardy, Laurence(Kents, Ahford Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hay, Hon. Claude George Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hayden, John Patrick Mooney, J. J.
Courthope, G. Loyd Healy, Timothy Michael Morpeth, Viscount
Cox, Harold Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S Edm'ds) Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Murphy, John Power, Patrick Joseph Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Thomson, W. Mitchell(Lanark)
Nield, Herbert Ratclff, Major R. F. Thornton, Percy M.
Nolan, Joseph Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Turnour, Viscount
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid. Reddy, M. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Redmond, John E(Waterford) Wolker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.
O'Brien, William (Cork) Redmond, William (Clare) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) Remnant, James Farquharson Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall White, Patrick (Heath, North)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Roche, John (Galway, East) Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)
O'Doherty, Philip Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
O'Hare, Patrick Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Salter, Arthur Clavell Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
O'Malley, William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Young, Samuel
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East) Younger, George
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) Starkey, John R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir
Percy, Earl Stone, Sir Benjamin Alexander Acland Hood and
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sullivan, Donal Viscount Valentia.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, and agreed to.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.