§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 3:—
§ MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)moved to leave out the word "if" from the beginning of sub-section (1), with the object of subsequently moving other Amendments with a view to making the granting of facilities obligatory. The hon. Member suggested that they might have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education with regard to the question as to whether religious teaching in the schools would or would not be given during school hours. Anyone who had a full knowledge of the question knew very well that a large percentage of the children would 198 not receive any religious instruction unless such instruction was given during school hours. One could imagine an English village school with the children inside, listening to those playing outside. He hoped and trusted in the interests of the children of the country, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of making some statement upon the question that day, because it was of great importance in connection with the Amendment before them. Some time ago they had a division with regard to secular education, and he believed there were in one lobby sixty-two Members. That did not represent the feeling of the House and the country upon the question, but at the same time it showed that there was a deep feeling among the people in favour of religious education being given during school hours. If it was not obligatory for children to go to school to receive religious instruction there was no doubt at least one-third of them would receive no moral teaching in the schools at all. There was no Member of the House who could say that a mandate was given to the Liberal Party to do away with religious instruction during school hours, and he thought there were few hon. Members who would not prefer religious instruction in school hours. The President of the Board of Education had said that he intended the clause to be not a sham but a reality, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had supported that view. It was desirable that they should have some definition in the Bill with regard to what "extended facilities," and "ordinary facilities" meant. The man in the street believed that every ordinary school would have these facilities, but members of the Committee knew that there was no foundation for such a statement. The local authority need not take over a school at all, and there was no provision for compelling local authorities to make the granting of facilities a condition of the arrangement. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, would be able to say whether this teaching would be given in school hours and that the clause would be made mandatory.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 24, to leave out the word 'if.'"—(Mr. Pike Pease.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the clause."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said the hon. Member had referred to Clause 6, which provided that "the parent of a child attending a public elementary school shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the schoolhouse, except during the times allotted in the time-table exclusively to secular instruction." The hon. Member desired to know whether the Government contemplated any alteration of the provisions of that clause. All he could say was that upon that point the Government were perfectly willing when they came to Clause 6 that the question should be fairly and fully considered in such a way as to secure, if possible, that the children should be required to attend. That was not a view that met with special favour in his mind, because he had always been of opinion that, if they wished to make the conscience clause really effective, they ought to make it easy for the child as well as for the parent to claim exemption. For that reason he favoured the clause in the form in which it now appeared. But there was a great deal of feeling the other way, and when the Committee came to that clause the fullest opportunity would be afforded for considering the question—it might be upon a Government Amendment, although as to that he had not yet come to any definite conclusion; but he thought that in all probability the Committee would have an opportunity of considering the question on a Government Amendment. At all events, the whole question would be open for consideration and there would be no attempt whatsoever to take the clause as it at present stood as representing the view of the Government upon this important point. With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, he did not think the clause as it at present stood was in any way open to any other objection than that there was no obligation upon the local authority to take a school at all. That was the gap of which so much had been heard. That gap was always in the mind of the Government; they knew perfectly well it was there, and he thought it would be found that in his speeches he had not used language inconsistent with that statement. The Government always contem 200 plated that there was no obligation whatever on the local authority to take over a school, but they always contemplated that the schools would be willing to come over, and that the authorities would be desirous to take them; and that, when that was done, these facilities should be made a compulsory condition of their being taken over. They did not intend that a local authority should refuse to take a school because if it did it would have to grant facilities. That was not the intention of the Government, nor was it the effect of the clause; but by either a new clause or a new sub-section he would make it perfectly plain that the local authority, if it did take over a school, must grant these facilities, and also, possibly, say how it was to proceed to take it over. He wanted to make it perfectly clear, however, that the Government could not, and did not, propose to take away from the local authority the responsibility of providing for its own school requirements, and that they could not make it compulsory on the local authority to take over a school simply because one was there. It would be ridiculous to impose on the local authority the obligation of making suitable provision if they did not leave them free to say what suitable provision was. Subject to these considerations he hoped a way had been found to bridge over the gap. The Amendment could not be accepted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said that the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman was a most important one. But he wished to begin his remarks by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, rather, as he gathered, against his own natural inclination, to the very strong feeling which undoubtedly existed both in and out of the House. He did not regard as so satisfactory the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the difficult problem of how to ensure that there should be these religious facilities given in schools, if they left, as the Government now desired to leave, a discretion to the local authority. He was not sure that the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman squared with, he would not say his previous speeches, but the impression which those speeches had left on the minds of the Committee. He certainly was under j the impression that, when the right 201 hon. Gentleman made the promise that he would, on the Report stage, bring forward an Amendment to bridge over the gap between Clause 1 and Clause 3, it carried with it an obligation on the local education authority to take over those schools which consisted of buildings fit for educational purposes. There was a common agreement on both sides of the Committee that it would be most unjust to compel the local authority to take over schools which were so seriously defective that, obviously, the proper course was to build a new school; but he thought the Government agreed with them in thinking that, subject to that exceptional qualification, there was to be an obligation on the local authority to take over voluntary schools. Now he understood the Government had withdrawn from that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] He looked that morning at the imperfect report, as all reports of their proceedings in Committee were imperfect, in The Times of what the right hon. Gentleman said last night, and he certainly gathered, both from the speech which he had just made and from the words that fell from him last night, that he did not propose to require local authorities to take over schools in all cases, not even in those, necessarily, where the school was fit for educational purposes. He hoped that before they left this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would clear up for ever certain ambiguities which seemed to attach to the utterances of the Government on the subject and the doubts which were very widely spread on both sides of the House. He did not think the Government had made it quite clear, so far as this gap was concerned, exactly what it was they meant to require the local authority to do. But there was another gap the true character and importance of which he did not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciated. Supposing the trustees of a school said they would rather not enter into any arrangements with the local authority, then, under Clause 8, the fate of that school was handed over to the Commission of Three, who had power to impose conditions of transfer upon the voluntary school, but not to impose conditions of reception or acquisition on the part of the local authority. That was a separate and quite distinct gap in the scheme of the Government, for this one-sided imposition of terms had no corresponding 202 coercive effect on the other party to the transaction.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was getting very wide of the question before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be opening up the whole question of the Bill and not the particular Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite agreed with the Chairman's ruling. He only wanted to show that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn from the pledges he had given to the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to confine his observations as far as possible to the facilities given under Clause 3.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would confine his observations to the religious side of the question. There were two points in which the mandatory character of religious facilities was really not given by anything which the Government had promised either upon tins or any other clause.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said that the discussion had been from the start entirely out of order. The Amendment, so far as he could understand it—and it was not easy to grasp its bearing—was intended to make the granting of facilities for religious instruction mandatory in all cases where a school was taken over by the local authority. But if a school were taken over under Clause 2, on the terms of the trustees, the granting of facilities under Clause 3 was mandatory as the clause stood. Where the hon. Member seemed to have gone astray both in his Amendment and in his speech, was that he did not recognise that this was a matter which came back to Clause 2. The question of whether a school could be taken over had to be settled under Clause 2; but supposing the question was settled under that clause, then Clause 3 became mandatory. If, under Clause 2, the school was taken over, the Board must give the facilities. He was surprised that the subtle intellect of the noble Lord the-Member for East Marylebone could not 203 realise that point, but there was no doubt that the first gap was in Section 2. He quite agreed in the importance attached by the Leader of the Opposition to the terms of the Amendment of the Government which was to be put upon the Paper in regard to Clause 2, but he did not think that it would be orderly or profitable to discuss the question now. He hoped and had no doubt that that Amendment would be put upon the Paper in good time for them to consider and discuss it. The real point they were now discussing was whether this proposed Amendment increased the mandatory or the compulsory force of Clause 3. He could not see that it did, and he thought that hon. Members should address themselves to Clauses 6 and 8 in regard to this question, because even if the Amendment were carried, the clause would have no more effect than it had at present.
§ MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)said he found himself unable to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo. There were two "ifs" which stood between the owners and the acquisition of these special facilities. One was "if" the school had been transferred—they had nothing to say about that question now, because they had dealt with it under Clause 2—but there was another "if," namely, "if" the granting of these facilities had been made a condition of the transfer, either under an arrangement between the owners and the local authority under Clause 2 or under a scheme made by the Commission of Three under Clause 8. He ventured—although he was not a lawyer—to say that without the assent of the local authority these facilities could not be made a condition of the transfer. Hence, unless the Government accepted the proposed Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Darlington, they had no assurance whatever that the facilities would ever become a condition of the transfer. The Minister for Education last night said that there were two gaps; the second gap which he discovered being that if the owners or trustees did not make facilities a condition of transfer there might very truly be a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman observed that this was a somewhat small gap, for the 204 Government assumed that they could safely rely upon owners and trustees to make the condition part of the bargain. But a further gap which the right hon. Gentleman did not notice was far more important and it was with this they were now concerned. The local authority might make it a condition of the transfer that these facilities should not be granted. That was what they had to guard against. In either case, whether under Clause 2 or Clause 8, the local authority had the final word in deciding the question. In one of his speeches last night, the Minister for Education had assumed that in every case where the transfer took place facilities would be given. He only appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give effect to that assumption. They had not heard from Ministers what would happen if an authority objected to the facilities being given. Ministers had assumed that they would be given. Why not, therefore, say in the Bill that they should be given? It might be said that this would show an undue distrust of local authorities. He did not think so. They could not forget that there had been speeches made recently, only a few in the House but a good many outside, revealing a hardness and want of sympathy which inspired a certain distrust, he would not say of local authorities as a whole, but of certain individuals who, flushed with the pride of political victory, were prepared to drive hard bargains, even in regard to matters of conscience. He would appeal to the Minister for Education to allow this matter of facilities once and for all to be lifted above the region of wrangling and placed outside local politics. Moreover, what was meant by "facilities." It was all obscure and vague. Were they to be given during the time in which the local authority had the control of the school? He imagined that that was so, because otherwise the owners could get quite as much without claiming the facilities at all out of school hours. Again, was the Cowper-Temple instruction to be given concurrently with the special facilities and at the same hour? That is to say, were those who did not desire want the special facilities to get the Cowper-Temple instruction as an alternative. A third point was whether 205 denominational teaching might be given every day of the week provided no child received it more than twice a week? The question of facilities had been solved elsewhere, although he had a certain hesitation in referring to the subject, because the Minister for Education had deprecated any allusion to the experience of other countries. The Secretary for India, however, not very long ago said that—
"Serious persons must reflect that whilst we are wrangling over unnecessary issues, our German and other rivals are straining every nerve to have real education.Well, what happened in Germany? In Germany there was a dual system; on the one hand there were a certain number of mixed schools containing children of different denominations. The parents of these children had not a conditional but an assured right to the religious instruction they desired being given in school hours and by competent teachers. But the mixed system was quite exceptional. The ordinary system, however, was that of strictly denominational schools, where children were educated in their own creed. This prevailed wherever there was an adequate number of children of one denomination and was almost universal. Some years ago Liberal feeling in Germany was rather against the denominational system, but experience had shown that the denominational were so superior to the mixed schools that he would mention opinion was now in favour of the denominational schools. The only other country was Ireland. He could not help being impressed with the marked contrast between the religious toleration in matters of education that obtained in Ireland and the singular intolerance that existed in England. Whatever might be the faults of Ireland in other ways, in her educational system she had managed to find a concordat. She, too, had a two-fold method answering to Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill. In all the "vested" schools, which corresponded roughly to the "provided" schools in England, a right of entry was allowed. It was not a matter of bargaining; and the religious instruction so given was that which was approved of by the parents or guardians. The teachers who 206 gave it might be either the school teacher or someone, cleric or layman, brought in from outside. And in Ireland precisely the same thing occurred as in Germany; the denominational schools vastly preponderated. The theory in Ireland was that of combined secular and separate religious instruction; but in practice the denominational system better satisfied the consciences of the people. There were 8,500 national schools in Ireland and only 1,829 of these were mixed schools. After all, "facilities" were only a second best expedient. That was the first lesson to be drawn from the experience of other countries. They were useful as a subsidiary arrangement to meet practical difficulties or to satisfy theoretical grievances, but they were not in themselves a security for a sound religious education. Secondly, the general intrusion of amateurs was dangerous to the discipline of schools. Thirdly, in so far as mixed schools were carried on with any success, it was by the employment of the school teachers in the school hours, and. moreover, by opening up the right to all denominations alike. His inference, therefore, was that Clause 3 was useful as an adjunct and supplement to Clause 4, but that Clause 4 ought to be largely and generously expanded.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Mr. ROBSON,) South Shieldssaid the Amendment made a small but very important change in the clause. As the clause now stood the arrangement between the local authority and the trustees of voluntary schools was to be a voluntary arrangement. The Amendment proposed to put into that voluntary arrangement a compulsory term. That was not, in his opinion, the most convenient mode of conducting or concluding a voluntary negotiation. At present the trustees might or might not demand facilities for special privileges; the Amendment proposed that they should be compelled to do so. The short answer to the hon. Member was that the Amendment proposed to incorporate a compulsory term into a voluntary negotiation: that was not the most desirable way of conducting a voluntary negotiation, and they had no need to travel to foreign countries to discover that.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said he desired to say one word upon the effect of Clause 3 as it would be if amended on the lines proposed by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Cambridge University had said that he regarded Clause 3 as an important addition and complement to Clause 4, but really in the practical application of this Act Clauses 3 and 4 dealt with totally different classes of schools. Clause 3 was the one slight hope which was left to the rural schools of the country. Clause 4 could not apply in its present form to the rural schools. It was Clause 3 which would govern the rural school system. The hon. Member for East Mayo did not believe the Amendment was necessary, because the trustees under Clause 2 and subsequent clauses would have the power to make the granting of these facilities a compulsory part of the transfer. That, he thought, was not so. The Solicitor General had just said that this arrangement was to be voluntary, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not even know his own Bill, because in Clause 2 the Government made the part relating to the transfer compulsory. When they were discussing Clause 2 they sought to add a sub-section to sub-section (a) making not only maintenance but the granting of facilities a compulsory result of the transfer. That Amendment was resisted successfully, hon. Gentlemen opposite point to Clause 3 as the means for securing the desirod result. It was therefore only to Clause 3 that they had to look for the provision of these religious facilities in the rural schools. His hon. friend had asked, and he hoped that the question would be answered, as it was very important that the Committee should be given an idea of the way in which these facilities were to be granted, because if they were not to be made mandatory it would be a cause of very great irritation and difficulty in the country districts. It was for that reason that the Opposition the other day pressed on the Government, with ultimate success, the contention that this House should accept, and not transfer to the local authority, the responsibility of deciding whether or not those religious facilities should be granted. 208 He could well conceive a local education authority, moved, as they undoubtedly would be, by the arguments which had been frequently expressed in this House, being led in some cases to vary their action. But if this clause were made mandatory, and the Amendment of the Government took the form which. they most certainly thought it would take and which the report of the debates of the time justified them in believing was then intended, namely, of imposing upon the local authority the obligation of granting these facilities provided the schools were fit and efficient for educational purposes, then the whole of the religious controversy would be removed from the local area. Otherwise the local authority would not be able to avoid discussing these controversial questions. If his hon. friend's Amendment were adopted, they would lay down what was to be the principle to guide the local authorities in future. That the granting of these facilities should be an obligatory part of the bargain was the least measure of justice that could be granted. He had hoped the Minister for Education would have told them something about the scheme of these facilities, as to which the Committee were in ignorance. No doubt the Government had some definite idea as to a scheme which, if the right hon. Gentleman would take them into his confidence, would help the Committee in discussing the clause. He hoped all those who believed that, in common justice, when a voluntary school was transferred it should be an obligation that religious facilities should be granted would not be led away by any doubt as to the meaning of Clause 2 or the effect of Clause 3 in its present form, but would see that the scheme could be carried out in no other way than by adopting the Amendment of his hon. friend, or something very much like it. This was the least measure of justice that could be given to those schools which had done such invaluable work for the children of the country, which work they were anxious to continue, only asking that they should be treated with fairness.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid they could not—as he thought the hon. Member for East Mayo quite accurately pointed out—consider any provisions that might be 209 hereafter proposed for bridging over the gap of Clause 2. It could not be done on Clause 3. There was a gap, and it was the intention of the Government that there should be that gap. But he had promised to introduce, at the termination of the Committee stage on Clause 4, words which very possibly would alter the situation very much, because the four-fifths schools might be fully provided for by and under that clause, and the gap in that case filled up. It would then remain to consider the filling up of the gap generally; but it would be out of order to attempt to do it on this clause. The Government did not want to make it absolutely compulsory that, in the case of every school that was taken over under Clause 3, the granting of these denominational facilities should be made a condition, because it would be found in the case of a good many of those schools, when their trusts came to be examined, that they ought not to have a denominational character at all. The Amendment was quite unnecessary, unless it were considered rather in the way in which the right lion. Gentleman who had just sat down construed it as making it obligatory upon the local authority—
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he desired to make clear was that where the transfer of a voluntary school took place, the granting of religious facilities should be as obligatory as was the burden of expenditure which was made.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid this seemed to him to be a very narrow point. He quite agreed, and he had already said so, that it was certainly not intended that when a local authority wanted to take over a school they should make it a condition that, if the facilities in question were insisted on, they would not take over the school. That was not the intention of the clause, and he could not conceive that it was the effect of the clause as it stood. But he was perfectly ready to consider that question and to make it perfectly plain that if the local authority wanted to take the school, and if the trustees wanted to have facilities, then facilities there should be.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said there seemed to be some misapprehension on this point. The question was this: supposing there was a local education authority that did not want on conscientious grounds to grant special facilities under Clause 3, it could avoid the obligations which the right hon. Gentleman thought rested upon it by refusing to take over the school. They were discussing the point under some disadvantage, because they did not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman's clause was going to be. There were two ways in which the local education authority could avoid its obligation. They could refuse to take the school over on these grounds, and the matter might be argued before the Commission. They might succeed in persuading the Commission, but they were perfectly safe in any case, because the Commission could not put upon them anything unless they consented. The second way of avoiding their obligation was not to make it a condition of arrangements—that was to say, not a condition of the voluntary agreement. The Solicitor-General, differing entirely as he understood from the Minister for Education, regarded it as very desirable that it should be a matter of arrangement and discussion between the trustees and the local education authority. He did not understand that to be the view of the Minister for Education, and the only way to avoid the difficulty was to say that it should not be a matter of discussion between the two whether the facilities should be granted or not. It was an important point, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman admitted it.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid he would consult with the noble Lord as to the best words to carry it into effect.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the remarks of the Minister for Education were very satisfactory, because there was certainly an impression left on his mind, and, he thought, upon other minds, that the statement the right hon. Gentleman made to-day was not in harmony with that which he made the other day. From the previous statement they clearly understood that one condition only was 211 to be permitted to interfere with the necessity of taking over a voluntary school, but to-day he understood the right hon. Gentleman to give a much larger concession. Was there intended to be any difference between the two statements? If not, what was the nature of the loophole which would enable the local authorities to escape from making this arrangement?
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said it was obvious that a great deal of the discussion was wasted because they had not before them the exact terms of the Amendment to Clause 2 foreshadowed by his right hon. friend. But the Amendment now before the House raised a perfectly clear and intelligible issue, and he did make an appeal to his right hon. friend in the strongest terms. The right hon. Gentleman had already somewhat strained the allegiance of many of his strongest followers in the House of Commons by the Amendment which he had promised, placing as it would the discretion of the local education authority at the disposal of the Board of Education. He could assure his right hon. friend that many of his supporters who had sat silent on the Ministerial Benches with the view of helping the Bill forward, and they intended to do so to the utmost of their power, had listened to the foreshadowing of that Amendment with much doubt and misgiving. He hoped that in Clauses 3 and 4 his right hon. friend would show some firmness and some adherence to the general principles of the Bill, upon which he had obtained the power he now exercised as Minister for Education and upon which the Government had obtained their great majority. On the Ministerial side they were as anxious as hon. Members opposite to facilitate the advance of education by securing real peace in the schools on this religious question. He had not the slightest doubt that in dealing with village schools the local authorities would exercise generosity, discretion, and wisdom, but he warned the Minister for Education that he would strain to a dangerous point the allegiance of his followers if he consented to this whittling away of the discretionary power of the local education authorities in dealing with these vital issues under the Bill. The whole 212 future of education was bound up in the discretionary power and rights of the local education authorities, and they regarded with the very gravest misgiving any tendency to yield to the very ingenious and able arguments advanced from the other side. Those arguments were based upon the one contention that the Party opposite desired to maintain on a permanent footing and with the sanction of the law the denominational system in this country. What they wished was to treat the present denominational schools and their teaching with as much generosity and forbearance as possible. It was for that reason that he welcomed this clause as a fair solution, just as much as he was determined to vote against Clause 4 in whatever form it finally assumed.
§ LORD BALCARRESreminded the Committee that the President of the Board of Education had already given them a promise that in cases of properly equipped sanitary schools the local education authority would have to grant facilities if demanded.
§ MR. BIRRELLBut the point my hon. friend was referring to is in regard to bridging the gap.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid that if there was anything in the statement of the President of the Board of Education that he proposed to fill up the gap which existed in Clause 3 by making Clause 4 mandatory then the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire might have something to say on Monday next. The value of those facilities was largely governed by Clause 6. There was no provision in Clause 3 as regards school hours. The Minister for Education had told them that Clause 6 was going to be amended—
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to discuss the question of facilities, and they depended upon what was going to be done in Clause 6. In the event of Clause 6 being amended, he wished to know if this special denominational instruction would 213 actually be given out of the hours of compulsory school attendance. This was a point to which they attached very great importance.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)desired to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education for his very satisfactory assurances as to what he would do when they reached Clause 6. Two points had troubled the owners of voluntary schools; one was that the children should be allowed to go free during the hour for religious instruction, and the second was as to the teachers having the option of giving religious instruction. With regard to the Amendment, what they wanted was that if the owners and trustees of voluntary schools required these facilities under Clause 3 they must be given. If that was made clear by the Amendment, Members on that side would be satisfied.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)said that if they went much farther in the direction in which the Minister for Education had gone, they would find the Bill being voted for consistently by Members of the Opposition and voted against by those sitting on the Ministerial side. The Amendment made the clause read absolutely absurd. He understood that the Minister for Education was going to lead his supporters into the Lobby against the Amendment. He was in favour of the clause as it stood at present. They had got into a great many of these muddles by discussing other clauses and promised Amendments which were not before the Committee, but the essence of this clause, and indeed the essential principle of the whole Bill, was that the local education authority should not be compelled to do certain things, and that it should be in their discretion to do certain things. The essence of the clause was that the local authority should be able to enter into an arrangement with the owners of voluntary schools, and if they did, then they were to have power to grant these facilities. The meaning of the clause was perfectly clear. The object of the Amendment was to place 214 compulsion upon the local education authority. He voted for the Second Reading upon the basis that these were to be matters of arrangement between the local education authority and the owners of denominational schools. Upon those grounds he should vote against the Amendment. If there was any more compulsion put upon the education authority he should certainly be compelled to abstain if he did not vote against the Government. This was all to be a matter of arrangement, and it was absurd to hold out these hopes to the other side.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)said the discussion had shown that the Opposition were justified in the arguments they had put forward in regard to this clause. They assumed that the Minister for Education was quite sincere in granting facilities to religious denominations in connection with voluntary schools, and they assumed that the facilities would be real and not illusory. If the children were not compelled to attend, and if the teachers were not obliged to teach them, the intentions of the Government would be nullified by the operation of Clauses 6 and 7. They were appealing to the Government that Clause 3 should be so amended as to make it certain that the declared intention of the Government would be carried out. Members of the Opposition assumed that the intention of the Government would not be carried out by the clause in its present form. He thought they all clearly understood that if a local authority desired to take over a school, and the trustees desired to hand it over, facilities should be compulsory—that was to say that the local education authority should give the facilities.
§ MR. BIRRELLIf they are asked for.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that as this was now understood, the discussion had produced great good. If there was any confusion in the minds of hon. Members opposite regarding the clause the Minister for Education had taken the opportunity of clearing up that misunderstanding. In the minds of hon. Members en the Opposition side of the House, 215 there had been a complete lack of understanding on the matter until it was cleared up. They expressed their deep satisfaction that they had secured what they wished for, and what the Government intended to grant. The voluntary schools had been, in a sense the property of those who founded them, who gave most of the money for them, and who through many years under trying conditions supported out of their own pockets, with very little help from the State, the education which was for the good not only of Church of England children, but of Nonconformist children, and the children of the poor who had no faith at all.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)said the remarks of the hon. members for East Northamptonshire and Mid-Glamorgan shire were quite uncalled for. As he understood the matter the Minister for Education had done no more than give assurances which would make quite sure what everyone understood to be his intention. He did not think there was a single person in the House who heard the speech of the Minister for Education who did not understand it to be his intention that, provided the local authorities thought it desirable to take over the schools, and provided the owners of the schools desired to have these facilities, it should not be within the power of the local authorities to refuse them. He must protest against the Government being threatened in this childish and tragic way.
MR. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)said he understood that the position desired to be met by the Amendment was this. There was, let them suppose, a voluntary school which, from a sanitary point of view, was suitable, and which from the point of view of educational necessity and economy the local authority would be willing to take over; but the local authority said to the trustees that they did not mean to have any denominational instruction given in the school, and, therefore, the trustees made it a condition that they would not hand it over unless the local authority gave them the right to facilities for denominational instruction under Clause 3. He understood that such a case would be clearly covered by the undertaking given 216 by the Minister for Education. He did not quite agree with the interpretation which the Leader of the Opposition had been putting on the words of the Minister for Education. The right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly what hon. Members on his side of the House understood to be his intention. The Leader of the Opposition put it this way—
"If you grant that a voluntary school is structurally fit, then the local education authority must take it over.He said No.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf desired by the trustees.
MR. HERBERTsaid that if there was a large provided school built with the view of meeting the future needs of the neighbourhood, surely it could not be right from the point of view of the public interest that the trustees of a non-provided school should be able to say, "You must take it over, although from the point of view of the educational interest, you do not require it." That was the sense in which the Minister for Education was understood on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly given an undertaking that a school should not be refused simply because it was a denominational school. If the owners of a voluntary school made it a condition of handing it over that facilities should be provided, it would not then be open to the local authority to say that they would not comply with that condition.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speech of the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division brought out exactly the point on which there was still some slight doubt in the minds of those who heard the debate the other day, and who listened to the statement of the Minister for Education. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman went further than the hon. Member. A local authority might find that they had accommodation at their disposal in which all the children in a district could be received. There was, however, a denominational school in the district which, let them say, was a perfectly fit structure. According to his view of the Government pledge, the 217 needs of denominational education would be safeguarded by making it compulsory for the local education authority to take over that second school; but according to the view of the hon. Member for the Wycombe division, the Government had entered into no such undertaking. It was evident that there was really a material difference between these two versions as to what the Government intended. The hon. Member had clearly put forward his conception of the pledge. He hoped he had not less clearly put forward his view of it. He hoped the matter would be cleared up by the Minister of Education.
§ MR. DILLONasked whether it was or was not open to the Committee now to discuss the terms of the pledge given by the Government in regard to Clause 2.
§ LORD MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said that under the present Act the difficulty alluded to by an hon. Member had already arisen in one of the divisions of Buckinghamshire. He had in his mind the case of a small village with two schools—one British and one Church of England. It was obvious that from the educational point of view it was a bad method of educating the children.
THE CHAIRMANThat is the same question again. It is really not in order, because the matter does not come under the terms of this Amendment.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)said the Minister for Education had stated that the granting of facilities should be optional. He reminded the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, when referring to Clauses 2 and 3, said that the facilities were to be of a compulsory character.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said he objected to the Amendment because it took away from the local authority the power to manage their schemes. The Bill as it stood referred to the arrangements made at the taking over of 218 the schools. If the Amendment were adopted it would be in the power of the owners or trustees of the school to call upon the local authority at some future time to make a different arrangement from that agreed upon at the taking over of the schools. He hoped the Minister for Education would stick to the Bill, and that while he tried to conciliate members opposite he would not disregard a large body of feeling on his own side of the House.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)said that the point raised by the Amendment was not of such importance as was represented. It was thought that pressure might be put by the local authority on the trustees to waive the condition they had the power to make as to facilities for religious teaching, and that it might be conveyed to them somehow or other that if they insisted on that condition the school might not be taken over. Therefore it was proposed to make the condition mandatory. He submitted that the Bill dealt with the matter in a better way than the Amendment. If they wanted the school, the local authority had the power to go to the Commissioners under Clause 8. There might be circumstance in which it would be well to allow the trustees to waive the conditions and hand over the school. There might be circumstances in which the local authority would hold it to be undesirable to continue a school as a denominational school. For instance, in a village in which nine-tenths of the population were Non conformists, it might be better to make provision for the denominational teaching of a tenth of the children outside the schools rather than build a new school. He could not conceive that the law would ever compel a local authority to take over a denominational school in a case of that kind. Without addressing any minatory language to the Minister for Education he ventured to suggest that his own scheme of a Commission to consider on what terms a trust school was to be taken over was a better method than that proposed in the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would clear up the point at issue.
§ MR. BIRRELLaid that he had undertaken to bring in an Amendment in the best words that could be found as soon as they had disposed of Clause 4. He could not go into the matter now without a much longer statement than he was inclined to make at that moment. The only undertaking which he had given was in reply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, as to making it obligatory on the part of the local authorities to take over the voluntary schools. He did then admit that it was impossible for the Government to consider a one-sided obligation of that sort, without a corresponding obligation on the part of all owners of voluntary schools to hand over their schools to the local authorities if the local authorities wished it. It was, therefore, a double-barrelled obligation. That was all the promise he had made; and he was not bound by any promise or kind of obligation other than that. Then he went on to say that, if it could be arranged without destroying the educational responsibility of the
§ local authorities, he was anxious to secure that no local authority should refuse to take over the proper voluntary school simply and solely because of the religious facilities and obligations which would be attached to it under Clauses 3 and 4. That was all that was in his mind. After Clause 4 was disposed of, the Government would introduce such words as might be necessary for that purpose.
§ MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he wished to withdraw his Amendment, which had called forth two statements of the greatest importance from the Minister for Education, viz., in regard to religious education being given in school hours and also in regard to making that power mandatory.
§ Leave to withdraw Amendment being refused—
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided—Ayes, 387; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 139.)
223| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Clough, W. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire) | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Blake, Edward | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Agnew, George William | Boland, John | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Cliristchurch) | Boulton, A. C. F (Ramsey) | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Cooper, G. J. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Branch, James | Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Armitage, R. | Bright, J. A. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Brocklehurst, W. D. | Cory, Clifford John |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) | Cowan, W. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.) | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Cremer, William Randal |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Crombie, John William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Crooks, William |
| Barker, John | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crossley, William J. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydeny Chas | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Barry, E (Cork. S.) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. SydneyChas. | Davies, W. (Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Byles, William Pollard | Delany, William |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cairns, Thomas | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway |
| Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne | Cameron, Robert | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras,N- |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cawley, Frederick | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Chance, Frederick William | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bennett, E. N. | Channing, Francis Allston | Dillon, John |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cheetham, John Frederick | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Bertram, Julius | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dolan, Charles Joseph |
| Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clarke, C. Goddard | Duckworth, James |
| Billson, Alfred | Cleland, J. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jowett, F. W. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Erskine, David C. | Kearley, Hudson E. | ODoherty, Philip |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Kekewich, Sir George | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Essex, R. W. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Kilbride, Denis | O'Dowd, John |
| Everett, R. Lacey | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | O'Grady, J. |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kitson, Sir James | O'Hare, Patrick |
| Fenwick, Charles | Laidlaw, Robert | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lambert, George | O'Malley, William |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lamont, Norman | O'Mara, James |
| Field, William | Layland-Barratt, Francis | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Palmer, Sir Charles Mark |
| Findlay, Alexander | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Partington, Oswald |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lewis, John Herbert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Perks, Robert William |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Lough, Thomas | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Lundon, W. | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Lupton, Arnold | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Pollard, Dr. |
| Gill, A. H. | Lynch, H. B. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Ginnell, H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Price Robt. John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Maclean, Donald | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Grant, Corrie | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Macpherson, J. T. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Reddy, M. |
| Gulland, John W | Mac Veigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Redmond. John E. (Waterford) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Arthur, William | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Hall, Frederick | M'Crae, George | Rees, J. D. |
| Halpin, J. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Hammond, John | M'Kenna, Reginald | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | M'Micking, Major G. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Maddison, Frederick | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Mallett, Charles E. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marnham, F. J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Harwood, George | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Massie, J. | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Meagher, Michael | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Meehan, Patrick A. | Robinson, S. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Micklem, Nathaniel | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mond, A. | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Hazelton, Richard | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Montagu, E. S. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Montgomery, H. H. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Mooney, J. J. | Rowlands, J. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Runciman, Walter |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Russell, T. W. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morse, L. L. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Hogan, Michael | Murnaghan, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Murphy, John | Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester |
| Hooper, A. G. | Murray, James | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Myer, Horatio | Sears, J. E. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Napier, T. B. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) | Seddon, J. |
| Hudson, Walter | Nicholls, George | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster) | Shackleton, David James |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Nolan, Joseph | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Norman, Henry | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Jackson, R. S. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Nuttall, Harry | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Torrance, A. M. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Sloan, Thomas Henry | Toulmin, George | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Ure, Alexander | Wiles, Thomas |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) | Verney, F. W. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Snowden, P. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Spicer, Albert | Wallace, Robert | Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn) |
| Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh, | Walsh, Stephen | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Steadman W. G. | Walters. John Tudor | Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull W.) |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York W. R.) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wilson, John (Durham Mid) |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Wardle, George J. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N |
| Sullivan, Donal | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Summerbell, T. | Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney) | Winfrey, R. |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Waterlow, D. S. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Watt, H. Anderson | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Young, Samuel |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whitbread, Howard | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | White, George (Norfolk) | |
| Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. |
| Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Thorne, William | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Pease. |
| Tomkinson, James | Whitehead, Rowland | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Du Cros, Harvey | Nield, Herbert |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O | Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, SirGilbert (Gravesend) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fletcher, J. S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour. RtHn A. J. (CityLond.) | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick P. |
| Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Gardner, Ernest (Berks East) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Haddock, George R. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S.Edm'ds | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Talbot, Lord. E (Chichester) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. HonCol. W. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Liddell, Henry | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Maryleyone, E.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Younger, George |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | M'Calmont, Colonel James | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Craik, Sir Henry. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Dixon, Sir Daniel | Morpeth, Viscount | Viscount Valentia. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield) |
§ MR. MASSIE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)objected to the expression "of some special character," as describing the religious instruction to be given under the facilities provided by this clause and Clause 4, and moved to delete it and insert "in accordance with the pro- 224 visions of the trust deed." He wished to know whether some limit could not be put upon the variety of the religious instruction. It was important that the character of this religious instruction should be specified as definitely as possible, as leave to give it 225 would be part of the lease; and it seemed bette to define it according to the trust deeds than leave it to be wrangled about or to be interpreted by the Courts. These deeds usually described the instruction in a simple and definite form, such as "in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England" or the "doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church." The only reason for these facilities was respect for the trust deeds, and this object might be frustrated by the ambiguity of the phrase, since the parents of four-fifths of the children might capture particular schoolsforan alien faith. These were the reasons for which he asked the Government to give the Committee a more exact definition of "religious instruction of a special character," and that was the main purpose of his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 25, to leave out the words 'of some special character,' and insert the words 'in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.'"—(Mr. Massie.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid the object of this Amendment was to obtain some clear explanation of the words "some special character." It was suggested that they might possibly get something somewhat clearer than the words in the Bill. But they had had an illustration of the difficulty of doing that in the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman suggested the words "in accordance with the provisions of the trust deeds," but in a great many cases there were no trust deeds at all. The hon. Member did not tell the Committee the way out of the difficulty. Then again in many cases the trust-deed did not define clearly what the nature of the religious instruction was to be, and they would in those cases have to trace from other sources the growth of the religious teaching that existed. That was a great difficulty of which the suggestion in the Amendment would not get rid. Another difficulty was the change of the tone 226 of the religious teaching in this country. He submitted that all these difficulties were exceedingly well met by the happy expression which the Government had incorporated in the Bill, and he did not see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)did not consider that the explanation of his hon. friend had altogether disposed of the difficulty. In the Act of 1902 the question of trust deeds came up, and a special provision was inserted by the House of Lords with regard to them. In the Act of 1902 the bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities were given as the court of appeal to decide whether the religious instruction given in a school was or was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. When that Act was in Committee he moved an Amendment that the court of appeal should be the Privy Council, but it was rejected. Under this Bill provision was going to be made for religious instruction of a special character. That was all they knew about it; trust deeds were not mentioned; no particular religion was named; they did not even know the hemisphere from which the religion was to be drawn. It was upon that that he asked, Was there to be any appeal in case of dissatisfaction on the part of the parents of the children who attended the school? Who was going to decide after the bargain was made? Supposing that in a particular school special facilities for evangelical teaching were given, and the people woke up to the fact that a Roman Catholic in the guise of a Churchman had taken the place of the Evangelical clergyman, was there to be any court of appeal to decide whether the provisions of the special facilities had been complied with, and as to whether the children were getting the facilities which the local authority bargained they should get? It ought not to be left in doubt, especially owing to the very serious changes which were taking place in the Church. He wanted to know from his hon. friend, not whether he was prepared to alter the wording of this particular clause, but whether they were to have any further appeal in case dissatisfaction arose from the fact that the religious instruction given was not what the local authority expected when it 227 made the bargain, and was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had not met the point of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division. What was the meaning of the words "of some special character?" He did not know; he saw nothing in the clause to explain what they meant. Apparently they meant the special character of the religion provided for in the trust deeds. If they did not mean that he did not know what they did mean. They might mean nothing so far as he could see. This was an admirable illustration of the extraordinary ambiguity of the clause. He thought the Government ought to explain what they meant by the words "of some special character." It might be that the Government contemplated some elaborate system of reference first to the trust deed and subsequently to the bishop or to the Board of Education. He did not know. Or it might mean of the special character selected by the trust deed.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)agreed that the words were somewhat vague, but thought the proposed Amendment would land them in greater ambiguity. He suggested as a practical way out of the difficulty that the decision of the clauses should be of a negative character, and that "not repugnant to the provisions of any of the trust deeds relating thereto" should be inserted after "character." He thought that would get out of the difficulty.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)said a good deal of this difficulty had arisen because the Government had qul1 e unnecessarily broken the trusts. It would have been sufficient for the purposes of their Bill if they had still maintained the trusts except so far as was necessary for the purposes of carrying out the Bill. But in spite of the protests that had been 228 made they let the trusts go, so that the owners of the schools now had a free hand and were at liberty to set up a religion which might not be in accordance with the trust deed at all. He would urge something in accordance with what the hon. Member for North Camberwell had suggested. Some alteration might be made after the words "of some special character." He did not think the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary was sufficient, because they might have to deal with schools where trust deeds existed. If some such words as suggested were put in after "character" they would meet the case of trust deeds, and also the cases in which there were no trust deeds but in which it would be easy to prove there had been. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some limiting words in the clause; otherwise it would give absolute discretion to an owner to set up any religion he wished even though it were contrary to the provisions of the trust deed.
§ SIR W. ROBSON(who was indistinctly heard) did not think there would be any difficulty in actual working. If they proceeded, however, to make reference to the trust deeds they would lose all the advantages in one direction which they gained in another, and he thought it would be far better to allow some latitude to the trustees than always to confine them to the terms of the trust. The Kenyon-Slaney clause in the Act of 1902 modified the terms of the trusts, and he did not think the present proposal gave more than a fair latitude to the trustees, who might be trusted to deal with these matters.
§ MR. MASSIEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR E. CARSONmoved an Amendment to add after "character" the words "in accordance with the trust, if any, on which the school has been previously held, and." He thought everybody, whatever might be his views as regarded religious instruction, would agree that if they were to afford such instruction it ought to be in accordance with 229 the trust deed, and they ought not to leave the power to the trustee of parting with the trusts.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 25, after the word 'character' insert the words 'in accordance with the trust, if any, on which the school has been previously held, and.'"—(Sir E. Carson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)was afraid the words proposed might have a prejudicial effect upon those schools in the hands of private owners which could not be said to be held under any trust. In the Returns with regard to Kent there were something like fifty schools of which the larger number were distinctly under no trust at all, and if these words were introduced in the form in which they were moved he was rather afraid it might be held afterwards that these owners had no right to any special facilities at all. He only wished to make it quite clear that no voluntary school was excluded by the words his right hon. and learned friend wished to introduce.
§ MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment. There were many conditions in which it might be necessary to have a special form of religious instruction which might be absolutely at variance with the trust deeds. Let them take, for example, the case of the Wesleyan schools. The conditions of the Wesleyan trust deeds provided for the teaching of the Wesleyan Catechism. There might possibly be nothing in the Wesleyan Catechism at variance with the fundamental tenets of the Church of England, but at the same time the Wesleyan authorities would probably desire to transfer many and perhaps all their schools without any condition whatever as to the teaching of the Catechism. Or let them take the case of the trust deed of the National Society, in regard to so many of the schools in Lincolnshire, where in many cases 60 per cent., in some cases more than 90 per cent., and in one case he knew of 98 per cent., of the children in national schools were Nonconformists. It would be absurd to im- 230 pose a condition for ever on such buildings that all the children of the village were to be educated according to the condition of the National Society trust deeds in the tenets of the Church of England. This Amendment would require that. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] It was dangerously near it, at all events. It was really essential in many of our villages that there should be the greatest possible latitude exercised in view of the rapid changes which were taking place in the instruction and even ceremonial in connection with religious worship, so that he begged the Government not to limit the local education authority by restricting this special form of religious teaching to a strict compliance with the conditions of the trust deeds on which the schools might be held.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLORdid not in any way desire to commit himself to an unqualified support of trust deeds, but he would respectfully ask for an Answer to a Question he put on a previous Amendment. He was not concerned so much about the bargain made between the local authority and the owners or trustees as to the special religious instruction, whatever it might be, as he was about the carrying out of the bargain. Under the Act of 1902 power of appeal was given to ecclesiastical authority to settle any deviation. What he desired to know was whether the local education authority had any interest in the question at all. If it had he could quite understand that the local education authority might object and the children attending school might object to the progressive development of a particular religious instruction under these facilities. If differences did arise in a school was there any appeal, and, if so, to whom did it lie? If there were no appeal, were they to understand there was unlimited discretion to the trustees as there appeared to be unlimited vagueness?
§ SIR W. ROBSONthought the matter would be met by the concluding words of the section which referred to the wishes of the parents. This clause was a sort of guarantee against the imposition on the school of extreme developments, about which his hon. friend was so apprehensive. There was no clause expressly 231 enabling the local authority to control religious instruction. If there were such a clause they would be embarking in a sphere they did not desire to touch
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Question asked by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway was one of importance. Under the existing system it rested with the school managers of the voluntary schools to determine from year to year, or from week to week, what the religious instruction was to be. Who was going to be responsible for the denominational religious instruction when this Bill was passed? Who was going to be responsible for the management of religious education under the special facilities of this clause? At present there were managers and an appeal, but if this Bill were passed they would have neither managers nor an appeal. The point raised by the hon. Member was a very important one. A bargain was made between the trustees and the local authority after which the trustees had no further duties. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Were they still to manage? [An HON. MEMBER: They have to pay for it.] After all, paying was the least of the privileges they had. He was not so sure that the point could be adequately dealt with on the present Amendment, but it was certainly a matter which ought to be dealt with. He wished to know from the Government what authority in their opinion would be responsible from year to year for the character of the teaching which was to go on in the school. Was that laid down in the Bill, and if not upon whom would it devolve? He thought some clear provision ought to be made for this.
THE CHAIRMANThat question is really out of order. I am sorry to have to say so again. There is an Amendment before the Committee to insert certain words, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman is discussing does not arise on that Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment was to insert words securing that the religious teaching should be—
"in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.That surely directly raised the question 232 of who was responsible under the Bill for dealing with religion education in the schools. He should like to know whether that was not immediately and directly raised by this Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANThat question does not arise, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the clause, which gays that if facilities are part of the arrangement, facilities are to be allowed, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has practically said so himself.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid all he desired to say was that he had not made the observation which the Chairman had attributed to him.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid the discussion simply showed how ill-conceived the whole of this clause really was. The hon. Member for East Toxteth had pointed out that the children attending these schools had been accustomed to have a right to a certain class of religious teaching, and under this Bill there was no provision to secure that teaching. The clause proceeded upon the assumption that there would be only one kind of religion taught by special facilities under Clause 3, but that was a total misconception. It was quite possible to proceed on the lines that the education of the country already went on, namely, that schools established by private benefactions each offered a particular kind of religious instruction. There was a very great difficulty where there was only one such school in a particular district and where no choice of religious instruction was offered. The real reform required was to offer a choice of religious instruction to the children of each particular district, and they wanted facilities all round.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid there was only one way in which a satisfactory agreement upon this subject could be reached, and that was by a full, fair and free discussion. It did not appear to him that the Government had in any way dealt with the objection raised by 233 the hon. Member for Liverpool, and they had not shown how the religious education of the children was to be protected. There was nothing to show that the trustees would have a word to say on the subject after they had made their arrangements. There was nothing at all to show what special facilities meant. The Bill provided that only one form of denominational teaching should be given, and that was of a wholly indefinite character.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)denied that this clause abrogated the trust deed. The trustees would continue to receive certain moneys, and they would have the religious education in their own hands, and they would be responsible to the same authorities as they were before. There was nothing in the Bill to alter their position. They would still remain responsible for their trusts, and he thought all the discussion on this Amendment had been a waste of time.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said it could not be left out of consideration that the managers would be abolished by the Bill, and the clause simply allowed the local authority to provide special facilities, and failed to construct an alternative authority to supervise the religious teaching.
§ SIR E. CARSONreminded the hon. Member for North Worcestershire that the trustees were left absolutely at large and under Section 2 the trust was entirely broken. The hon. Member had said that the position was the same under the Act of 1902, but it was not so, because the trusts for religion were preserved under that Bill. Under this Bill such trusts were absolutely abrogated. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 the trustees had full power, notwithstanding the trusts, to make and carry out any arrangement under the section. He had asked to have that limited, but it was refused because the Government wanted to get rid of the trust deeds altogether. The trustees might under the Bill divert the school premises and the school trust to an entirely different purpose. That was the plain issue between, them. All he asked was to have the religious teaching of a special character maintained as before, but 234 there was not one word in the Bill to secure that. They really had come to an extremely important point, because, so far as he could see, once the trustees had made an arrangement with the local authority the trust was practically at an end as far as the trust deed was concerned. In his opinion, and he stated it most emphatically, if the Bill was left in its present form the whole of the special facilities would really be an absolute sham, because there was no machinery for seeing that the particular religious teaching which had been carried on should be continued. There was no machinery insisting on such special facilities being in accordance with the trust deed and unless some such machinery was set up by the Bill these provisions would in his opinion in many cases turn out to be absolutely illusory. Would the local authority have anything to say after the agreement was made in regard to the special religion which was being carried out in the school?
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid that if they had made their arrangement there was no doubt that the responsibility would be cast upon the owners or the trustees. The right hon. Gentleman said that the owners and trustees would die and nobody would be left to perform their duties. He might inform the right hon. Gentleman that in the Bill they had contemplated the continuity of the Church of England. He assumed that the Church of England was not in the least likely to allow those schools to lapse from want of care and vigilance in the enforcement of the original trusts so far as the owners of the schools desired to enforce them. If the owners ceased to take further interest in the matter that was a different affair. Of course the Committee-would not expect the Government to introduce a number of clauses providing machinery for cases where there were negligent or careless owners who did not desire to continue religious instruction. He thought everyone would assume the continuity of the Church of England, and the continuity of a desire on the part of those who belonged to it to safeguard their educational interests. They might feel confident that the interests of religious education would not be overlooked by them.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken note of the fact that in the schedule of the Bill Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1902 was repealed, and that the Government left no machinery for carrying out all those matters which they professed to be leaving in the charge of the trustees of the schools.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)asked whether the Solicitor-General suggested that the Church of England or the parents of the children could take action in a case where a local authority broke, or neglected to carry out, an agreement to give facilities for Church of England teaching.
THE CHAIRMANIf hon. Members will only look at the clause and the Amendment they will see that the words are—
If the affording of facilities under this section for the giving of religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed has been made a
§
condition of any arrangement for the use by the local education authority of the schoolhouse of a transferred voluntary school.
If that is made a condition of the bargain, provision is made at the end of the clause that these facilities are to be allowed. Therefore the question which the hon. Gentleman asks does not arise.
§ MR. HARWOODsaid the Solicitor-General seemed to assume that trustees would be abrogated They would not be abrogated at all. This Bill only proposed to take the use of the transferred schools which must remain in the possession of the present owners The trustees must be continued, and one of their duties was to see to religious education. They would make a bargain and it would be for them to pee that its terms were carried out Therefore the whole question raised by the Amendment was a mare's nest.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes, 388. (Division List No. 140.)
239| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cross, Alexander | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doughty, Sir George | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Ashley, W. W. | Du Cros, Harvey | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield |
| Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Nield, Herbert |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, George Denison (York) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.) | Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fletcher, J. S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick P. |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George R. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hervey, F.W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Butcher, Samuel Herny | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cave, George | Liddell, Henry | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. | Younger, George |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. | Lonsdale, Jonh Brownlee | |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Viscount Valentia. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Calmont, Colonel James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Clough, W. | Hall, Frederick |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Halpin, J. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hammond, John |
| Agnew, George William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Alden, Percy | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cory, Clifford John | Hart-Davis, T. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Armitage, R. | Cowan, W. H. | Harwood, George |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cremer, William Randal | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Crombie, John William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Atherley, L. Jones- | Crooks, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Crossley, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) | Dalziel, James Henry | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, David (MontgomeryCol. | Hazleton, Richard |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Barker, John | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Davies, W. Ho well (Bristol, S.) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Delany, William | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beale, W. P. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Beaumont Hubert (Eastbourne | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Hogan, Michael |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hooper, A. G. |
| Bell, Richard | Dillon, John | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N |
| Ballairs, Carlyon | Dobson, Thomas W. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Benn. W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Bennett, E. N. | Donelan, Captain A. | Hudson, Walter |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Duckworth, James | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Bertram, Julius | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Duncan, J.H. (York, Otley) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Billson, Alfred | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Jenkins. J. |
| Black, Arthur W. (Bedforshire) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Blake, Edward | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Boland, John | Erskine, David C. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Jowett, F. W. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Essex, R.W. | Joyce, Michael |
| Branch, James | Evans, Samuel T. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Brigg, John | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Bright, J. A. | Everett, R. Lacey | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Brocklehurst, W. D. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kilbride, Denis |
| Brooke, Stopford | Fenwick, Charles | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Ferens, T. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Brunner, Sir Jn. T. (Cheshire) | Ffrench, Peter | Kitson, Sir James |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) | Findlay, Alexander | Lambert, George |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lamont, Norman |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Flynn, James Christopher | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E. |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Fullerton, Hugh | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Buxton, Rt Hn. SydneyCharles | Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Levy, Maurice |
| Cairns Thomas | Gill, A. H. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Cameron, Robert | Ginnell, L. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn | Lough, Thomas |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Glover, Thomas | Lundon, W. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lupton, Arnold |
| Chance, Frederick William | Gooch, George Peabody | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Grant, Corrie | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Clelland, J. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Maclean, Donald |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Phillips, J. Wynford (Pembroke | Steadman, W. C. |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Pollard, Dr. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| M'Arthur, William | Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| M'Crae, George | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E | Summerbell, T. |
| M'Kean, John | Radford, G. H. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Rainy, A. Rolland | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| M'Killop, W. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Reddy, M. | Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Rees, J. D. | Thorne, William |
| Massie, J. | Rendall, Athelstan | Tomkinson, James |
| Meagher, Michael | Richards, Thomas W. Monm'th | Torrance, A. M. |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Richards, T.F. (Wolver'mpt'n) | Toulmin, George |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Richardson, A. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rickett, J. Compton | Ure, Alexander |
| Montgomery, H. H. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Verney, F. W. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Walker, H. De R, (Leicester) |
| Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wallace, Robert |
| Morrell, Philip | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee | Walsh, Stephen |
| Morse, L. L. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Murnaghan, George | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Murphy, John | Robinson, S. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Murray, James | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wardle, George J. |
| Myer, Horatio | Roche, John (Galway, East) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Napier, T. B. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Nicholls, George | Rowlands, J. | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | Runciman, Walter | Whitbread, Howard |
| Nolan, Joseph | Russell, T. W. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)' |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.) | Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Sears, J. E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Seaverns, J. H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Seddon, J. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Seely, Major J. B. | Williamson, A.(ElginandNairn) |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Shackleton, David James | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| O'Dowd, John | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W. |
| O'Grady, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| O'Malley, William | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Winfrey, R. |
| Partington, Osward | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wood T. M'Kinnon |
| Paul, Herbert | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Spicer, Albert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Perks, Robert William | Stanger, H. Y. | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Pease. |
§ LORD R. CECILmoved to amend the clause so as to provide that where "the parents of fifteen children attending any transferred voluntary school desire such facilities," those facilities should be given.
§ MR. LEIF JONESsaid that on Clause 2 the Committee had decided that owners 240 of voluntary schools might make any arrangement they chose, and he did not see how, in the terms of the Amendment, the parents of fifteen children in a village or town could be allowed to over-ride a decision taken under Clause 2.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the words quoted, if pushed, as the hon. Member suggested, to their extreme logical meaning, would have ruled out most of Clause 2 and the whole of Clause 3. He had tried to the best of his ability to deal with Amendments, and he did not feel justified in refusing the noble Lord the right to move his Amendment as amended.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid that his Amendment raised a very important point which ought to be discussed. He could not help thinking that on this clause, as at present settled, they were proceeding on a principle which was only partially defensible. They were not proceeding on the principle that the schools, for most educational purposes, were to be taken out of the hands of the owners and handed over to the local education authority, and at the same time the owners were to settle what kind of religious instruction was to be given under Clause 3. He admitted that the Minister for Education had said that the local authority could not refuse to take over a school merely on the ground that an arrangement was demanded. Once having done that it seemed to him difficult to decide what religious instruction was to be given to the children attending the schools. The view he had always had was that such a settlement would take it out of the hands of the owners of the Church schools to decide what facilities should be given in the Church schools for religious teaching. That was, in his opinion, a very important concession to the Nonconformists. His Amendment proposed that wherever they found the parents of fifteen children—whether they were Wesleyans or Congregationalists or Anglicans—they should have facilities for these children to be taught according to the religion of their parents. That seemed to him to be perfectly just. He advocated that on all religious questions the children should be brought up in the faith of their fathers. He did not wish that any special religion should be taught, and it was for that reason that he advocated this improvement in the Bill. In the history of the education question we had drifted into a position that was not defensible. Up to 1870 the theory of our education 242 policy was that the benefactor came in and established schools which the children could attend or not as they pleased. The benefit was entirely conferred on the children. But when education was made compulsory different considerations arose. Hardship occurred where there was only one school and that of a particular denomination. The only alternative was that the parents should have the right to say what religion should be taught to their children. He had sufficient confidence in the common-sense of his fellow-countrymen to believe that they would realise that that was the only really just settlement of the religious difficulty.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 31, after the word 'schoolhouse,' to insert the words 'or if the parents of fifteen children attending a transferred voluntary school desire such facilities.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)said he was very glad that they had coma to a discussion on this important point on Clause 3. He had given a pledge to his constituents to try and raise the point, but he had almost despaired of seeing it brought forward until the noble Lord moved his Amendment. It was a question that was raised in 1902 by the noble Lord's brother, but was not received with very much approbation on his side of the House. It would delight some of those who thought this was a fair and just system if the noble Lord could carry his Party with him under altered conditions. The Amendment did not, of course, mean that it was possible in the great majority of village schools to provide teaching of all kinds and sorts which the parents desired and divide the children into seven or eight pens, but it did provide some guarantee against the kind of injustice which, he thought, existed at present and which might be made permanent by this Bill. The injustice to which he referred was that only the clergyman should be admitted to give religious teaching, while the Nonconformist minister was excluded. That seemed to him to be a monstrous proposal to come from the Liberal side of the House. He thought it desirable that some Amendment of this sort should 243 be carried, giving the right of entry to ministers of all denominations. During the First Reading of the Bill the plea was advanced that it was grossly unfair to contrive a system by which one privileged religion should have practically a monopoly of what religious teaching was given. They could not make the local authority establish pens or divisions, or enable every group of fifteen parents to do it. But they could give a chance for other kinds of denominational teaching besides the kind favoured by the owners of the transferred school. If there was only one kind of denominational teaching in a school, he had no doubt that all the children would gradually drift into the particular kind of religion which the instruction imparted, and they would get that predominance of one religion in the villages, which he should profoundly deplore. Personally, he might prefer that no religious teaching should be given in the schools, but if any I denominational teaching was given, then they should have all denominational teaching, and get back from the principle of property to a broader and more general principle. He did not care anything at all about the property argument, but he did care that parents who seriously desired their children brought up in their own faith should have their desire gratified, and it was the duty of a Liberal Government to se that means were provided.
§ MR. LOUGHthought that, whatever might be the merits of the question, to raise it on Clause 3 was extremely inconvenient. The clause related entirely to the arrangement to he made between the owners of voluntary schools and the local authorities. The proper occasion for the moving of such an Amendment would be on Clause 4. But the objection to the Amendment was that it would set up pan denominationalism of the worst kind. It also involved the repeal of the Cowper-Temple clause of the Act of 1870. The question, moreover, had been three times before the Committee, and each time decided in the negative. The clause dealt with an entirely different subject from the Amendment, and the parents' right of appeal under Clause 4.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that Clause 4 did not touch this question.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that Clause 4 did touch this question, because it conferred rights upon the parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school in regard to the acquisition of facilities. Clause 4 therefore would raise the general question of facilities to be given to parents, but under this clause they were confined to a great extent, if not absolutely, to the arrangements to be made with the owners or trustees of the schools. This point, therefore, ought to be raised, upon Clause 4, although he quite recognised the scruples which had induced the noble Lord to endeavour to introduce his Amendment at this particular place.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he had no scruples at all. The only point was that he was a little surprised that the hon. Member, who was a Nonconformist, did not desire to have this question discussed.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that he would say no more, except that this Amendment in his judgment ought to be brought in somewhere else. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment at this particular point.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was perfectly possible, and not inconvenient, to insert the Amendment in the Clause, though it would have been more convenient to have accepted the Amendment I he had moved to Clause 1, which covered the same ground as this. Why should the nature of the religious instruction to be given in a school be confined to two alternatives—Cowper-Templeism or the particular form of denominationalism which commended itself to the owners? It was not the inclinations of the owners or trustees for which they should have regard, but the I wishes of the parents of the children attending the school. As for the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that; the Amendment would set up pan-denominationalism, he would point out that there was not so great a variety of religious opinion in rural districts. It was to these districts that Clause 3 particularly referred, while Clause 4 related to urban districts. Nor did the Amendment involve the repeal of the Cowper-Temple clause, for it was only concerned with transferred voluntary schools and the facilities proposed to be allowed in them. He thought the Amendment 245 would go a long way to settle the religious difficulty.
§ MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)did not believe the noble Lord really desired that the Amendment in the way it was put down should be carried. The parents of fifteen children would include the case of three prolific widows with families of five children each attending the school. The Amendment as now worded with the numbers given would be impossible to work practically and would lead to uncertainty and confusion.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid perhaps he might be allowed to explain. His interest was in the children, and he did not care whether they were born of prolific widows or not. He attached no great importance to the particular number fifteen, and was prepared to consider any Amendment which might be moved to alter that figure. What he did care about was that the children should be taught the religion of their parents.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDYsupported the Amendment, and said that this was the only clause upon which the matter could be raised. Under the Act of 1902 there was a difficulty in regard to single school districts. He believed that the Amendment would to a great extent remove that difficulty, and unless it was accepted he thought a great injustice would be done to denominational schools. There was no reason why they should not remove an injustice of which complaint had been made in the past, and it was on that ground that he asked the Government to carefully consider the Amendment.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had been struck with the way in which they repeatedly got far away from the real practical day's work of the school, and this Amendment was a case in point. It sounded sweetly reasonable, and in theory nothing could be said against it. The only difficulty about it was that it could not be carried out. Let the Committee observe the curious quarter from which it came. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone was one who said they must not violate trusts, and the right hon. Member for Oxford University spoke of the sanctity of trusts and the pious founder. He was 246 sure the pious founder must turn in his grave at this proposal. ["Why?"] It would introduce into schools set aside for one particular form of religious teaching all sorts of religious teaching. But frankly he did not much care what precise colour of denominational teaching the children got so long as they were kept in one family. He knew that the limited capacity of the child would not permit him to take in all these nice theological points about which the various denominations squabbled and which might very well be left to an older age. But he was violently against the segregation of children of tender age. The moment they said the parents of fifteen children should have the right to demand special facilities the others would want the same. And if they did not want it there would be those who would see that they did. If they let the parents alone they were perfectly satisfied to-day with simple Bible teaching. But they were not let alone. Other reasons were brought to bear, and they were induced to make their demand also. And so far from having all the children together in a common family, with all its admirable advantages from a social side, they would have them set aside in sections, and there would be pandemonium. He had resisted such proposals all through; he had resisted them in 1902, although he had nothing to say in theory in support of the position he took up.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said the hon. Member for North Camberwell had admitted that he had nothing to say in theory in support of his argument. What weight, then, was to be attached to it. The hon. Member had said he wished all the children to be kept together, hut the Bill prevented it. If that was the ideal they might have left matters where they were. The hon. Member had challenged them to discuss the practical aspect of this matter. He had been told by one who was conversant with the practical aspect that parents would send their children to a Church school or a Roman Catholic school if it was five minutes nearer than a board school. They were satisfied to leave the children together, but the hon. Member was not satisfied to do so. He said the trustees or owners might make a little special caste in the school, and that all the other children might be fished for by other persons. 247 They were in this Bill, therefore, destroying the first argument which the hon. Member put forward. They had not got this single contented family; it had teen shattered. The second argument was no more than a dialectical retort. The hon. Member had pointed out that on the previous night they had dwelt on the sanctity of trusts. That was true, but they said it was not desirable to make so drastic a change in the trusts for an object so small to hon. Members opposite, and so inequitable from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat. If the hon. Member would accept this Amendment there would be something to be said in favour of this violation of trusts. He would have given something in return; he would have recognised for the first time that the spiritual welfare of the children was of more importance than the trusts and the owners. The third argument was that pandemonium would be established; but so far from that being the case, something of this kind did now exist by the goodwill of Churchmen in some parts of the country. If the Goverment did not accept this Amendment they would in practice be taking a reactionary step.
§ DR. MACNAMARAWhere?
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in Dover in the articles of agreement of the church schools provision was made for the right of entry.
§ DR. MACNAMARAWhat use is made of it?
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in Dover very little use was made of it, because the people there agreed rather with the first than with the third argument of the hon. Member. They agreed to leave the children together. But at Hythe, seven miles from Dover, where the school was conducted by a clergyman of the Church of England who belonged to what was called by some the High Church party, these facilities were given and were readily availed of. There were forty-seven children in the school being given religious instruction of a character totally distinct and different from the religious teaching this gentleman gave to the other ninety children. So that if the Government 248 resisted this Amendment they would be taking a reactionary step and stopping an amount of religious liberty which did now exist in some parts of the country. As one who had too often and perhaps, sometimes too warmly championed the interest of the Church of England, he might say he supported the Amendment with all his heart, and agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for West Ham, because he thought it strengthened the defences of religious instruction. In accepting the Amendment the Government would strengthen instead of weakening the defences of religious instruction throughout the country, and they would vindicate themselves from the charges that had been sometimes unjustly preferred against them. For that reason, if for no other, they were entitled to ask the Government's acceptance of the Amendment. If it was accepted it would meet the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, and it would meet the difficulty of the local authority saying to the trustee, "You may have religious instruction on two days a week if you like, because we must take your school." If this Amendment was accepted the difficulty would be met because the parents of the fifteen children might then say, "No, with your permission we will have our way and have on two other days the religious instruction that we wish should be given." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had urged the Committee not to press this Amendment because this was not the proper place. It never was the proper place, according to the Government, in which to bring forward any general consideration touching the whole question of religious instruction. On one occasion it was a matter of local government and on another that of trust deeds and the extent of their modification. Never until now had it been in order to introduce specific words to show some regard for the religious welfare of the children and the wishes of the parents. If the parents had the right to say "No" to religious instruction of which they did not approve, why should they not have the right to say what kind of religious instruction they would have?
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it was quite obvious that the Amendment incorporated the principle of the general 249 right of entry, a principle upon which the Committee had already stated its definite opinion. He objected to the Amendment both in theory and in practice. Nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of the children than their being divided into pens. It was certainly curious as coming from the noble Lord that he was willing that a Methodist, an Anabaptist, a Buddhist, or a Jew, should come into a little school and get his little scholars into a corner so that he might teach them sectarianism. This was not religious teaching at all, but the teaching of sectarianism. He would ask the hon. Member for North West Ham whether any of his Nonconformist constituents asked for this right of entry.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid it was a promise he made to his Nonconformist constituents.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid what he desired to know was whether any Nonconformist constituent asked his hon. friend for a right of entry into denominational schools which did not belong to them. It was right that they who represented Nonconformists in this House should say that Nonconformists—not because they did not desire that religious teaching should be given to the children—expressly stated that they did not want in State schools either at their own expense, or at the expense of the State, or in any way whatever, to teach sectarianism in the schools.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. Member assumed that denominational teaching was sectarianism. Members of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome believed that religion consisted in belonging to a communion. It was the gross intolerance of people outside this House, who urged the hon. and learned Gentleman to make this kind of observation, that prevented a settlement of the religious question.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not complain of the noble Lord speaking strongly, because he held strong convictions on the subject, but for that very reason others should also be allowed to speak strongly. In the view of Nonconformists, Anglicans and Roman Catholics were members of sects. What was behind this proposal? If the Amendment were accepted, there would be no 250 answer to the claim that the same right of entry should be given in the case of all provided schools.
§ LORD R. CECILI said so.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in that case the Committee would know how to deal with the Amendment, which would introduce strife into a number of schools. Under the circumstances he hoped the Ministerial side of the Committee would be unanimous, with the one exception of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham.
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)sincerely trusted the Government would think twice before rejecting, the Amendment. He had always been in favour of the right of entry in all schools. The true principle was that every child as far as possible should be brought up in the denominational belief of its parents. Unless some such Amendment were accepted, there would be no guarantee that even a majority of the children would receive any religious education at all. The President of the Board of Education had removed a great blot in the Bill by the Amendment he accepted yesterday to Clause 2 at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxford University. The right hon. Gentleman at all events rendered it possible for the owners to make it a condition that besides the facilities for a certain number of children there should be compulsorily given at least Cowper-Temple teaching to the rest of the children in the schools. But supposing the owners did not make that stipulation, and the local authority having provided special facilities did not want to give Cowper-Temple teaching, in addition then there was no guarantee that some of the children would receive any kind of religious instruction. That was not a state of things they could look upon with equanimity. He had always thought that the main objection to the system of 1870 was not so much that Cowper-Temple teaching was unsatisfactory or that favouritism was shown to one form of religious belief, but that it was left to the option of a local authority to deprive children of the most elementary religious education. If the Government could not accept the words of the Amendment, he hoped they would introduce 251 some words to compel the local authority to give some religious teaching to the children attending voluntary schools, whose parents did not belong to the denomination to which facilities were accorded.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)believed that on this line only could a permanent settlement of the difficulty be found. He advocated the Amendment as a stepping-stone to three other conditions, namely, that the religious education should be given by the school teachers, in the school hours, and that it should he of universal application. Why was it the hon. Member for North Camberwell was invariably getting up in his place and saying—"You cannut do it because I say so?" The right of entry was working well at the present time in the Poor Law schools of England. In the model rules issued by the Secretary of State, which existed even so far back as the last Liberal Government, it was laid down with regard to reformatory schools that in the case of those children who were specified in the order of detention as belonging to a particular religious persuasion the managers should, so far as practicable, make arrangements that, during the time set apart for religious instruction, they should have such instruction imparted by ministers of such persuasion or by such responsible teachers of the schools or other persons delegated by the ministers with the approval of the managers. [An HON. MEMBER: Does that apply to ordinary school hours?] As a matter of fact it did, although it was not in the rules. Only one case had been mentioned by the hon. Member for North Camberwell in which the system had broken down. The same system was in operation in Germany, and it worked without any difficulty. It might be said that there were fewer denominations in Germany, but even in this country they would find that the number of denominations in any particular school was very few, especially in the rural districts. In a Church of England school the probabilities were that the different Nonconformists who attended that school would be content with one teacher of a particular kind and one form of teaching. In other cases where denominational differences were more acute his argument was all the stronger, because if the members of the Nonconformist body did not agree upon 252 a common teacher they would be entitled to have a separate teacher. The bedrock and basis of this proposal was exactly what the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan had swept aside. The point was whether the people of England as a whole did not prefer denominational teaching for their children. He thought they did. In his opinion denominational teaching had taken a hold in this country and had become an integral part of the educational system. In the debate on the Act of 1902 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that denominational schools were an integral portion of our educational system, and the Minister for War had declared that he had never been an objector to denominational education. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs also had declared that if there were alternative schools he should not press his objection to rate-aided denominational schools. Therefore he was justified in saying that there were in the Cabinet a number of Ministers who recognised that denominationalism was an integral part of the religious education of the country. The people desired denominationalism and why should it not be the basis of education? He submitted that it was upon these lines that they were likely to arrive at a permanent settlement of the question. He asked the Government seriously to consider this Amendment as what he earnestly believed to be the basis of a settlement of the religious difficulty, Sooner or later it would have to be adopted, and under it they would give every parent the opportunity of having his child taught the religon of the denomination to which he belonged.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University that he took this Amendment quite seriously, and he wished to give some evidence of his own solemnity. The whole of this question was a very serious one, but he desired to point out that it had already been dealt with, and that the Government had expressed their opinion upon it. It was hardly reasonable, therefore, that hon. Members opposite should expect a detailed reply from him now. The history of the clause showed how difficult it was to please people. The Committee had been told by the noble Lord and by the right hon. Member for Dover that they did not care about property. But these 253 trust schools were concerned with property and the Commission might have to consider "Aye" or "No" whether a particular school ought to be transferred to the local education authority, and how far the new school, when transferred, could be said properly to be a school for carrying out the trusts established in the deeds. That was the reason why they had provided that when a school was taken over the conditions were to be mandatory, enabling Church of England, Wesleyans, or other denominational schools to be taken over and to have facilities for instructing the children in the special views of the denomination to which the school belonged. That was their purpose and everybody would agree that it was an honourable purpose. That was the desire of the Government, and, if all went well, he thought people would be amazed to find how admirably it would work, and he felt quite sure that the children themselves would not discover that this marvellous Act had come into law. The noble Lord had put a point which had been often in the mind of the Government, namely, that a county council could not be expected to have imposed on them as a matter of obligation the giving of what was called "Cowper-Templeism" instruction. The Committee would see from the partial but satisfactory return which had been laid on the Table of the House the state of the case and the nature of the syllabuses that were in actual use by the local education authorities. He recommended any hon. Member who wished to spend a profitable Sunday to read that remarkable document showing what Cowper-Templeism might be, what it was among the great majority of educational authorities in England, and what an invaluable system of religious instruction it was. The noble Lord suggested that it should be made obligatory.
§ LORD R. CECILWhere the parents demanded it.
§ MR. BIRRELLObligatory to do what? He could not settle the form of syllabus, for an unwilling educational authority might decree a very insufficient system of Cowper-Templeism. His objection to the noble Lord's suggestion was that the Government had made up their minds not to make Cowper- 254 Templeism obligatory on the county council and the local education authority, but to leave them the option which the law had for so long a time afforded to them. Having regard to the pledges of the Government in this matter it was idle to press upon them the adoption of this Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the fact that the right hon. Gentleman remained obstinately convinced that his solution, or want of solution, of the education question was the one to which he intended to adhere did not absolve the Opposition from the duty of pressing a different point of view. When this question was discussed on an earlier occasion the debate was most inadequate, for it arose during the unfortunate time of the dinner hour, when, under the new rules, hon. Members were expected to do two things at the same time. It would be apparent, he thought, that that discussion, and the present discussion, had been of great use in connection with the problem. He had been attacked by the hon. Member for North West Ham for not dealing with this matter in the Act of 1902, and for not attempting to give any effect then to the principles advocated by the noble Lord the Member for East Maryle-bone. Let the Committee consider what the position then was. He held then, and he held now, that there were two inequalities and injustices involved in the legislation of 1870, and which were not remedied by the Act of 1902—the injustice of the single-school area and the injustice of requiring the teaching of Cowper-Templeism. These two defects in the Act of 1870 and the system which it established remained unremedied up to the present time. Had it been possible—and everybody knew that it was not possible—to deal with that in the Act of 1902, they might have introduced universally a system that would have wholly removed the injustice of the single school area, and had the effect at the same time of giving a great shock to the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorganshire, who for some reason he had never been able to understand regarded Cowper-Temple teaching as the very bulwark of Nonconformity.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSI have never held that view.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that the phrase he had used was one of his own coining, but he believed it expressed the hon. Member's view. The hon. Member and his friends had always regarded it as something almost sacrosanct which Parliament ought never to be allowed under any circumstances to touch. They had always regarded this as the limitation which local authorities ought to maintain.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSMy position always has been, and is now, that Nonconformity as such has nothing at all to do with denominational religion in the schools, and that Nonconformists do believe in most cases in simple Bible teaching, which is Cowper-Temple teaching.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not what the Nonconformists desired he was discussing; it was their determination that nobody else who had hitherto provided schools should have what they wanted. In the present amendment they could not touch the second half of that particular form of remedy known as "facilities." They could only touch the part relating to the voluntary schools, and he did not believe that if this half were adopted the Committee would be able to touch the other half. Were it adopted by the Committee, it would be not only a first step, but a long step, in the direction of freeing the local authorities from the Cowper Temple clause and giving to the parents the right of getting denominational teaching in provided schools. It was not on that account, however, that he would raise objection to the Amendment. If objection was to be raised, it should be because it only went a little way in dealing with a half of the evil. Did hon. Members think that the argument which they had advanced on the practical side possessed all the weight they attached to it? The practical argument was a physical argument, namely, that they could not find the space or the conveniences to teach the scholars in sections. In so far as that objection was real—and it might be real in small schools—it could be met by the words "as far as practicable." But the Committee should also look at the practical difficulty on its moral side. It was apparently regarded as inimical to all the best interests of the children that they 256 should recognise at an early age that, in addition to their common Christianity, their parents belonged to different denominations. But surely that fact could not be concealed from the children, and no parent would wish to conceal it. Any parent bringing up his child at home-would tell him, "I am a member of such-and-such a Christian communion, and I hope that you will also belong and be an ornament to that communion." That was what had happened in the teaching at home. Was there anything in the view of attempting to give the same teaching in the school which would prevent the children from living in amity together or which would accentuate the religious difficulties which existed? He could not believe that this was the view of the Government, because he found in one of their educational measures this identical provision, declaring, that as far as practicable facilities should be given in schools for the blind, that the children should receive the religious instruction, and attend the religious services according to the persuasion of the parents. This was the object of his noble friend, and he could not see why the system which was practicable in a particular kind of school should he declared to be impracticable in the schools with which the Committee were new dealing. Surely it was manifest that the argument if applicable to one kind of education was equally applicable to another. He would go further, and would remind the Committee that in Scotland this plan was carried out without difficulty and without offence, without the production of any of the evils alleged in respect of many schools. The Committee ought not rashly to say that it was wholly impossible for an Englishman to do that which Scotsmen found to be easy. Ought not this fact to modify the attitude of critics as to this particular plan? It was logical in its completeness, and its justice, at all events as far as paper provisions were concerned, had been admitted by its severest critics. Practice and theory were thus not so far apart as hon. Members opposite would ask the Committee to believe, and therefore the Amendment deserved more favourable treatment than had been accorded to it by the Government. The Government had shown themselves to be content with the inchoate, truncated, 257 and inverted solution contained in the Bill, declaring their intention to bring up modifications and amendments to be submitted hereafter. Though this particular Amendment gave small opportunity of dealing with the larger question, he thought that it deserved greater breadth of treatment and a greater effort at argumentative reply than it had received either from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Education.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid that he would endeavour to supply from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman himself arguments against the Amendment. A similar Amendment was brought forward when the Act of 1902 was under discussion, and though the right hon. Gentleman expressed a certain amount of sympathy with its object, he dealt a little more fully with it than he had attempted on this occasion. He thought a sufficient reply to the Amendment was to be found in the expressions which the right hon. Gentleman used four years ago on a similar occasion. Speaking on November 25th, 1902, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had prepared an Amendment not covering all the ground of another proposal which had been made, but covering the particular subject of single school areas. He explained, however, that he had not proceeded with that Amendment for two reasons. He said—
One reason was that he felt perfectly confident that any such Amendment moved by the Government would create an enormous amount of controversy and friction inside and outside the House. It was perfectly true, as his noble friend had said, that there was a great body of opinion—of very highly instructed opinion—in the country which desired to see some such solution as this of our religious difficulties. That was absolutely true, but he was convinced that when the great body of the people whom the Amendment concerned and whom his Amendment would have concerned—the country clergy and the Nonconformist ministers all over the kingdom, and that great body of the teaching profession—considered the proposal they would unite in the strongest opposition to it.The right hon. Gentleman described the objection which the country clergy would have, then what the Nonconformist ministers would say, and he said the teaching profession would unanimously object. The right hon. Gentleman did not base his case on inference or prediction. He went on and gave instances. He mentioned Birmingham. He was not aware, by the way, that any Birmingham 258 Members had given the Committee the benefit of their experience in that debate. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in the case of Birmingham the result had been failure. He brought forward practical objections and appealed to experience. Referring to the reasons of the failure at Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman said that by universal consent the plan did not carry out either the intention or the wishes of its framers. Why? Because there was a great difficulty in getting a sufficient number of voluntary teachers—notwithstanding that Birmingham was a city where public spirit was so abundant—and because the teachers they did get were not able to teach. Teaching was not quite so simple a matter as it was supposed to be by those who brought in Amendments of this kind. It was found that to have at intervals in the school a number of teachers who could not teach was subversive of all discipline. The Amendment, he noticed, was founded on the admission of the gross and scandalous injustice of the existing system. The Leader of the Opposition had indicated that he felt some difficulty in the existing system in single school districts. There were 5,600 districts in England where the Church of England had the only school. It had been said that the last thing they thought of was proselytising. In these debates, however, it had been admitted that religion could not be taught at all unless the children were taught that they should belong to a denomination. That was the injustice this Bill was intended to remedy. When the Government went to the country on this Bill—he did not mean on a dissolution or an election—they would be able to tell the electors what had hitherto been denied—that in Church schools children must be taught to belong to a denomination. It was contended that there was no valuable religion except sectarian religion. He did not believe that. It was of the essence of the Bill that among Protestant communities common worship was possible. There could be no comparison between the effect on the mind of a child of rote learning and the repetition of creeds and the effect of common worship—the common hymn and the common prayer. He thought the Amendment had served its purpose. The alternative proposed by the Opposition had been denounced by their leader as hopelessly 259 impossible, and it was condemned by the experience of Birmingham, so that both leaders of the Tory Party got a certain kind of approach to union on this subject. But it was an alternative which sought to shut out common worship from the school life of Protestant children.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)said he wished to express his deep and sincere regret at the unduly provocative tone of the Solicitor-General's speech, and at the expressions which the hon. and learned Gentleman had used. Nothing said by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone could in any sense, whatever, be considered to have given any cause for offence to any Nonconformist. The provocative portions of the Solicitor-General's speech, however, seemed to him to have been deliberately directed against the bona fides of the Church of England and the way in which they conducted their worship. [Cries of "No."] Well, that was the impression which was left upon his mind.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid the impression of the noble Lord was not justified by anything he had said. To suggest that he had made any reflections upon the Church of England could not be justified, and the assertion was entirely without foundation.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not remember the exact phrase, but it was something about mumbled creeds and the repetition by rote which characterised their services. He considered that was an unduly provocative and offensive attack upon the Church of England. [Cries of "Withdraw," and "Order, order!"] He was perfectly in order in stating that that was his understanding of the speech.
§ MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)asked whether the noble Lord was in order in using the word "offensive."
§ THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,) Lanarkshire, Mid.said it was not an unparliamentary word.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that experiments in the direction of the Amendment had been tried at Birmingham and elsewhere and 260 had failed. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that it was the failure to secure the required number of teachers which was one of the contributory causes of the failure of that experiment. There was, however, no want of teachers in Birmingham, but it was a lack of skill in the teachers which was experienced, and not a lack of numbers. Of course, as had been stated, teaching was not a simple matter, and if in Birmingham a difficulty was found in getting a sufficient number of teachers in regard to schools which might come under Clause 4, how much greater would be the difficulty of securing teachers who must come under Clause 3. It was all very well to say that teachers to give this particular kind of instruction could not be got in Birmingham. It might be true, and he was not very familiar with the details of that particular case. His impression was, however, that in that case teaching was given outside school hours, and the discipline had to be maintained by professional teachers who were brought in for this duty, as a sort of extra to the duties which they were paid to perform. That must have made the experiment unpopular among the teachers. He thought the hon. and learned Member had given the case away when he admitted that the teaching was not an easy matter, when he contended that in places like Birmingham it was impossible to find a sufficient number of properly trained men, and when he said that in urban districts under Clause 3 they were not to have the professional services of the teacher, but must rely upon the volunteer. That would render it all the more difficult for the teaching to be given successfully, and when they reached Clause 7 it would be an argument for giving the privilege to professional teachers to exercise the option of giving this instruction.
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)said he did not find himself in agreement with the Government, and regretted that they did not see their way to accept the Amendment. So long as we had religious teaching in this country the parents of a child had a right to have arrangements made for the kind of religious teaching which they desired. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to deal with that difficulty, and he especially regretted the heated 261 eloquence with which the Solicitor-General had referred to the religious denomination of which he himself was a humble member. In the first place it was said that they would have a pandemonium if all the religious denominations imparted instruction in the village school on a particular day. He did not think there was any substance in that argument, and he ventured to disagree with those who urged that view. The argument as to trust deeds also had no validity, since in 1902 the right hon. Gentleman had made an end of the trust deeds of voluntary schools. Then they were told that the parents did not want this particular kind of instruction. Which statement were they to believe—the statement that the parents did not want it at all, or that their wanting it would cause a pandemonium? They were told that the Amendment was opposed to the best interests of the children, but he thought the best interests of the children were best provided for, so long as there was religious teaching provided in the schools in the creed in which the parents of the children believed and in the creed in which they were educated at home. If the parents of children demanded dogmatic teaching in such cases, he did not think that Cowper-Templeism would advance the cause of religion much, whereas the Amendment proposed a logical solution which would stave off a resort to purely secular education in the schools. For that reason he found himself unable to support the Government in the attitude which they had taken up.
COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said that like the hon. Gentleman opposite he regretted the heat which the Solicitor-General had imported into the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in his facts, because he represented that the effect of this Amendment would be to do away with that which they on that side of the House valued as much as hon. Members opposite, namely, common worship. The reverse was the case, for the Government had already yielded that when facilities were given for denominational teaching on two days, on the other three days undenominational teaching might be given. What was desired to be taught was that though beliefs might differ, yet common worship was possible; and they should 262 have denominational teaching on two days in the week, and common teaching on all the others. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be oblivious of the progress which the country was making in regard to this question of religious education. They were asked what was the use of making speeches when the Government had made up their minds in regard to what they were going to do, but the value of making them was to be found not in the answers which might be given to them inside the House, but in the answers they got outside the House. At that moment he had in his pockets letters which contained two of strongest pieces of evidence possible that the country was rapidly coming round to the acceptance of universal facilities for all kinds of denominational education in every school. At the general election he obtained considerably more Nonconformist votes than he thought he would, because he consistently preached at his meetings the doctrine that this was not a question of Protestantism. Nor was it. If it were it would be a case of persecution, because it meant that some people would say, "I am a Protestant, and in this matter I will have my way, and those who are not Protestants shall not have theirs." That was persecution of the worst kind. But Protestantism did not enter into this question in any way. If they proved that Romanising doctrines were taught in many more Church schools than hon. Members even in their wildest moments imagined, what had that to do with education? If that was thought, it meant that those who held that view were going to force their own system of education on every body in the country, because they thought it was right. The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan said he did not want any facilities. But what about those who did? Were they not to have them? The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan said "No, certainly not." But it was a religious question dealing with men's consciences, and was this Committee going to fetter men's consciences because they themselves did not want facilities? The hon. Member for North Camberwell spoke of breaking up the family life in the school, but the school was not a family institution, it was a civil institution. The family was a divine institution with the divine responsibility of 263 parents to children and children to parents.
§ DR. MACNAMARAFamily life in the schools.
COLONEL WILLIAMSBut it was not family life, it was school life. He wanted to make school life as harmonious as possible, but they were not going to do it by teaching the children that the parents' religion was all wrong and did not matter. If they gave them Cowper-Temple teaching in the schools they must go further and say that that satisfied them for their school life, and that it ought to satisfy them for the whole of their lives.
§ DR. MACNAMARAWho does that?
COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid no one, and they did not want to see it done. But they must not talk of family life in the schools. They wanted to teach the children on two days a week that there was such a thing as denominational religion. They wanted them to live together and worship together; but they did not want them taken out of their religion. The true religion that they wanted to teach was not merely definite religion, but the unity of the religion of Christianity, and that though they might differ in the application, it was the same Christianity. If it was real Christianity, and they were to let the children grow up Christians, they must not stop any religion they could give. It was the neglect and carelessness on the part of the parents that they had to fight, and if they got the parents of only five children to say they desired that on two days a week definite religious instruction should be given to their children, for God's sake let them give it. Let them give them instruction on the unity of Christianity on three days a week, but if anybody said they wanted their child taught the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, or any other doctrine, let the child be taught what its parents desired. Let the parents have their facilities in the name of freedom. That was the true principle of freedom and a stepping-stone to a real universal system. Every child in every school should have exactly the same opportunities of receiving undenominational teaching, because in that way they would strengthen what they 264 all desired to strengthen, namely, the Christian religion which, although they differed in the application of it, was the same Christian religion in which they all worshipped.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said the Amendment seemed so reasonable on the face of it that they might have considerable difficulty in voting against it. But, as often happened, other countries gave them a clue to what it really meant. In Ireland they had a system of education founded on combined, secular and separate religious instruction. Under that system it was competent to teach all forms of religion as the parents of the children might desire. What had the result been? It had resulted in this, that the whole system, designed to be a national system, had developed into an open denominational system, and each of the sects did not keep its religion in the schools, but had got a school for itself, with the result that there were small schools, and inefficient because they were small. The whole system had broken down, and it was now frankly denominational. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that it was pretty much like introducing pandemonium into the schools. The Irish people found that out very quickly: each sect built its own school, and hundreds of those schools were inefficient because they were small. He would be no party to hunting Christianity out of the schools, but then what was this that he heard about Cowper-Temple religion? Did not the last speaker believe that the Cowper-Temple system at all events was practical Christianity? Were not the foundations of Christianity taught under the Cowper-Temple system? After all, what were they going to teach children beyond the foundations of Christianity? What did they know about Creeds? He wished they could be prevented from learning them till they were very much older. He would vote against the Amendment simply because the same system had broken down in Ireland, and he believed it would introduce pandemonium in England.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)said if they only considered what the proposition amounted to, they would see that it was absolutely impossible to carry it out. It meant that probably 265 one person, and very often not more than two, and occasionally perhaps three, would be able practically to disarrange the whole of the ordinary teaching in the school by the demand for special facilities. Let them imagine the difficulty of allotting the time. Supposing four or five claims were made for special facilities in the school—because there was no reason, if this Amendment was passed, why the Wesleyans and the Unitarians, and the Methodists and the Baptists and everybody else should not make a claim. Many of the schools affected were one-roomed schools, and he could picture in his mind's eye how they were going to mark them out, this the Baptist corner and that the Wesleyan corner, and another the Roman Catholic corner. It was only necessary to imagine it, to see how utterly ridiculous and confusing such a practice would be.
§ MR. PAUL (Northampton)And the Atheists.
§ MR. WARDYes, if there was a demand for atheistic teaching that would also be included. How the system could be managed he could not for the life of him imagine. Under these circumstances lie thought the Attorney-General was absolutely justified in his criticism.
§ MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)said lie was glad to follow the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat for he had addressed a meeting of 5,000 Churchmen at Hanley adjoining Stoke-upon-Trent and an open-air meeting of 2,000 people, at both of which meetings the Bill had been discussed and resolutions passed without a single dissentient voice denouncing and disapproving of its provisions. At any rate Churchmen of North Staffordshire were resolved to give this Bill their uncompromising opposition.
§ MR. WARDA few days after that I addressed a meeting in the Market Hall, Longton, of about 10,000 people.
§ MR. NIELDsaid he was of course without any information as to the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, but none the less those 7,000 people whom he addressed might be trusted to do their duty in 266 regard to this Bill when the opportunity arose. He regretted exceedingly the bitter and sarcastic speech of the Solicitor-General. The Amendment did nothing more than give parents the right to be heard. They were asking for religious freedom for the parents. In the spirit in which they had been met by the Government to-day they could hope for nothing, but he believed that if they could appeal to the country the religious freedom which they desired would not be refused. A prominent supporter of the Government and a loyal Churchman recently told him that he opposed this Bill, although he was an earnest Liberal, because it departed from every principle of Liberalism, and from the elementary principles of liberty. That was the foundation upon which he based his opposition to this Bill. [Cries of "Question."] It was the question whether the parents of fifteen children attending any public elementary school should have religious teaching—
THE CHAIRMANThat is not the Amendment. The proposal under discussion relates to transferred voluntary schools.
§ MR. NIELDsaid he was dealing with the principle as to whether the parents of fifteen children attending any transferred voluntary school were to have an opportunity of saying whether their children should be allowed to have special facilities. If this Bill was supposed to give religious freedom it could only be religious freedom for the parents, because the children were not old enough to understand religious questions, nor could it be supposed that they should be called upon to make any such election. Surely it was only the barest justice that this concession should be made. If the country was asked to pronounce upon the question whether it was considered satisfactory that the schools should have these facilities for only two days a week, he had no doubt whatever as to the conclusion they would arrive at.
§ MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said that upon this question he was somewhat astonished at the triple alliance between the Catholics and the Church and the secularists. It was true that adversity made strange bedfellows, but it was very significant that the Church and the 267 secularists, who were opposite as the poles, should be combining against religious instruction. Both religious parties in his own constituency were agreed in urgently desiring to have religious instruction.
§ LORD R. CECILThis Amendment does not provide for the abolition of religious instruction.
§ MR. REESsaid it made religious instruction impracticable, and it always seemed to him that the noble Lord's arguments proceeded upon wrong lines historically. His claim was that whatever was conceded to the Catholics should be conceded to the Anglican Church. [Cries of "Why not?"] The Catholic case was that the Bible should be interpreted by a priest. Was that the case of the Church of England?
§ MR. J. WARD,on a point of order, asked whether the subjects which the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs was discussing had anything at all to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. REESsaid that almost every other speaker had gone on lines wide enough to embrace the question he alluded to, but he would leave it out. It seemed to him to be absolutely impracticable to do what the noble Lord desired by this Amendment. How was it possible to carry out these religious facilities? He felt sometimes that any man who had spent most of his life abroad was rather disqualified from dealing with the ethical and religious aspects of these questions in the House. He had, however, taken considerable pains to investigate the kind of religion given under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and after visiting numerous schools he confessed that he thought Cowper-Templeism was a most excellent foundation for religion, such as any Christian of any persuasion might allow his child to receive in its tender years. He thought denominational instruction upon two days a week was sufficient for all practical 268 purposes, and would give a foundation for religion such as the Church of England, the Free Churches, and in fact any Christian Church might accept.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member appears to be speaking upon the religious teaching which is to be given, and that is not in order.
§ MR. REESclaimed that the Free Churches were as sincere with regard to religious instruction as the Church of England, and it might be taken for granted that there was equal sincerity on both sides. The case for Liberal Churchmen had been dealt with by the hon. Member for Northampton. He might say that he had received a good many resolutions from rural deaneries and other Church associations in his constituency, and he could not honestly say that they were satisfied with the Bill, and regarded the agitation against this measure as being purely ecclesiastical, as the hon. Member had claimed.
§ MR. REESsaid his constituency was determined to have religious instruction. It would be different if they could say with Tacitus "Deorum injurias Diis curoe," but the country would not take that view, and as it wanted religious teaching,, practicable religious teaching should be given, and he would support this section of the Bill as it stood and oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. BIRRELLexpressed the hope that the Amendment might be withdrawn, or at any rate a vote taken upon it, in order that the rest of the time at their disposal might be devoted to the further consideration of the clause. He hoped that the noble Lord would not feel that he was speaking disrespectfully of his Amendment, but the point had already been dealt with by the Government in a previous debate, and there could be no alteration in regard to the position of the Government in this, matter.
§ Question put.
270§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 285. (Division List No.141.)
271| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Partington, Oswald |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Percy, Earl |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fletcher, J. S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Aubrey-Fletcher Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rawlinson, John Frederick P. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond | Haddock, George R. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hervey,F.W.F(BuryS.Edm'ds) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur 0 | Hill, HenryStaveley(Staff'sh.) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Kennaway Rt Hon. Sir J. H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bull, Sir William James | Kenyon-Slaney Rt. Hn.Col.W. | Talbot,Rt,HnJ.G(Oxf'd.Univ.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Lamont, Norman | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cave, George | Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cavendish.Rt.Hon. Victor C.W. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart- |
| Craig, Captain James (Down,E. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton | |
| Dixon, Sir Daniel | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Lord |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend) | Robert Cecil and Mr. |
| Du Cros, Harvey | Parkes, Ebenezer | Carlile. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Brooke, Stopford | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Agnew, George William | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Alden, Percy | Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Erskine, David C. |
| Armitage, R. | Byles, William Pollard | Essex, R. W. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cameron, Robert | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cawley, Frederick | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.) | Channing, Francis Allston | Faber, G. H. (Boston) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Fenwick, Charles |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Barker, John | Clarke, C. Goddard | Findlay, Alexander |
| Barlow, John E. (Somerset) | Cleland, J. W. | Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Clough, W. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Coats, Sir T.Glen-(Renfrew,W.) | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Beale, W. P. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gill, A. H. |
| Bell, Richard | Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd | Glover, Thomas |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Benn, John W. (Devonport) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cowan, W. H. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Bertram, Julius | Cremer, William Randal | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Crombie, John William | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cross, Alexander | Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Billson, Alfred | Crossley, William J. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hn. Augustine | Dalziel, James Henry | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) |
| Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh. | Davies, David(Montgomery Co. | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Boulton, A. C. F (Ramsey) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Branch, James | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol S.) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Brigg, John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hazel, Dr. A.E. |
| Bright, J. A. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Brocklehurst, W. D. | Duckworth, James | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, J, Lloyd (Carmarthen | Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Henry; Charles S. | Morrell, Philip | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hodge, John | Morse, L. L. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Murray, James | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Hooper, A. G. | Myer, Horatio | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N | Napier, T. B. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholls, George | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hudson, Walter | Nuttall, Harry | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Grady, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Paul, Herbert | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Summerbell, T. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Perks, Robert William | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n | Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Kelley, George D. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Thomasson, Franklin |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pollard, Dr. | Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E |
| Kitson, Sir James | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central | Torrance, A. M. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Price, Robert J.(Norfolk, E.) | Toulmin, George |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Trevelvan, Charles Philips |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford. E. | Verney, F. W. |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Rainy, A. Rolland | Vivian, Henry |
| Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wallace, Robert |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire. Wirral) | Rees, J. D. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Levy, Maurice | Rendal, Athelstan | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Renton, Major Leslie | Ward, John (StokeuponTrent) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth | Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton |
| Lough, Thomas | Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpton) | Wardle, George J. |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Richardson, A. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lynch, H. B. | Rickett, J. Compton | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Macdonald, JM (Falkirk B'ghs. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| M'Arthur, William | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| M'Crae, George | Robinson, S. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Robson, Sir William Snowdoa | Wilkie, Alexander |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wiliams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Williams.Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Rowlands, J. | Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn) |
| Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln | Russell, T. W. | Wilson, John (Durham Mid) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Winfrey, R. |
| Massie, J. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Menzies, Walter | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) | |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Sears, J. E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Montgomery, H. H. | Seddon, J. | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shackleton, David James | Pease. |
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)moved that the words at the end of Sub-section (1) limiting the special religious instruction to two mornings a week should be omitted, and that the Sub-section should simply enable children whose parents so wished to "receive such instruction." The object of the Amendment was to open up the question 272 whether "special religious instruction "was to be given on one, two, three, four, or five days a week. There was up and down the country a certain amount of feeling of hardship with regard to the limitation of days in the clause, and personally he should like to hear the views of the Government on the question why the matter could not be left perfectly 273 open to the local education authority and the trustees to decide the number of days. If that were done, probably the result would be that in a great majority of the schools not more than one or two days would be taken. He thought that in many Anglican schools Cowper-Temple teaching would be welcomed. If they had accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Marylebone in regard to all schools, whether denominational or provided, it would have been desirable to limit to one or two the days on which religious teaching of a special character should be permitted. But if it were confined to the transferred schools, he could see very little risk of difficulty arising if the question were left entirely open. In most Church schools the removal of the limitation would not lead to the extension of the teaching. But he would not force co-religionists who now gave special religious instruction oftener, and desired to continue it, or who felt that they would be at a disadvantage compared with another Church which under Clause 4 would give such instruction every day in the week, to become, or threaten to become, passive resistors on account of this limitation.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 34, to leave out from the word 'receive,' to the end of the Sub-section, and insert the words 'such instruction.'"—(Mr. J. W. Wilson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'that instruction' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid the Amendment would remove the restriction by which facilities for religious instruction were limited to two mornings a week, and allow it to be given on every day of the week. It was quite impossible for the Government to accede to that. They had given the matter full consideration, and two mornimgs a week were selected, because the result of their inquiries showed that that was the maximum 274 amount of such instruction customarily given in the Church schools of the country. That was no reflection upon those schools. It was simply an educational limitation prescribed, after long experience, as being a sufficient number of days for catechetical and strictly denominational instruction. He ventured to say that these were the methods and principles on which Church of England schools had heen carried on for a hundred years, and the Government proposed to adhere to their ancient usage.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly satisfactory, for reasons which he would at once appreciate. What the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have done was to take the average of the practice in the Church of England schools, and to say that that average was to be obligatory upon each unit on which the average was taken. He saw no rationale in that principle at all. It might be true that, for reasons purely educational, and also for other reasons which might attach to the fact that in the Church of England schools there was a great anxiety to meet the wishes of parents who did not belong to the Church of England, there was a large number of schools, perhaps a majority, in which the catechism was taught on only two days a week; but on what principle they were going to take that average as the obligatory and statutory maximum he failed to understand. But before he pressed that question, he should like to ask the Minister for Education a question upon the interpretation of his own provision. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment appeared to think that only on two days a week was any teaching of the Church Catechism permissible. On the other hand, the view of many of his hon. friends was that "two days "meant two days for any given child—that no child in any transferred school should be 275 taught denominational religion on more than two days a week. That was an eminently more reasonable proposition than the proposition which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seemed to think was embodied in the Bill, and which was countenanced by the Minister for Education viz., that the denominational teacher should not be permitted on more than two days a week to deal with the subject at all. He asked the Committee to observe the gross and palpable injustice of that last provision. In the voluntary schools there were children of all ages from three or four to fourteen or fifteen. Manifestly the same education of any kind, denominational or undenominational, was not suitable to children of very tender years, as might be suitable to a child of ten, twelve, or fourteen. Therefore, if religion, or anything else, was to be taught to the best advantage, the children must be divided into classes selected according to the age, progress, and intellectual aptitudes of the children. If only two days a week were allowed for denominational teaching to the children at school, it was evident that the denominational teacher would be unable to have small classes according to age and capacity. If they limited the teaching to two days a week in schools where Church children were in a majority, the classes would necessarily be large, and composed of children of different ages, to whom different teaching ought to be given, and that would be quite arbitrarily and most cruelly to diminish the efficiency of the religious teaching in those schools. These were two quite different policies. He thought the first—the most tolerant and the broadest minded—was that which the Government intended to adopt, but evidently the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not think they meant to adopt it, and 276 he wished to put the Bill in a far more intelligible shape. It did not appear to have occurred to the Minister for Education that the interpretation they had put on the Bill could be the true one, but, whether it was the interpretation which a lawyer would put upon it, or not, it was the interpretation which a statesman ought to desire to put upon it. It did no injury to any human being, it did not add to the power of any denomination, and it did not injure the children of any other denomination. All it did was to permit the organisation of religious teaching in voluntary schools to be conducted on the principle accepted in regard to every other kind of teaching. It enabled classes to be formed according to age, and in such a manner that they could be taught with real advantage by a competent teacher. To limit the possibility of denominational teaching to two days a week, and to compel the teacher to have one large class for the advanced child of fourteen or fifteen and the child of three or four, who ought hardly to be permitted to be at school at all, was surely one of the most irrational, intolerant, and cruel provisions that could be imagined to introduce into a Bill. He hoped they would be assured that, by a slip, the Minister for Education had misunderstood his own Bill, or, if that were not the case, that he was prepared to make his Bill what they on the Opposition side of the House had conceived it to be.
MR. BIREELLsaid that the words of the clause were "afford those facilities by enabling children whose parents wished them to receive religious instruction of that special character to receive that instruction on not more than two mornings in the week."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURHear, hear.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid he did not dispute the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. His speech in reply to the Amendment was based on the assumption that denominational teaching was to be given on two days of the week, and two days only. But he quite admitted that the wording of the clause which he had quoted enabled religious instruction to be given, in order to meet the necessities of a school, on more than two days, provided that it was given to no child on more than two.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn other words, there may be denominational teaching on five days in the voluntary schools provided that no individual child received religious teaching on more than two days.
§ MR. CAVEsaid he would like it to be clearly understood whether the owners of voluntary schools could stipulate that denominational teaching must be given on two mornings of the week.
§ MR. PERKSsaid he was bound to say that the interpretation put upon this clause by the Minister for Education was a revelation to many on the Ministerial side of the House. Sometimes there were extraordinary pitfalls in those subtly-drawn clauses which were a perplexity to plain men of business. But he was sure that the view which the Minister had taken of this particular clause was not the view which prevailed in the country. The view of this particular clause taken at large in the country was that simple Bible teaching was to be the ordinary religious instruction in the schools, and that, if anything more was required of a sectarian, dogmatic, or ecclesiastical nature, it was to be given outside the school hours. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Whether that extra 278 denominational teaching was to be allowed within the school hours, was a question which would have to be fought later on. All that was to be given in ordinary school hours was simple Bible instruction, or Cowper-Temple instruction, or whatever other name they might give it. At present there was no provision in the Bill to provide that this special instruction under Clauses 3 and 4, be it of a sectarian, dogmatic, or ecclesiastical nature, was to be given in school hours.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is accepted by the Government.
MR. PEEKSsaid he did not understand that the Government had made any such promise, but he would not argue that point now, as it did not arise, but the contention of the Leader of the Opposition was that on every morning of the week a minister of religion should be admitted to the schools to give religious instruction if the parents demanded it. Then, what became of the unfortunate parents of the children of dissenting communions? It was perfectly clear that the interpretation put upon the clause by the Minister for Education, that in the case of every National school which might be transferred the parish clergyman might enter it on every morning of the week to give religious instruction, was not the interpretation put upon it by the country. He had taken out the figures of some schools in his own division of Lincolnshire; and he found that out of sixteen schools, in only two did the parson come in to give religious instruction on two mornings a week; in three schools he went in on one morning a week, and into the remaining eleven he never went at all.
MR. BIREELLsaid that his hon. who had just spoken was in 279 error, and therefore he wished to reply at once. They were now dealing with Clause 3, which was confined to the trust of the particular school, and no other person was to be permitted within the walls of that school except the person who was to carry out the teaching of the denomination or trust to which it belonged. If it was a Wesleyan school no one but a person instructing in the doctrine of John Wesley would have any access to that school at all.
§ MR. BIRRELLThen they might eliminate all outsiders from their consideration, because the only person who would have access to the school was the person who was qualified to give denominational teaching of the denomination to which the school belonged. Therefore, they got rid of the constant incursion of rival religions. Then another question arose which, in his opinion, was a matter of pure business dealing between the persons who made these bargains and the persons who were entitled to the benefit of the Bill. What was to be done in very large schools? In his own district of London there was one school with about 1,300 children. Supposing this school came under the facilities granted by Clause 3, how was the teaching to be carried out? The children were entitled to be taught the tenets of the denomination to which the school belonged, and the children were to have it at the expense of the rates on not more than two mornings a week if their parents wished it. If a hard and fast rule were to be laid down that every child in that school was to have denominational teaching on the same two mornings in the week, whether the number was 400 or 1,300, the teachers would not be forth- 280 coming and the facilities could not be afforded. That would be denying to these children the rights and privileges-to which they were entitled. He did not wish to make this a controversial point. He wished hon. Gentlemen would ask themselves, on this clause still more than on Clause 4, whether they wished these facilities to be afforded. They were facilities of a most limited description. The Government had been invited to extend them, but had rejected the voice of the tempter, and had limited this to Clause 3. By this clause, all children whose parents wished them to be taught the religion of the denomination to which the school belonged should have it on not more than two mornings a week. That was pre-eminently a matter for arrangement between the owners and the authorities when they took over the school. It was only fair that it should be understood that these facilities were to be allowed if the parents wished it, and if the size of the school rendered it impossible that all the children should receive that denominational teaching on the same two mornings they were not thereby to be deprived of having it. For Heaven's sake let hon. Members make no mistake about this matter, which really was not open to the consequences anticipated by the last speech.
MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that after what had taken place he thought he had better ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that as one of those who had said "no" when the proposal was put that the 281 Amendment should be withdrawn he wished to explain why he had taken that course. He thought it was obvious that this limit of two days was perfectly mischievous and would take away from the local authority the freedom and liberty which the Government proclaimed as the keynote of their policy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would extend the liberty to be given in regard to the time of religious instruction and would see that by making this small concession he would get rid of a large portion of the ill-will engendered by the Bill.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he was strongly in favour of the facilities given by the Bill under Clauses 3 and 4, but he was not in favour of them as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman. The point he wanted to make clear was what was going to happen to the rural schools, because he represented a rural constituency. Was there to be a right of entry on the part of every single teacher of every denomination to give denominational teaching on every day of the week? If the public were going to pay for the teaching of denominational religion on five days a week, which was the only interpretation he could put upon the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not support the facilities. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would say that his interpretation was a wrong one.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid that it was entirely a question of honestly giving effect to these facilities. If it were not necessary to allow the clergyman a right of entry on every day in the week it certainly would not be allowed. It was a matter of machinery. In the great majority of the rural schools there would be no 282 difficulty in confining this "facilities' teaching to two named days in the week; but if it could not be given reasonably and properly on two days the time would have to be extended.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he agreed that it was a matter of machinery. But it rested with the denominational teachers, and with them alone, to determine the matter. ["No."] This was not to be a matter of arrangement, or one of the points to be bargained about between the managers and the local authorities. It rested with the denomination alone to determine how the teaching was to be given—["No "]—whether the two days teaching to be given to each child should be concentrated into two days of the week, or whether it should be distributed over five days of the week, although no single child might receive it on more than two days of the week. ["No."] That was what they contemplated in the Bill, and that was what they approved of.
§ MR. BIRRELLI do not agree at all. The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation comes to this, that if the denomination chooses to say they cannot teach twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty children on two days they are to be entitled to come in on every day. That I entirely dispute. It is a matter of machinery and a matter for the local authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe local authority? On what words in the clause does the right hon. Gentleman rely for an interpretation which is not the interpretation he gave ten minutes ago, and is absolutely inconsistent with the plain meaning of the English language?
§ MR. DILLONsaid he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that it must now 283 have dawned on the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the time allocated to Clauses 3 and 4 was not quite sufficient.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid one was disposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition where in the clause he found the words empowering the denominational teachers, without any reference to the local authority, to impose its own idea of the number of days necessary to comply with the provisions of the clause. The clause said the local authorities should afford facilities to enable children to receive, on not more than two days a week, the religious instruction they required. The denomination was not entitled to select and classify the children themselves, whether the local authority liked it or not, so as to spread the denominational instruction over five days. He reminded the Committee, moreover, that the clause was founded on the experience of existing schools. In schools as they now existed it had been found in general sufficient to give the Catechism teaching on two mornings in the week, and that covered all the children in the school.
§ LORD R. CECILconfessed that he was utterly unable to accept the Solicitor-General's explanation, and regarded the construction put upon the clause by the Solicitor-General as involving a serious infringement of the liberty of the subject. The net result of the interpretation of the Solicitor-General was that a local authority which was hostile to the giving of religious instruction would be able to insist upon what instruction should be given.
§ nobody supported, and to which everybody objected.
§ MR. LEIF JONESthought it was a revelation to both sides of the House that the interpretation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite could be put upon this clause. He could only say that if that was the interpretation to which his right hon. friend intended to give effect he must alter the clause by omitting the words "on not more than two days a week." He defied anyone to say, if religious teaching went on five days a week, that the Bill did not "enable" the children to receive religious teaching on those five days.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid that if the clause meant what the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it meant, he wanted it made perfectly clear that it did not mean that. It did mean what he had already indicated, but he would take care on Report that the interpretation put upon the clause by the right hon. Gentleman was impossible.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURTo what speech of the right hon. Gentleman is he going to make his Bill conform? I am in the recollection of the whole House when I say that the interpretation which in unmistakable language I put on the clause was. endorsed by the Minister in charge.
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.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 352; Noes, 159. (Division List No, 142.)
289| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Agnew, George William | Alden, Percy |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ainsworth, John Stirling | Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Crombie, John William | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Armitage, R. | Crooks, William | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Cross, Alexander | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crossley, William J. | Hudson, Walter |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Dalziel, James Henry | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Astbury, John Meir | Davies, David(Montgomery, Co. | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jackson, R. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Jenkins, J. |
| Barker, John | Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras N. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Duckworth, James | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Kelley, George D. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham | Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Beck. A, Cecil | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Kitson, Sir James |
| Bell, Richard | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt | Erskine, David C. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Essex, R. W. | Lambert, George |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Evans, Samuel T. | Lamont, Norman |
| Bertram, Julius | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid |
| Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Everett, R. Lacey | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Fenwick, Charles | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Ferens, T. R. | Lehmann, R.C. |
| Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lever A Levy(Essex, Harwich |
| Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) | Findlay, Alexander | Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Levy Maurice |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fuller, John Michael F | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Branch, James | Fullerton, Hugh | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brigg, John | Furness, Sir Christopher | Lough, Thomas |
| Bright, J. A. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lupton, Arnold |
| Brocklehurst, W. D. | Gill, A. H | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Brooke, Stopford | Glendinning, R. G. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) | Glover, Thomas | Lynch, H.B. |
| Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Gooch George Peabody | Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Maclean, Donald |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Arthur, William |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harcourt Rt. Hon. Lewis | M'Crae, George |
| Cairns, Thomas | Hardie J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Cameron, Robert | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hart-Davies, T. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Harwood, George | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Massie, J. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Menzies, Walter |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Hedges, A. Paget | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cleland J. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Mond, A. |
| Clough, W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) | Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W. | Montagu, E. S. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Henry. Charles S. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cooper, G. J. | Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip |
| Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morse, L. L. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hodge, John | Murray, James |
| Cory, Clifford John | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Myer, Horatio |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Napier, T. B. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hooper, A. G. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Nicholls, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r | Rose, Charles Day | Ure, Alexander |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Runciman, Walter | Vivian, Henry |
| Nuttall, Harry | Russell, T. W. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wallace, Robert |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Partington, Oswald | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Paul, Herbert | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sears, J. E. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester) | Seaverns, J. H. | Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton |
| Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye) | Seddon, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Perks, Robert William | Shackleton, David James | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Wason, John Cathart(Orkney) |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Pollard, Dr. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whitbread, Howard |
| Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) | Soares, Ernest J. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Stanger, H. Y. | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Radford, G. H. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Steadman, W, C. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Rees, J. D. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Renton, Major Leslie | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn) |
| Richards, Thos. (W. Monmt'h) | Summerbell, T. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Richards, T.F, (Wolverh'mpt'n | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, Hn. C.H.W. (Hull, W.) |
| Richardson, A. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, P W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifie) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury | Winfrey, R. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid) |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorganshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) | Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford | Thomasson, Franklin | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E | |
| Robinson, S. | Tomkinson, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Torrance, A. M. | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Toulmin, George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Carlile, E. Hildred | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Acland, Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cave, George | Fell, Arthur |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | Ffrench, Peter |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H- A. E. | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) | Cogan, Denis J. | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Forster, Henry William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Courthope, G. Loyd | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) |
| Banner, John S. (Harmood- | Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Craik, Sir Henry | Haddock, George R. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Delany, William | Hammond, John |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Dillon, John | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Dixon, Sir Daniel | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Blake, Edward | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Hazleton, Richard |
| Boland, John | Doughty, Sir George | Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SEdm'ds) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Du Cros, Harvey | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) |
| Burdett-Coutts. W. | Duffy, William J. | Hogan, Michael |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Joyce, Michael |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Murnaghan, George | Roche, John Galway (East) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Murphy, John | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Nield, Herbert | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull) | Nolan, Joseph | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton) |
| Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur Ormskirk) |
| Lundon, W. | O'Doherty, Philip | Starkey, John R. |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | O'Dowd, John | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | O'Hare, Patrick | Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark), |
| Macpherson, J. T. | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.) | O'Malley, William | Valentia, Viscount |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | O'Mara, James | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| M'Calmont, Colonel James | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| M'Kean, John | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| M'Killop, W. | Percy, Earl | Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Meagher, Michael | Reddy, M. | Young, Samuel |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Younger, George |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Remnant, James Farquharson | TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Rawlinson, and Mr. Evelyn |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Roche, Augustine (Cork) | Cecil. |
Question agreed to.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS,on a point of order, said that one of the tellers in the last division, the hon. Member for Aston, Manor failed for several minutes to proceed to the door of the lobby, and hon. Members were kept waiting. That meant that the division was lengthened very much, and he wished to know if that did not constitute a disobedience of the rules of the House, which laid down that a teller should proceed at once to the lobby.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked if there was any rule of the House under which the tellers had to proceed to the door in order to conduct the division under the new system.
THE CHAIRMANIn reply to the last question, I do not think that there is any order to that effect. What occurred in this case was that there was some little misunderstanding as to the tellers, and the consequence was that one of the tellers for some time did not go to the door, but he eventually went to the door.
§ The CHAIRMAN thereupon proceeded to put forthwith the question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)I move that you, Mr. Chairman, do now report Progress.
§ SIR E. CARSONMay I ask why we should report Progress?
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion if the Opposition desired to proceed now with Clause 4.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYI am entirely in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite if they are anxious to proceed with Clause 4. I understand that they are not anxious to do so.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and 291 ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
292§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 417; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 143.)
295| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Channing, Francis Allston | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Abraham, William(Rhondda) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) |
| Agnew, George William | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Clarke, C. Goddard | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Alden, Percy | Cleland J. W. | Gulland, John W. |
| Allan, A. Acland(Christchurch) | Clough, W. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Allen. Charles P. (Stroud) | Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hammond, John |
| Armitage, R. | Cogan, Denis J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cooper, G. J. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cory, Clifford John | Harwood, George |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cowan, W. H. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) | Cremer, William Randal | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Parker, John | Crombie, John William | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset | Crooks, William | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Crossley, William J. | Hazleton, Richard |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dalziel, James Henry | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, David(Montgomery Co. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Delany, William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bell, Richard | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hodge, John |
| Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt | Dillon, John | Hogan, Michael |
| Benn. W.(T'w'Harmlets, S. Geo. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Bertram, Julius | Duckworth, James | Hooper, A. G. |
| Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford) | Duffy, William J. | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Billson, Alfred | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Black. Arthur W. (Bedfordshire | Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall | Hudson, Walter |
| Boland, John | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Polton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Erskine, David C. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Branch, James | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Brigg, John | Essex, R. W. | Jenkins, J. |
| Bright, J. A. | Evans, Samuel T. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Brocklehurst, W. D. | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Everett, R. Lacey | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) | Fenwick, Charles | Jowett, F. W. |
| Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire) | Ferens, T. R. | Joyce, Michael |
| Pryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Ffrench, Peter | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Findlay, Alexander | Kelley, George D. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Flynn, James Christopher | Kilbride, Denis |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Fuller, John Michael F. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Fullerton, Hugh | Kitson, Sir James |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Furness, Sir Christopher | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Cairns, Thomas | Gill, A. H. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Cameron, Robert | Ginnell, L. | Lambert, George |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lamont, Norman |
| Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight | Glendinning, R. G. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Glover, Thomas | Lawson, Sir Wifrid |
| Chance, Frederick William | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E | O'Grady, J. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington | O'Hare, Patrick | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. | Soares, Ernest J |
| Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich | O'Malley, William | Stanger H Y |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | O' Mara, James | Stanley Hn A Lyulph(Chesh) |
| Levy, Maurice | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Parker, James (Halifax) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Partington, Oswald | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Lough, Thomas | Paul, Herbert | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lundon, W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Luttrell Hugh Fownes | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Lynch, H.B. | Perks, Robert William | Summerbell, T. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs | Philipps. J. Wynford (Pembroke | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Mackaraess, Frederic C. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Maclean, Donald | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Macnamara Dr. Thomas J. | Pollard, Dr. | Tennant.Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Power; Patriok Joseph | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Macpherson J. T. | Price; C E (Edinb'gh, Central) | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Price Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr |
| MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| M'Callum, John M. | Radford, G. H. | Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E. |
| M Crae, George | Rainy, A. Rolland | Tomkinson, James |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Torrance, A. M. |
| M'Kean, John | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Toulmin, George |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Killop, W. | Reddy, M | Ure Alexander |
| M'Micking Major G. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Verney, F. W. |
| Maddison Frederick | Redmond, William (Clare) | Vivian, Henry |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Roes, J.D. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Manfield, Harry Northants | Rendall Athelstan | Wallace Robert |
| Mansfield H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Renton Major Leslie | Walsh Stephen |
| Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Walters, John Tudor |
| Marnham, F. J. | Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.) |
| Massie, J. | Richardson, A. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Masterman, C.F.G. | Rickett, J. Compton | Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton |
| Meagher, Michae | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wardle, George J. |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Menzies, Walter | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Micklem, Natnaniel | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Mond, A. | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) | Waterlow, D.S. |
| Money L. G. Chiozza | Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Montagu, E.S. | Robertson J M. (Tyneside) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Robson Sir William Snowdon | White J D (Dumbartonshire) |
| Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Roche, Augustine (Cork) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Roche John (Galway East) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Morrell Philip | Roe, Sir Thomas | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Morse, L L,. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Murnaghan George | Rose Charles Day | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Murphy John | Rowlands, J. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Murray James | Runciman, Walter | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Myer, Haratio | Russell, T.W. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Napier, T.B. | Rutherford, V.H.(Brentford) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n) |
| Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn |
| Nicholls, George | Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Scarisbrick, T.T.L. | Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull, W. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester) | Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willians | Seares, J.E. | Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Seaverns, J.H. | Winfrey, R. |
| O'Brien Kenda(Tipperary Mid | Seddon J | Wodehouse, Lord (Norfold, Mid) |
| O'Brien Patrick(Kilkenny) | Seely, Major J.B. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| O'Connor James (Wicklow, W.) | Shackleton, David James | Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Young, Samuel |
| O'Connor, T.P.(Liverpool) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | |
| O'Donnell, C.J.(Walworth) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| O'Dowd, John | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dixon, Sir Daniel | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Ashley, W. W. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir. H. | Doughty, Sir George | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) | Du Cros, Harvey | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Faber, George Denison (York) | Percy, Earl |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Fardell, Sir T. George | Ratcliffe, Major R. F. |
| Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.) | Fell, Arthur | Rawlinson, John Frederick P. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Finch, Et. Hon. George H. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fletcher, J. S. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Forster, Henry William | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Haddock, George R. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hardy, Laurenee (Kent, Ashford | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred. | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hervey. F.W.F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Starkey, John R. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'dUniv. |
| Cave, George | Hill, Henry Stave]ey(Staff'sh.) | Thomson.W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cavendish.Et.Hon. Victor C.W. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord B. (Marylebone, E. | King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Coates, E. Feethara(Lewisham | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Long, Col., Charles W-(Evesham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Collins,Sir WmJ.(S.Pancras,W. | Long,Rt. Hn.Walter(Dublin,S) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, George |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Et. Hon. Alfred | |
| Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Cross, Alexander | Magnus, Sir Philip | Viscount Valentia. |
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.