HC Deb 28 May 1906 vol 158 cc116-232

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 1:—

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 10, at the end, to add the words 'And unless provision is made that religious instruction shall not be given therein during school hours, nor at the public expense.' "—(Mr. Maddison.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'during school hours, nor.' "—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment. "

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said they had been told again and again that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not in this matter represent the views of what was called the regular Opposition, and that the Committee had to deal with yet another Amendment before they came to the end of the various proposals from different parts of the Committee dealing with the thorny subject involved in Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had tried to get support for his Amendment from all quarters of the Committee. He tried first of all to get the support of the hon. Member for Burnley; he afterwards tried, and to some extent succeeded, in getting the support of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway represented by the hon. Member for Leicester; he also made a strong appeal to the Roman Catholics represented chiefly by hon. Members from Ireland who were, it was said, going to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Evans) would endeavour to navigate his way between these rocks and state what in his judgment was proper and fitting in regard to this thorny question. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham incorporated a view which was strongly held on the Ministerial side of the House—the principle that the State ought not to interfere at all as such in any matters pertaining to religion. Obviously that was not a principle which would appeal strongly to those with whom the right hon. Gentleman was now associated, because it was the very root principle of the disestablishment of the State Church. The essence of the Amendment was that facilities were to be given all round, or, putting it in other words, that there ought to be complete right of entry for all denominations in school hours to teach whatever denominational views they had upon subjects relating to religion. What was claimed as common ground by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not exist in fact. The hon. Member for Leicester desired that the elementary education of the country should be built as a superstructure upon a completely secular basis. That was not the case with regard to the Amend- ment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The State would interfere according to that Amendment. What did the State do? The State compelled the attendance of children at school, and bore the expense of making attendance compulsory. The children would have to be arranged in classes according to the various denominations for religious instruction. As this teaching was to take place in school hours, the carrying on of the school, the maintenance of the school, and the payment of teachers, whether they taught religious subjects or not, would all have to be done at the expense of the State. So what was claimed to be common ground between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for Leicester did not in reality exist. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to do away entirely with Cowper-Temple teaching. At one blow the arrangements under which religious teaching of a denominational or sectarian character was at present given, would be at once swept away. That was a proposal which did not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. They had had from the right hon. Gentleman rather late in the day what they were entitled to have long ago, an acknowledgment of the valuable and admirable teaching which had been given under Section 14 of the Act of 1870. It must be so, or else the right hon. Gentleman stood condemned. What did he do in 1902? The result of the legislation of that year was that half of the children of the country were taught what religion the teachers gave to them under the Cowper-Temple clause. Would the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham deal with the difficulties of the situation? Who was to arrange the time when instruction was to be given, the number of denominations to come in, the order in which they were to come in, what the ordinary teachers were to do in the meantime, and on what scale, if these teachers did undertake to instruct in religious subjects, they were to be paid? Suppose there was candidature for teaching religion by two members of the same denomination, as, for instance, between a high churchman and a low churchman, it would have to be decided which should prevail. The right hon. Gentleman's plan would not work. He imagined that his Amendment was proposed rather in a hurry and without due consideration of the difficulties of the case. Would Roman Catholics like Protestants of all denominations to go into their schools and teach children belonging to other denominations? That was the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. If that were done, what would become of what was called the atmosphere of the school? These difficulties might be pointed out ad nauseam. He was very much surprised at a statement made by the hon. Member for Leicester in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member said that— Although he might have serious objections to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, nevertheless if it came before the Committee with the weight and authority behind it, a good many of them might be very willing seriously to consider whether they ought not to waive those objections, in order to give an earnest to the opposition to the religious organisations who were opposing the Bill that they were anxious to meet them on common ground. He did not understand what the common ground was. The very essence of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was that in school hours there should be denominational teaching at the expense of the various denominations, and that, he thought, was a matter which was not agreed to by the hon. Member for Leicester and the Labour Party. [Cheers from LABOUR Members.] He was glad he was interpreting the views of the Labour Party aright. With regard to the Irish Party this Amendment not only swept away religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause but it did away entirely with Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. He had taken pains to explain that his Amendment had nothing to do with the 3rd and 4th Clauses.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said he failed to understand how the right hon. Gentleman's plan could work if they retained Clauses 3 and 4. The proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley was one for secular education. He desired to point out to him that this Bill was one which provided secular education in the schools all over the country. Nothing was possible under this Bill but secular education except under Clauses 3 and 4 unless by the consent of the local authorities. But if it was right to provide secular education at all as the basis of the Bill, it was proper to give the local authority the right to say whether simple Bible teaching was to be given to the children in their schools. That was a principle in favour of which he went most strongly. He did not know whether the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education bound the Government. At any rate it did not represent his views. The proposed system was one which had been tried and not found wanting. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had examined the various syllabuses which had been prepared by the different County Council Education Committees in the country. Attacks had been made upon the action taken by some school authorities in the Principality. He did not think that any one would say that they desired that the children should not be brought up in some principles of religion which were held in common by the people of this country. He entirely dissented from the hon. Member for Leicester when he said that many Members of this House took no interest in the elementary education of the country. He always understood that this House represented all classes of the community; and it was entirely erroneous to suggest that those in any class who did; not usually send their children to the; elementary schools were, therefore not to interfere in this matter. He wanted to read the syllabus of the Glamorgan County Council. In every one of the standards some portion of scriptures was to be read and committed to memory. Would anyone say that he had any objection to a child being taught to read a psalm in a common-sense way but not in a sectarian way, which would be the badge of the teaching if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were carried? He wished to call attention to what was done in the way of moral teaching, based upon Bible reading, by a reference to the following subjects:—Forgiveness, forbearance, the Ten Commandments, fidelity to duty, Sabbath observance, truthfulness, patience, humility,obedience to parents, early piety, benevolence, gratitude, honesty, and love. But if any part of the country could safely be left to purely secular instruction, he thought that Wales could. For, whereas the number of children in the day schools there was 420,000 the number of scholars in the Sunday Schools was no less than 673,720. The more he studied the Bill of the Government the better he found it. And even the various Amendments they had been discussing only tended further to persuade him of the excellence of the Government plan. He would like to lead a passage from a book, "Grammar of Assent," by a man whose voice would be listened to by every Member of the Committee, and especially by the Irish Members. The late Cardinal Newman, after he became a convert to the Roman Catholic Church speaking of Sects said— There are only denominations, parties, schools, compared with the national religion of England in its length and breadth. 'Bible religion' is both the recognised title and the best description of English religion. It consists not in rites, or creeds, but mainly in having the Bible read in the Church, in the family and in private. Now, I am far indeed from undervaluing that mere knowledge of scripture, which is imparted to the population thus promiscuously. At least in England it has to a certain point made up for great and grievous losses in its Christianity. The reiseration again and again in fixed courses, in the public service, of the words of inspired teachers under both covenants, and that in grave, majestic English, has, in matter of fact, been to our people a vast benefit. It has attuned their minds to religious thoughts; it has given them a high moral standard; it has served them in associating religion with compositions, which, even humanly considered, are among the most sublime and beautiful ever written. Especially it has impressed upon them the series of Divine providences in behalf of man from his creation to his end; and above all, the words, deeds, and sacred sufferings of Him in whom all the providences of God centre. It has been comparatively careless of creed and catechism, and has, in consequence, shown little sense of the need of consistency. What Scripture especially illustrates, from its first page to its last, is God's providence, and that is nearly the only doctrine held with a real assent by the mass of religious Englishmen. Hence the Bible is so great a solace and refuge to them in trouble. I repeat' I am not speaking of particular schools and parties in England, whether of the High Church or the Low, but of the mass of piously minded people living in all ranks of the community. He thought it right to call the attention particularly of his hon. friends from Ireland to the value which Cardinal Newman attached to Bible teaching.

MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

wished to know whether the words the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted applied to Bible teaching in schdools.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said they applied to Bible teaching generally. He had read the words in which Cardinal Newman dealt with the subject of Bible reading in the Church, in the family and in private life—he himself added that he desired to see it in schools—as showing the value of Bible teaching. In regard to the person who was.to give the teaching, he could not see why there was any serious objection to the ordinary school teacher imparting this class of instruction under Clause 14 of the Act of 1870. He would rather trust to the common sense of the mass of the teachers than to any other source of instruction. The instruction would be better done in that way than if they trusted to ministers. It was a dreadful thing to think that these little children should be treated as the corpus vile upon which to experiment or the casus belli over which a religious battle should be fought. Rather than that they should be squabbled over in this way he would trust to the common sense of the ordinary teacher throughout the land. He felt convinced that they would deal more fairly with the children than those who endeavoured to impart any particular creed. He preferred to leave this education to the teachers rather than to the clerics, and in saying this he was not referring to any particular class of clerics. When the phrase, "the great enemy is clericalism "was made use of it did not refer to the Church of England at all but to all clerics. For instance, take the bishops. Dr. Gore, the Bishop of Birmingham, had said that no one could make a child realise the meaning of the clause in the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" without reference to the evil one. He said— No one can make a child realise the meaning of the clause 'Deliver us from the evil one' (granted the right translation as given in the revised version) without teaching that there was an evil spirit, called the Devil, who tempts children and all men (including politicians). Could anyone believe that that was the pronouncement of a leading ecclesiastic, and was it not apparent that it ought to be preceded by a preamble to the effect that the politicians referred to belonged to a different party from that to which the Bishop belonged? He contended that the Amendment ought not to have the support of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and ought not to have the support of hon. Members from Ireland. He believed that the Bill of the Government was the best solution of the question and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said that the hon. Member for Leicester expressed some curiosity as to the mode in which he should vote upon this Amendment. He would therefore explain that he proposed to vote in the first instance for the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. If that proposal was adopted, he proposed to vote for the Amendment as amended. If it was not adopted, he should vote against the Amendment. It might be suggested that in voting for the Amendment, even if it were amended by the Amendment of his right hon, friend, he was taking a step in the direction of secularism, but that was not his view, nor was it his desire to see the State withdrawn from all responsibility for religious teaching in our public elementary schools. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that this Bill was one for the promotion of secular education, but although he did not think very well of that Bill, he did not think so badly of it as all that, neither did he fear that this would be the result of removing all State or rate aid from any form of religious education in our schools. But what he asked was, why should one special form of religious teaching be made the subject of a demand upon the ratepayers or the State, while others were excluded? If they were laying a foundation of religious teaching on which all could agree as the basis of a system of national education, there might be some reason for calling upon all to contribute to religious teaching, which was common to all, but was that the case in regard to Cowper-Temple teaching? They had heard members of the Roman Catholic religion say that they regarded Cowper-Temple teaching as not only not desirable, but as hostile to the religious teaching of their Church, and he understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that, as religious teaching, it was nearly, if not altogether, useless, because it did not afford that moral and religious discipline which was desired. Then they had a very large section of the Anglican Church who regarded this teaching not so much as being bad in itself, but as being insufficient, inasmuch as it did not teach the child that it was a member of a society which had a particular belief, and did not form the foundation for the religious teaching which was to be given by the special teachers of particular denominations. What was described as Cowper-Temple teaching or as fundamental Christianity was not satisfactory to many branches of the Christian Church, and did not embody any particular form of religious teaching. They had heard many forms of syllabus from Hampshire and other places which did no doubt provide useful instruction in the meaning of selected passages from Scripture; but then Dr. Clifford contended that the Bible should be read without comment except as to its historical and literary merits, and then again, there were local authorities like Carmarthenshire in which religious teaching would have been excluded altogether, under the by-laws of the county council submitted to the Board of Education. Cowper-Temple teaching was unsatisfactory to the great mass of the community from the religious point of view, its character was indeterminate; its very existence was uncertain; and he did not see why this particular form of religious teaching should be paid for out of the rates. It appeared to him that the Amendment as it was proposed to be amended would do much to clear the ground upon which they might build a solid superstructure which would be satisfactory to the various denominations, and also to those who did not desire denominational teaching. He desired that religious instruction should be given in school hours, and that the by-laws respecting school hours should be so framed as to give to all the children whose parents desired it religious instruction, while children whose parents did not desire it should be exempt, and should receive secular instruction instead. It could not be said that if they withdrew all rate and State aid from religious teaching they committed themselves to secular instruction so long as they secured religious teaching of any sort which the parents desired in the hours of compulsory attendance. He did not see how the Amendment touched Clause 4 if, as they had been assured by the Minister for Education, under that clause the voluntary schools, where practically all the childern belonged to one denomination were to go on as before. Then the clause amended so as to ensure this result, would be not merely necessary and desirable but excellent. As to the teacher, the Parliamentary Secretary dwelt the other day in language which he admired on the great importance to the child of receiving his religious instruction from the teacher whom he regarded as his guide, philosopher and friend. He could see no reason why a teacher, if he were willing to do so, should not teach in any branch of religious teaching he was capable of teaching. There had been a great deal of talk in the course of the debate on the subject of tests, and attempts had been made to show that it was inconsistent to say that the teachers should be immune from tests, and, at the same time to say that a teacher might be asked whether he could conscientiously give the particular religious teaching which he was being engaged to teach. He contended that the two things were perfectly consistent. The Bill provided against a requirement as to subscription which had never existed, but the Bill did not touch the requirement of considerable numbers of trust deeds that the head teacher should be a member of the Church of England. These were tests, and for a his part he would be perfectly willing to see every test of that character swept away; but to tell any sane man that when they were engaging a teacher they were not to ask him whether he could give the teaching that they were to provide and which he was employed by them to teach, was, to use an expression with which the Committee was familiar, something approaching to raving lunacy. Such a view was not held with regard to any other class of employment. He did not see why a teacher should be immune from any inquiry as to whether he was competent to teach the subject which he was being engaged and being paid to teach. If they could have religious teaching in compulsory school hours, if they had Clause 4 improved in the direction in which they were assured it would be improved, if they were able to use teachers for religious teaching which they were capable and desirous of giving, then, he thought, it only remained that that procedure should be applicable to all schools. If all schools were provided schools and no aid of any sort from rates or taxes was given to religious teaching then he could not understand any ground for any further distinction between the schools which had once been voluntary schools and the schools which had always been provided schools. They were told that, if the Amendment amended as suggested were carried, Cowper-Temple teaching would die out. After all the laudations they had heard of Cowper-Templeism was it conceivable that directly rate aid was withdrawn it would die out or that the small sum necessary to provide it would not be forthcoming? He could not suppose that hon. Members seriously thought that Cowper-Temple teaching would be in any danger if rate aid was withdrawn. He did not believe that a system of purely secular education would be acceptable to this country. He had had some opportunity while at the Board of Education of informing himself as to the feeling of the working classes with regard to religious instruction, and he formed the strongest opinion that in all parts of the country they were extremely anxious that their children should have some religious education. He for one was prepared to put all forms of religious teaching on an equality; but they must insist that religious teaching should be available for those who wanted it and of the sort that they wanted, and if they did that they would have made some steps towards a settlement of the difficulty.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.

said the Committee had been debating this important subject—the two debates on the Amendment and on the Amendment to the Amendment having been welded into one—for some seven and a half hours; and, without seeking in any way to hint that the moment for the conclusion of the debate had arrived, he still thought it would be desirable that it should be brought to a conclusion as early as possible, in order that ample time might be allowed to consider the important Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. Religion was often said, only too truly, to be a source of division; but he thought that in this debate it had been proved to be capable of being in some respects a source of union; for all the speeches, with hardly an exception, had breathed the spirit of the recognition of the difference between them, and had shown a strong desire to come, if possible, to some settlement which might prove to be lasting, and leave no living sense of injustice behind it. He was also particularly glad that throughout these debates they had had no references, or, at all events, very few, to foreign countries, or even to the United States, or even to our own Colonies, proud as we were of them. We had our own ecclesiastical history, painful in some respects as it had been, and he felt quite sure that any settlement that would ever be arrived at on this subject would be an English settlement, and in accordance with the wishes and disposition of the great body of the English people. Any idea of expurgated school editions of Shakespeare or Milton, or even Longfellow or Mrs. Hemans, to be used in our schools, so that children might not be offended by references to Divine Providence, would be received with yells of derision, and with disgust from one end of the country to the other, and no Government, by however great a majority it was supported could survive such an absurd, fantastical, and babyish proposal for a single hour. Any solution at which they might arrive would be based on sounder and more sensible principles than that. The Government had made it clear by the first clause that they proposed to adhere to that system of national instruction which was permitted by the clause in the famous Act of 1870, to which the name of a blameless and still honoured Member of Parliament had been given. The Leader of the Opposition had made his position in that matter perfectly clear. He had made it quite clear that he greatly disliked as a system of religious teaching the kind of instruction permitted in the Cowper-Temple clause. He did not like it because in his opinion it hampered and restricted religious teaching; because it arrested the full and proper development of religious teaching, and, therefore, to that extent endangered the variety of religious teaching. Therefore, he expressed, as he often had done, his dislike of the instruction authorised and permitted by that provision; but he also proceeded to tell the Committee that if he was driven to make his choice between the kind of religious instruction permitted under Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 and education on a frankly and avowedly secular basis, he would prefer even the Cowper-Temple teaching. In adhering to this kind of instruction and to some extent doing what they could, at all events, to make it the normal state of things throughout the schools of the country, save those which came in under the special facilities given under Clause 4—in doing that they had done it because, after full consideration and having taken into account the experience of the last thirty-six years, they believed that for Protestant children between five and fourteen in our public elementary schools the system of religious instruction which bears the name of Cowper-Temple was the sound and sensible system of religious instruction that was required. That might be criticised, but nevertheless they believed it to be a sound and, he would go so far as to say, a definite system of religious teaching. He had never used the word "undogmatic" in connection with a system of religious teaching which involved the existence of God and the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and a life beyond the grave. How could any one by any possibility speak of such a system as that as being undogmatic? These were the most stupendous dogmas, and they were to be found forming the fundamental system of every school of Christian theology. There they were, and there they were taught and could be taught throughout the schools. But if we were told that to Protestant children the teaching was injurious in the sense that it rendered any subsequent instruction difficult and perhaps impossible, why then, indeed, that would be a grievous objection to Cowper-Temple teaching. Although he had received thousands of communications from the clergy—he wished he had had time to reply to them, but he had given them careful consideration—he did not think he had received a single letter from any clergyman stating that when he came to prepare pupils for confirmation classes, he found those children who had been subjected to this religious instruction were in any state of mental ferment on the subject of Church principles and teaching, or in any sense unprepared to receive its definite instruction. He did not think in the case of Protestant children it could honestly be said that this religious teaching, from the syllabuses of the council schools was in any way hostile to fuller treatment of Christian theology at the hands of the clergy of the Church of England. It was not hostile in any sense to the subsequent treatment of religion by any Protestant body; and, being wholly persuaded that it was in full accordance with the desires of the people of this country and with past experience the Government proposed to adhere to it.

They had now the Amendment that was before them proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley. He was bound to look at this from an eminently practical point of view. Let them consider what the proposal involved in the school life of any school in the country. According to the Amendment of the Member for Burnley, the life of the school would not begin until the appearance of the teacher—say, at 9.45 in the morning. School instruction would then begin; there would be no prayer; there would be no hymn; there would be no devotional Bible reading or anything of that kind. School would begin at 9.45 with strictly secular subjects, and so it would continue until the hour of dismissal arrived at 12 o'clock, and then there would be the same thing over again in the afternoon. That would be the life of the school—a purely secular life—although it did not interfere with the use which the local educational authorities or the owners of the school might choose to put their buildings to between 9 and 9.45. Such a proposal would, in his opinion, deal a heavy blow at the religious instruction, of the child, and would in itself, therefore, to his thinking, be bad. He did not wish to underrate the importance of teaching children the elements of morality; he attached considerable importance to such teaching, and if he remained much longer responsible for the Education Department, he hoped in the Code to give some encouragement to such instruction. For he was persuaded that, rationally conducted, it could be made a very live and a very real thing. He did not think for a moment that morality could only be taught upon a theological basis. He was quite sure that it could be taught, with spirit and with force, apart from such basis. He supposed the most stringent code in the whole world was the code of honour, which was obeyed with marvellous punctiliousness by people who called themselves men of the world, and yet the injunction of the code of honour, "Thou shalt not cheat at cards," for example, could not be said to be a Christian maxim. He did not think they would find it in Thomas à Kempis, or in Baxter's Saint's Rest, or even in that very favourite treatise of the eighteenth century, far too tinctured with Arminianism to be pleasant to him, The Whole Duty of Man. It had its origin and source in quite a different atmosphere, and yet they knew how strong was the social sanction underlying it. There were other sanctions besides the religious sanction; the social sanction was one of them and the moral sanction was another. He was quite willing that the children should be taught the elements of morality, as opportunities offered, but neither morality for children nor philosophy for children of a larger growth was any substitute for religion; and therefore the Government could not give any sort of support or assistance to the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Burnley. Then there was the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, whose experience, and the attention he had given to these subjects, entitled him to full consideration. Any proposal that he made must be considered very carefully. With him, school life would begin at 9 o'clock, instead of at 9.45, and the head teacher and staff would make their appearance at 9. Let him ask how was the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment going to work in a common case. Let them take a country schools with 120 children in average attendance. It might be a school belonging either to the council or to trustees and carried on subject to the trust. Let them suppose that seventy children had been baptised in their parish church, and that their parents attended the services of the Church of England; also that there were thirty Primitive Methodists—no unusual proportion—ten Baptists, five Roman Catholics, and five children whose parents withdrew them altogether from any kind of religious instruction. The clock struck 9 and these 120 children made their appearance. The teacher had to provide for them; he was the paid official of the local education authority; his duty was to give secular education, and secular education alone, in respect of the salary he received from the local education authorities. His duty would be to give secular instruction to the five whose parents had withdrawn them from religious instruction altogether. They might be augmented to ten if the Roman Catholic children claimed the same privilege of withdrawal. If the head teacher chose to say, "My duty to the local education authority binds me to give instruction to these children," no exception could be taken to his course of action. The children would have to be provided with some separate room or place of accommodation. Not even the Member for North Louth could do a rule of three sum if a hymn were being sung in his immediate vicinity. The section of those children who were receiving their secular instruction in the three-quarters of an hour otherwise to be devoted to religious instruction would have to be educated in some separate room. The head teacher, however, might assign the task of teaching these children to one of his assistants. The question arose, what about the other? Here were seventy Church children; let them suppose the head teacher happened to be a member of the Church of England. They knew that no test was to be applied. He did not understand whether any question was to be asked as to whether he was prepared to give any kind of religious teaching. It might very likely happen that the head teacher was a member of the Church of England himself; he would, therefore, be very pleased to give, either for love or reward, religious instruction to these seventy children. He did not hesitate to say himself that the result of his doing so would be that all the Primitive Methodist children, or almost all of them, would attend the class to receive teaching at his hands, just as they did now in the schools they were obliged to attend—the Church of England schools. They would follow his teaching, and he would be able to teach them the doctrine of the Church of England so far as he thought fit to impart it to them. There could be no complaint against him. It was a fact that children would prefer to be taught by the head teacher, and he would prefer to teach them. In order that he might exercise proper control over the children, and gain that access to their hearts and affections which he desired, he would do all he could to induce as many as possible to attend his ministrations. What would the Primitive Methodists do? They were poor people; they had no clergyman; they were for the most part served by poor men who had to earn their own living during the days of the week; nor were ninety-nine out of 100 qualified by education to take a class. Consequently, the poor Primitive Methodists would, as a matter of hard fact, be left either without religious instruction at all, or would find their way, as he had no doubt a great majority of them would, into the class of the head teacher. But, on the other hand, suppose that that teacher was, as he might turn out to be, himself a Methodist—there were a great many Methodists in the ranks of elementary teachers, not so many as there were members of the Church of England, but still, a great number—then in the same way as with the teacher of the Church of England, if he or she elected to give Methodist teaching, a great majority of the school, unless the clergyman of the parish was very alert indeed, would find their way into the class taught by the Methodist head teacher. And let it be observed that now the teacher would be under no kind of restriction. If he chose—he did not say he would be wise to do so; on the contrary, he thought he would be very unwise—but if he chose to take this class of Methodists with a large influx of Church of England children, he could instruct them why some of them were Methodists, why they were bound to be Methodists, why their parents were right in going to a Methodist chapel, and why they would be wrong if they went to the Church of England. That kind of teaching, under the proposed scheme, would be available without any kind of restriction of any sort. Downright definite denominational teaching would thus be given to these children. He was bound to confess he did not think that would work. He did not see how it could work. It was put forward in the interests of equality all round, so that no injustice of any sort or kind should be done to any denomination. But he said injustice would be done because the influence of the teacher of the school would predominate over denominational differences, and so, whether he was a Baptist, a Methodist, a Congregationalist, or a member of the Church of England, his influence would undoubtedly prevail over the denominational differences, and absolutely prevent that ideal system of justice which this Amendment sought to carry out. Therefore, as at present advised, it seemed to him the scheme must break down. He did not deny that it had an attraction about it. It certainly attracted a good many behind him, until they were assured by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that this clause, when amended, would in no way affect Clause 4. The general view of the lobbies, and his hon. friends behind him, was that they were going to get rid of Clause 4 if they could only induce the Government to adopt this Amendment. Clause 4 was not a popular clause. He was perfectly well aware of that, and yet, in his judgment, it, or something like it, was an absolutely essential clause if the Government idea was carried out and Clause 1 remained. He did not see how anyone could claim to be considered a tolerant man who, having insisted on the kind of religious teaching he had already indicated being made a general rule throughout the kingdom, did not at risk of any unpopularity, or in the face of any opposition, do the best he could to secure to those whose conscience would be offended by it the kind of provision contemplated to be established, and maintained in Clause 4. But if they swept away Clause 1, if they abolished Cowper-Temple instruction, if they said secular instruction should be provided by the State with facilities all round, so that anybody might come in between 9 and 9.45, that Roman Catholic priests and nuns might teach Roman Catholicism to the children, that the Church of England minister, the Baptist, the Independent, and all the lot of them might come in, and have their classes from 9 to 9.45, then all go out, and that the secular atmosphere of the school should prevail for the rest of the school hours—that was what was understood as being meant by people inside the House and outside, and they attached value to it, on the ground that in this way they got rid of religious difficulties; and all the outcry of Roman Catholics, of High Church, Low Church, and Nonconformists would be swept away by this admission of all from 9 to 9.45, when they would go out and the rest of the time be devoted to secular instruction. That, in his opinion, was a scheme that would ultimately lead to the entire secularisation of education, and for that reason they objected to it and could not support it. They believed that in adhering to their system of broad fundamental Christian teaching they wore doing what was right. The hon. Member for Glamorgan had quoted Dr. Newman, and he might quote another passage which occurred at the close of his famousGrammar of Assent. After speaking of a system of Catholic theology, he nevertheless said— Christianity is addressed to men and women whose normal belief was in God and a judgment to come. Well, their system of religious educacation was as good as they could make it. It was not compulsory; if with advantage it could be made so he should he in favour of it, but he had no great faith in exercising compulsion on local authorities in matters of detail, because they might easily produce a syllabus they might think insufficient, and they could not contemplate proceeding by mandamus to compel the introduction of a Christian doctrine or thesis into that syllabus. Those were the difficulties in the way. They rejoiced in believing that the county councils gave facilities. Where they had not given them it was not because they were irreligious, it was because they had a belief—a mistaken belief perhaps—that the Sunday schools were sufficient to give the religious education for the district. They did not proceed on irreligious grounds, and he believed the result of discussion had been and would be to induce them to proceed to adopt a syllabus that would secure to the children of the district that mode of education which, as Dr. Newman said, prepared the soil for Christian teaching. He believed the Government were doing what he could show from Hansard had been the view of more distinguished men than himself on both sides of the House in adhering to this simple fundamental system of religious education; they did their best to make it general, they believed it was in accordance with the wishes of the great body of the people, and therefore he hoped the Committee would by a large majority reject both the Amendment and the Amendment thereto of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.

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

said there were portions of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech he did not propose to refer to, they were hardly relevant, and he did not think it would be possible now to discuss details that did not fit into the scheme put forward more than once by his right hon. friend the Member for West Bir- mingham. They would have to be dealt with before the Committee stage came to an end; but he did not see how it was possible to deal with them now, when the question was the Amendment to the Amendment. He did not rise to say a word on the claims or rights of parents or denominations for fuller religious education than could be given under the Cowper-Temple clause, for that would be more relevant to a future Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He rose for a very few minutes to deal with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, for he thought that was of great importance if they were really to understand the course the Government wished to steer in their zealous attempt to deal with religious difficulties. It was clear from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the Government set themselves to work to discover what kind of religious teaching was most desired in England, and then to endow that in some special manner. ["No."] His speech was capable of no other interpretation, nor would he deny it. It was an amazing principle to come from any part of the House, and certainly from that side of the House. When was it a function of the Radical Party to consider the religion they thought best for their countrymen and then to throw obstacles in the way of every other religion and give a special endowment out of the public funds for the propagation of this new scheme of theirs? He believed the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that no syllabus could come up to the views of the vast number of British parents; but were they really to understand that by some kind of intuition the Government had discovered what was the view of the ordinary parent, and intended to say henceforth "this is the religion to be taught in our schools, and this is the religion we will endow out of the rates"? It seemed to him that that was an extraordinary novelty in their political theories. He had always understood that nothing could be more hostile to traditional Radical opinion than a scheme of the kind; it seemed in deliberate contradiction to doctrines they had closely held. Let them assume that this extraordinary novelty was to become the guiding principle, then he asked what provision was there in the Bill to carry it out logically, consistently, and effectively? The right hon. Gentleman had said he would like to enforce some syllabus on the local authorities; would he like to go over each syllabus, add to and amend here and there, and gradually produce something the Government thought should be endowed as the ideal system of religious education, and enforce it by law on al local authorities? That was what he would like, but he shrank from it. He thought that local authorities would probably like to manage their own affairs in their own way, and that was the view of some hon. Gentlemen behind him; they thought it was an inalienable right of local authorities to settle the religious education to be given in their schools. Then why did they eliminate the right to give denominational teaching? By what process could they justify themselves by saying local authorities might range over the whole scale between reading without explanation a fragment of Scripture taken at random—["No!"] Might that not be done? Of course it might. There was liberty to range between the teaching of no religion at all, or the teaching he had described, reading without explanation a passage from Scripture taken at random, to the other end of the scale—the dogmatic teaching of the Free Church catechism. A vast field was open, but going beyond that catechism was prohibited. It was a very strange scheme; but it was not its strangeness or want of logic that he now wanted to press upon the Committee. If the Government were in earnest—as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was—in what he said about the need for religious education, the need for making it a genuine thing in every school, then he was certain that it was the primary duty of the Government and the Committee to see that Cowper-Templeism was eliminated, and the lower end of the scale cut off. It was their plain duty, but they endowed a certain denomination.

DR. MACNAMARA (Cambenvell, N.)

You did it in 1902.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was quite; ready to defend the Bill of 1902, but he was anxious to press on the Government this particular point; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not interrupt him. The Government came forward with this earnest expression of a desire that they should have full Cowper-Templeism taught, and nothing else, in all our elementary schools. Surely the least they could do if that was their theory was to try and carry it into effect. In 1902, as the hon. Gentleman had forced him to speak of that, they kept all the anomalies inevitably incident to the Cowper-Temple system and to the single school area and the denominational system. They kept them side by side, because they found them there, and it was impossible at that time to deal with both. All he could do was to relieve the Nonconformists from a great many of the disabilities under which they were then labouring, and no Nonconformist who had ever read the Bill of 1902 had ever dared to contradict that statement. Now the Government were going to get rid of denominationalism and to substitute universal Cowper-Templeism, on the ground that they believed that Cowper-Temple religion was the religion which the country desired, and which, therefore, ought to be endowed out of the rates. Well, let them make Cowper-Templeism a reality and make it secure. That was the least they could ask of the Government. Let them make it obligatory on the local authorities to teach religion, and, above all, make it obligatory on the local authorities to select their teachers so that they would be able to carry out what the Minister for Education now told them, and he was sure he meant it, was one of the most fundamental and necessary parts of religion. Was there a word in this Bill which suggested a preference on the part of the Government for Cowper-Temple teaching? They might have such teaching as was given in the Free Church Catechism. Was there a word in the Bill which suggested their desire to see that kind of religion given in our schools, or a word that suggested that the teachers who had got to teach it, and who had to be paid out of the rates for teaching it, were to be competent? There was not a word; and until he saw some conformity between the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward and the speech which he had just delivered, he would be forced to the conclusion that, while the right hon. Gentleman was really most earnestly desirous to see full religious instruction given in our schools, he was so bound by the pressure of certain sections of Nonconformist opinion behind him, he felt himself so hampered by pledges, misunderstood, given at the election, that he was literally asking the Committee to pass a Bill for the purpose of seeing that the children of this country got the sort of religious teaching which he, at all events, desired, and yet did not put a single security in the Bill either that the religion taught should be of the kind he desired or that those who taught it should be able to teach it. He would vote without misgiving against the secular proposal so ably supported by the hon. Member for Leicester a few days ago; but if he was asked whether the alternative proposed by the Government was a satisfactory alternative, he said it was not, for two reasons. In the first place, it was grossly unjust to those who did not accept Cowper-Templeism; and, in the second place, it was a gross, though unintentional, fraud on those who did accept it, but thought this Bill gave some security, either in the character of the teaching given under it or of the teachers who had to give it, that the rising generation of the country should really learn that fundamental Christianity of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken so eloquently. His speech gave him a very high idea of his aspirations. It also gave him a very painful sense of the discordance, the, as he thought, irremediable discordance, which existed between the ideals he had laid before the Committee and the Bill in which he had attempted to embody them.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said the speech of the President of the Board of Education must have been a disappointing one to many supporters of the Government. Only recently the Prime Minister had declared that in his opinion 90 per cent, of the Liberal Party were in favour of secular education in the schools, and, if that were so, surely it was but reasonable to expect that the Government would have allowed its followers a free hand in regard to this most important matter. Two sets of people had announced their intention of voting against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley—firstly the Churchmen, who believed in the State endowment of religion; and secondly, the Nonconformists, who on the political platform denounced a State Church, but in Parliament declared for the endowment of religion in the schools. If it was an injustice to endow a Church for teaching religion to grown-up people, it must be more of an injustice, and much more dangerous to the freedom of conscience, to endow schools for the teaching of dogmas to children. It was not thus that the old Nonconformists fought their battles. The leaders of the Nonconformist party would have considerable difficuty in convincing the public of their sincerity when they claimed disestablishment, if they walked into the lobbies to support the establishment of religion in schools. In the past few years they had heard a great deal about the injustice perpetrated by one section of the Christian Church or another in regard to religious instruction. It was to him a matter of surprise that supporters of the Government could not recognise the fact that the whole of the religious difficulty had its root in simple Bible teaching in the schools. So long as it was claimed that Bible instruction should be given in schools they were bound under every principle of equality to make provision for every sect which desired to put its own interpretation upon what was being taught. Those were the two logical positions—either a secular system of instruction or an all-round system of religious instruction. Between those two there was no halting place. There were two main arguments against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley. The first was that the parents wanted religious instruction given to the children, and the second was that if that instruction was not given in the schools the children would not receive it at all. How did any Member of the Committee know that the parents wanted religious instruction given in the schools? By what authority did they speak? It was said that for thirty years it had been the school board system. The school boards had power to abolish religious instruction, but the parents of the children did not take the trouble to abolish it. The indifferentism in regard to religious matters was such that people did not trouble one way or the other. Much of that indifferentism was to be traced to the slipshod manner in which religious instruction was given in the schools. But they had one means of ascertaining working-class opinion on this matter. The Trades Union Congress represented 2,000,000 organised workers. Year after year that assembly had declared for a secular system. The men and women who went there were of all creeds and of no creed, but they believed supremely in education and they desired this bone of contention to be taken away so that education might be given for its own sake, and to improve and strengthen it. He held in his hand a copy of the present issue of Christian World which contained a report of an interview with Dr. Rintoul, who was in this country on a visit from Australia, and who occupied a high position in the religious life of the colony of Victoria. Dr. Rintoul told them that since 1873 they had had in that colony a system of free, compulsory, and secular education; and the advocates of the denominational system had charged that system with being Godless, Christless, pagan, and all the rest of it. A conference was called of religious teachers to devise some form of religious instruction to be given in the schools, and the Baptists, Wesleyans, and Anglicans agreed to an emasculated form of the Catechism in order to obtain some common finality. The matter was referred to a referendum of the parents, but after a quarter of a century's experience of free, compulsory, and secular education, the vast majority of the parents preferred to remain under that system. He ventured to say that could a referendum be taken in this country as it was in Australia, it would show an overwhelming majority in favour of the secular solution. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!"] Did any of those hon. Gentlemen who said "No" inform their constituents at the last election that when the Education Act was being amended they were going to support Bible teaching in one set of schools, and dogmatic teaching in another set of schools? He could understand a few hon. Gentlemen taking exception to that statement; and he used the remark as a tribute to the conscientious way in which they held their religious beliefs; but the demand generally was for public control of the schools, and few of the electors who voted on the education question thought that by so doing they were voting for a compromise of this kind. If it were true that the parents of the children were not fit to give religious instruction to their children, let it not be forgotten that for the past three generations these parents had had the benefit of the old religious instruction and that in the olden days parents were fitted to give that religious instruction. If they were less fitted now, it was partly because of the conditions under which they lived, and partly because of the secularising of religion, which was going on in our public schools and elsewhere. They had better be honest and not continue the pretence of indoctrinating our children with a system of religious dogma, whether called by the name of unsectarianism, or by any other name, which produced such poor results in after-life. The child should be trained according to its intellectual development, taught the simple duties of kindness, love of truth, honour, justice and righteousness. Those things should be taught for their own sake, but no one should ask for them to be enforced by bringing in some extraneous authority which the children could not understand. The training of our children should be on a foundation on which in after years a solid spiritual structure could be raised if the children felt so minded. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had pointed out that the Education Bill of 1870, because it was a compromise, had perpetuated the religious difficulty, and that it had rendered the solution of that difficulty still more difficult. Who would say that the present Bill was not following in the same course? If hon. Gentlemen placed such value on religious instruction, why leave it to be the sport of Party politics at municipal elections? Let Clause 4 be made mandatory and not optional, and then the question would be settled and Party strife avoided. But the Minister for Education said "No." The right hon. Gentleman dared not come to this Committee and make a proposal of that kind. He respectfully submitted that it was not courageous to transfer from this House to the local authorities a task which they themselves dared not face. When education was administered in the large towns by anad hoc authority, the religious difficulty could be left to the school boards; but now at every municipal election the issues of sanitation, drainage, and good local government generally would be subordinated to the question of who was to rule the schools. He hoped that if this Amendment were accepted some means would be adopted whereby our municipal life would not be poisoned by having religious strifes brought into it which formerly had no existence. He would say nothing on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He did not think it was practicable. He did not think it was desirable to divide the children in the schools into pens for instruction. They should be taught about God and the brotherhood of the race, and that could only be exemplified by meeting in the same room and with the same forms of instruction. Otherwise more harm than good would be done to religion. On the other hand, he should vote for the hon. Gentleman opposite. The time would come, however, if this Amendment were rejected, when this House would again be faced by the difficulty with which it was now faced. If this question had been grappled with in 1870 our educational system would have been at a different point today from what it was. Let them not leave the same legacy to their successors, but let them act courageously and do their duty according to their consciences.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that the final principle of the Bill was to be

found in Clause 4, and if the Irish Members only knew the final position in which Clause 4 would stand they would be in a better position as to how they should vote on these competing Amendments on Clause 1. The Irish Members looked on this Amendment according to principles. The view they represented was the general principle in favour of religious instruction being given right through the school hours as being the most important part of the education provided for the children. They found that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley was, according to their view, objectionable, and therefore should be voted against by the Irish Party. On the other hand, the Amendment of the right hon. the Member for West Birmingham was objectionable because it provided that while religious instruction should be given during school hours it should not be given at the expense of the State. So long as the general principle of giving religious instruction during school hours was being challenged as it was being challenged by the Amendment, and they were left in doubt as to its fate and fortune under Clause 4, they should not vote for any Amendment which would fetter the freedom which they claimed. As announced previously, the National Party would vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because it affirmed the principle of giving all religious instruction in school hours, but they had an equally firm intention of voting against the main Amendment.

Mr. BIRRELL

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 366; Noes, 179. (Division List No. 98.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Ainsworth, John Stirling Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry
Acland, Francis Dyke Alden, Percy Astbury, John Meir
Adkins, W. Ryland Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)
Agnew, George William Ashton, Thomas Gair Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S. Illingworth, Percy H.
Barker, John Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Jackson, R. S.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras N. Jacoby, James Alfred
Barnard, E. B. Dickson-Poyndor, Sir John P. Jardine, Sir J.
Barnes, G. N. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jenkins, J.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Dobson, Thomas W. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Beale, W. P. Dodd, W. H. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Beauchamp, E. Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.
Beck, A. Cecil Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Jowett, F. W.
Bellairs, Carlyon Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Kearley, Hudson E.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Kekewich, Sir George
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Kelley, George D.
Benn,W.(T'w'r H'ml'tsS.Geo. Elibank, Master of Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bennett, E. N. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward King Alfred John (Knutsford)
Berridge, T. H. D. Erskine, David C. Kitson, Sir James
Bertram, Julius Essex, R. W. Laid law, Robert
Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford Evans, Samuel T. Lamb Edmund G. (Leominster
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Eve, Harry Trelawney Lamb Ernest H. (Rochester)
Billson, Alfred Everett, R. Lacey Lambert, George
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lamont, Norman
Black, Alexander Wm (Banff Fenwick, Charles Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Black, Arthur W.(Bdfordshire Ferguson, R. C. Munro Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire,N.E.) Findlay, Alexander Lea, Hugh Cecil (St Pancran,E)
Boulton, A.C.F. (Ramsey) Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Brace, William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lehmann, R. C.
Bramsdon, T. A. Fuller, John Michael F. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Branch, James. Fullerton, Hugh Lever,W., H.(Cheshire, Wirral)
Brigg, John Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford,S, Levy, Maurice
Brodie, H. C. Gibb, James (Harrow) Lewis, John Herbert
Brooke, Stopford Gill, A. H. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bryce.Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Lough, Thomas
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Goddard, Daniel Ford Lupton, Arnold
Buchanan, Thoma Ryburn Gooch, George Peabody Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Grant, Corrie Lyell, Charles Henry
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward) Lynch, H. B.
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Griffith, Ellis J. Macdonald, J.R.(Leicester)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Grove, Archibald Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Buxton. Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles Gulland, John W. Mackarness, Frederic C.
Byles, William Pollard Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Maclean, Donald
Cairns, Thomas Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cameron, Robert Hall, Frederick M'Arthur, William
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Callum, John M.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil M'Crae, George
Causton, Rt.Hn. Richard Knight Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Kenna, Reginald
Cawley, Frederick Hart-Davies, T. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Chance, Frederick William Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Micking, Major G.
Channing, Francis Allston Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Maddison, Frederick
Cheetham, John Frederick Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mallet, Charles E.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Haworth, Arthur A. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Hazel, Dr. A. E. Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Cleland, J. W. Hedges, A. Paget Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)
Clough, W. Helme, Norval Watson Marnham, F. J.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Massie, J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henry, Charles S. Menzies, Walter
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras,W Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S. Micklem, Nathaniel
Cooper, G. J. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett.C. H (Sussex, EGrinst'd Higham, John Sharp Montagu, E. S.
Cory, Clifford John Hobart, Sir Robert Montgomery, H. H.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cowan, W. H. Hodge, John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Golden, E. Hopkinson Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Cremer, William Randal Hooper, A. G. Morrell, Philip
Crombie, John William Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Morse, L. L.
Crooks, William Horniman, Emslie John Murray, James
Crosfield, A. H. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Myer, Horatio
Crossley, William J. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Napier, T. B.
Dalziel, James Henry Hudson, Walter Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, Davd (Montgomery Co. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Nicholls, George
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hyde, Clarendon Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster
Norman, Henry Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland) Wallace, Robert
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Walsh, Stephen
Nuttall, Harry Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Walters, John Tudor
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Grady, J. Scott,A..H.(AshtonunderLyne) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Paul, Herbert Sears, J. E. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Paulton, James Mellor Seaverns, J. H. Ward, W. D. (Southampton)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Seddon, J. Wardle, George J.
Pearee, William (Limehouse) Shackleton, David James Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Perks, Robert William Shaw.Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Waterlow, D. S.
Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke Shipman, Dr. John G. Watt, H. Anderson
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Silcock, Thomas Ball Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pirie, Duncan V. Simon, John Allsebrook Weir, James Galloway
Pollard, Dr. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Whitbread, Howard
Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, Georgo (Norfolk)
Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Snowden, P. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E Soames, Arthur Wellesley White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Radford, G. H. Spicer, Albert Whitehead, Rowland
Rainy, A. Rolland Stanger, H. Y. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Raphael, Herbert H. Stanley.Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Steadman, W. C. Wiles, Thomas
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilkie, Alexander
Rees, J. D. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rendall, Athelstan Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Renton, Major Leslie Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wills, Arthur Walters
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mptn Stuart, James (Sunderland) Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Richardson, A. Sutherland, J. E. Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Rickett J. Compton Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Ridsdale, E. A. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Winfrey, R.
Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk.Mid.
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thomasson, Franklin Wood, T, M'Kinnon
Robinson, S. Thompson.J.W.H (Somerset,E. Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Thorne, William Yoxall, James Henry
Roe, Sir Thomas Tomkinson, James
Rogers, F. E. Newman Torrance, A. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.
Rose, Charles Day Toulmin, George
Rowlands, J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Runciman, Walter Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Russell, T. W. Vivian, Henry
NOES
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Bull, Sir William James Delany, William
Ambrose, Robert Burdett-Coutts, W. Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)
Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell Burke, E. Haviland- Dixon, Sir Daniel
Anstruther-Gray, Major Butcher, Samuel Henry Dolan, Charles Joseph
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carlile, E. Hildred Donelan, Captain A.
Arnold-Forster.Rt.Hn. HughO. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Ashley, W. W. Cave, George Du Cros, Harvey
Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHn. Sir H. Cavendish, Rt. HonVictorC.W. Duncan, Robert(Lanark Guvan)
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Baldwin, Alfred Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Faber, George Denison (York)
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J(City Lond.) Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Faber, Capt, W. V.(Hants, W.)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornscy) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm. Fardell, Sir T. George
Banner, John S. Harmood- Clancy, John Joseph Fell, Arthur
Baring, Hon. Guy(Winchester) Clarke, Sir Edw. (City London) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.) Coates.E. Feetham(Lewisham) Ffrench, Peter
Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHieks Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cogan, Denis J. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bignold, Sir Arthur Condon, Thomas Joseph Fletcher, J. S.
Blake, Edward Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Flynn, James Christopher
Boland, John Courthope, G. Loyd Forster, Henry William
Bowles, G. Stewart Craig,Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Boyle, Sir Edward Craig, Captain James (Down.E Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Craik, Sir Henry Ginnell, L.
Halpin, J. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Hambro, Charles Eric M'Killop, W. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Hamilton, Marquess of Magnus, Sir Philip Reddy, M.
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Marks, H. H. (Kent) Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Harwood, George Mason, James F. (Windsor) Redmond, William (Clare)
Hayden, John Patrick Meagher, Michael Remnant, James Farquharson
Hazleton, Richard Meehan, Patrick A. Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Healy, Timothy Michael Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Heaton, John Henniker Middlemore, John Throgmorton Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Helmsley, Viscount Mooney, J. J. Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter
Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds Morpeth, Viscount Salter, Arthur Clavell
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Muntz, Sir Philip A. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh. Murnaghan, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hogan, Michael Murphy, John Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)
Houston, Robert Paterson Nannetti, Joseph P. Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Hunt, Rowland Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Jordan, Jeremiah Nield, Herbert Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Joyce, Michael Nolan, Joseph Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid) Starkey, John R.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.ColW. O'Brien, William (Cork) Sullivan, Donal
Keswick, William O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Talbot,Rt.HnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Limbton, Hon. Frederick Wm. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.(Howard
Lane-Fox, G. R. O'Doherty, Philip Walker.Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) O'Dowd, John Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) O'Hare, Patrick White,Patrick (Meath, North)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Liddell, Henry O'Malley, William Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)
Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R. O'Mara, James Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wortley, Rt. Hon.C. B. Stuart-
Lonsdale, John Brownlee O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wyadham, Rt. Hon. George
Lowe, Sir Francis William Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend) Young, Samuel
Lundon, W. Parkes, Ebenezer Younger, George
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
M'Calmont, Colonel James Power, Patrick Joseph

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 367; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 99.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Burns, Rt. Hon, John.
Acland, Francis Dyke Beck, A. Cecil Burnyeat, J. D. W.
Adkins, W. Ryland Bellairs, Carlyon Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Benn, John Williams(Devonp't) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.
Agnew, George William Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Byles, William Pollard
Ainsworth, John Stirling Bennett, E. N. Cairns, Thomas
Alden, Percy Berridge, T. H. D. Cameron, Robert
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Bertram, Julius Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bethell, J.H (Essex, Romford) Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Causton.Rt.Hn.RichardKnignt
Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry Billson, Alfred Cawley, Frederick
Astbury, John Meir Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Chance, Frederick William
Atherley-Jones, L. Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Channing, Francis Allston
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh. Cheetham, John Frederick
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E. Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Brace, William Cleland, J. W.
Barker, John Bramsdon, T. A Clough, W.
Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset) Branch, James Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brigg, John Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barnard, E. B. Brodie, H. C. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barnes, G. N. Brooke, Stopford Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Bryce,Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen Cooper, G. J.
Beale, W. P. Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs) Corbett.C. H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd
Beauchamp, E. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbour'e) Buckmaster, Stanley O. Cory, Clifford John
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cowan, W. H. Hodge, John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Holden, E. Hopkinson Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Cremer, William Randal Hooper, A. G. Morrell, Philip
Crombie, John William Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N. Morse, L. L.
Crooks, William Horniman, Emslie John Murray, James
Crosfield, A. H. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Myer, Horatio
Crossley, William J. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Napier, T. B.
Dalziel, James Henry Hudson, Walter Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, David(Montgomery Co. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hyde, Clarendon Nicholls, George
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S. Illingworth, Percy H. Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Norman, Henry
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh Jackson, R. S. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickinson, W. H.(St.Pancras,N. Jacoby, James Alfred Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jardine, Sir J. Nuttall, Harry
Dobson, Thomas W. Jenkins, J. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dodd, W. H. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Paul, Herbert
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Paulton, James Mellor
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jowett, F. W. Perks, Robert William
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Kearley, Hudson E. Philipps, J.Wynford (Pembroke
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Kekewich, Sir George Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Elibank, Master of Kincaid-Smith, Captain Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pirie, Duncan V.
Erskine, David C. Kitson, Sir James Pollard, Dr.
Essex, R. W. Laidlaw, Robert Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Evans, Samuel T. Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lamb, Ernest B. (Rochester) Priestley, W.E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Everett, R. Lacey Lambert, George Radford, G. H.
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Rainy, A. Rolland
Fenwick, Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Raphael, Herbert H.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Findlay, Alexander Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lehmann, R. C. Rees, J.D.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Rendall, Athelstan
Fuller, John Michael F. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Renton, Major Leslie
Fullerton, Hugh Levy, Maurice Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th
Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S Lewis, John Herbert Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Gibb, James (Harrow) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Richardson, A.
Gill, A. H. Lough, Thomas Rickett, J. Compton
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Lupton, Arnold Ridsdale, E. A.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Gooch, George Peabody Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Grant, Corrie Lynch, H. B. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Greenwood, O. (Peterborough) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Grey, R. Hon. Sir Edward Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Bradf'rd
Griffith, Ellis J. Mackarness, Frederic C. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Grove Archibald Maclean, Donald Robinson, S.
Gulland, John W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M Arthur, William Roe, Sir Thomas
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Hall, Frederick M'Callum, John M. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Crae, George Rose, Charles Day
Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil) M'Kenna, Reginald Rowlands, J.
Hardy George A. (Suffolk) M Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Runciman, Walter
Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale) M'Micking, Major G. Russell, T. W.
Harwood, George Maddison, Frederick Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Mallet, Charles E. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mansfield, Harry (Northants) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Haworth Arthur A Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hazel, D. A. E. Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston Schwann. Chas.E. (Manchester)
Hedges, A. Paget Marnham, F. J. Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Helme, Norval Watson Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Sears, J. E.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Massie, J. Seaverns, J. H.
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.) Menzies, Walter Shackleton, David James
Henry, Charles S. Micklem, Nathaniel Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford.)
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. Molteno, Percy Alport Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wyeonibe) Money, L. G. Chiozza Shipman, Dr. John G.
Higham, John Sharp Montagu, E. S. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hobart, Sir Robert Montgomery, H. H. Simon, John Allsebrook
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Thorne, William Whitehead, Rowland
Smeaton, DonaldM ackenzie Tomkinson, James Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Snowden, P. Torrance, A. M. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Toulmin, George Wiles, Thomas
Spicer, Albert Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilkie, Alexander
Stanger, H. Y. Verney, F. W. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh. Villiers, Ernest Amherst Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Steadman, W. C. Vivian, Henry Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Wills, Arthur Walters
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wallace, Robert Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W
Strachey, Sir Edward Walsh, Stephen Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Walters, John Tudor Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Summerbell, T. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sutherland, J. E. Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt' Winfrey, R.
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wardle, George J. Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Taylor, Theodore. C. (Radcliffe) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney Woodhouse.Sir JT.(Huddersf'd
Tenant, E. P. (Salisbury) Waterlow, D. S. Yoxall, James Henry
Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Watt, H. Anderson
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Weir, James Galloway TELLERS FOR TUB AYES—
Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Whitbread, Howard Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr White, George (Norfolk)
Thomasson, Franklin White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Dixon, Sir Daniel Kilbride, Denis
Ambrose, Robert Dolan, Charles Joseph King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Donelan, Captain A. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lamont, Norman
Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. HughO. Du Cros, Harvey Lane-Fox, G. R.
Ashley, W W. Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham
Balcarres, Lord Faber, George Denison (York) Leegge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Baldwin, Alfred Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Liddell, Henry
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond. Fardell, Sir T. George Lockwood,Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Fell, Arthur Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesh'm
Banner, John S, Harmood- Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Ffrench, Peter Lowe, Sir Francis William
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lundon, W.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Flavin, Michael Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fletcher, J. S. MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Flynn, James Christopher MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)
Blake, Edward Forster, Henry William M'Calmont, Colonel James
Boland, John Gardner. Ernest (Berks. East) M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Boyle, Sir Edward Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West) M'Killop, W.
Bridgeman, W, Clive Ginnell, L. Magnus, Sir Philip
Bull, Sir William James Halpin, J. Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hambro, Charles Eric Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hamilton, Marquess of Meagher, Michael
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Meehan, Patrick A.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hayden, John Patrick Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Give, George Hazleton, Richard Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton
Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor G.W. Healy, Timothy Michael Mooney, J. J.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Helton, John Henniker Morpeth, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.) Helmsley, Viscount Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'd' Murnaghan, George
Clancy, John Joseph Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Murphy, John
Clarke,Sir Edward(CityLondon Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Hogan, Michael Nicholson, Wm. G. (Potersfield)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hornby, Sir William Henry Nield, Herbert
Cogan, Denis J. Houston, Robert Paterson Nolan, Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hunt, Rowland O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jordan, Jeremiah O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Courthope, G. Loyd Joyce, Michael O'Brien, William (Cork)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH. O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Craik, Sir Henry Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Delany, William Kenyon-Slaney.Rt. Hn.Col. W. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y Keswick, William O'Doherty, Philip
O'Dowd, John Remnant, James Farquharson Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
O'Hare, Patrick Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N Roche, Augustine (Cork) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
O'Malley, William Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Walrond, Hon. Lionel
O'Mara, James Salter, Arthur Clavell White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wilson,A. Stanley (York,E.R.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Smith, Abel H. Hertford, East) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Parkes, Ebenezer Smith, F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Young, Samuel
Power, Patrick Joseph Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Younger, George
Rasch, Sir Frederic Came Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)
Ratcliff, Major R. F. Starkey, John R. TELLERS FOB THE NOES—
Reddy, M. Stone, Sir Benjamin Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Sullivan, Donal
Redmond, William (Clare) Talbot.Rt.Hn. J.G.(OxfdUniv

Mr. BIEEELL claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Main Question put accordingly, ''That the words 'And unless provision is made that religious instruction shall not be

given therein during school hours, nor at the public expense 'be there added."

The Committee divided: —Ayes, 63; Noes, 477. (Division List No. 100.)

AYES.
Atherley-Jones, L. Illingworth, Percy H. Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Barnard, E. B. Jenkins, J. Shackleton, David James
Barnes, G. N. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Snowden, P.
Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbourne Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E. Jowett, F. W. Summerbell, T.
Brace, William Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Lamont, Norman Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E)
Byles, William Pollard Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E Thorne, William
Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras,W Lehmann, R. C. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Cooper, G. J. Levy, Maurice Wardle, George J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Cremer, William Randal Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Wilkie, Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness M'Callum, John M. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fenwick, Charles Masterman, C. F. G. Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Pirie, Duncan V. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central
Hart-Davies, T. Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Mr. Maddison and Mr. Arthur Henderson.
Hodge, John Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Hudson, Walter Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Asquith,Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry Beauchamp, E.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Astbury, John Meir Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)
Acland, Francis Dyke Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH Beck, A. Cecil
Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Adkins, W. Ryland Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Bellairs, Carlyon
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Balcarres, Lord Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R:
Agnew, George William Balfour.Rt.Hn.A J (City Lond) Benn, John Williams(Devonprt
Ainsworth, John Stirling Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Benn,W.('T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.
Alden, Percy Banner, John S. Harmood Bennett, E. N.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Baring, Godfrey (Ise of Wight) Berridge, T. H. D
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Bertram, Julius
Ambrose, Robert Barker, John Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bignold, Sir Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Barran, Rowland Hirst Billson, Alfred
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Ashley, W. W. Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks Black, Alexander Wrm. (Banff)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Beale,W. P. Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)
Blake, Edward Dodd, W. H. Helme, Norval Watson
Boland, John Dolan Charles Joseph Helmsley, Viscount
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Donelan, Captain A. Henderson,J.M. (Aberd'n, W.)
Bowles, G. Stewart Doughty, Sir George Henry, Charles S.
Boyle, Sir Edward Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Bramsdon, T. A. Du Cros, Harvey Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury,SEdm'ds
Branch, James Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Higham, John Sharp
Bridgeman, W. Clive Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Gvn. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Brigg, John Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)
Brodie, H. C. Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Hobart, Sir Robert
Brooke, Stopford Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hogan, Michael
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Holden, E. Hopkinson
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Elibank, Master of Hooper, A. G.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset)
Bull, Sir William James Erskine, David C. Hornby, Sir William Henry
Burdett-Coutts, W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Horniman, Emslie John
Burke, E. Haviland Essex, R. W. Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Evans, Samuel T. Houston, Robert Paterson
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Eve, Harry Trelawney Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Butcher, Samuel Henry Everett, R. Lacey Hunt, Rowland
Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Chas Faber George Denison, (York) Hyde, Clarendon
Cairns, Thomas Faber, G. H. (Boston) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Cameron, Robert Fardell, Sir T. George Jackson, R. S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H Fell, Arthur Jacoby, James Alfred
Carlile, E. Hildred Ferguson, R. C. Munro Jardine, Sir J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea
Causton, Rt.Hn. Richard Knigh Ffrench, Peter Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Cave, George Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W Findlay, Alexander Joyce, Michael
Cawley, Frederick Flavin, Michael Joseph Kearley, Hudson E.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fletcher, J. S. Kekewich, Sir George
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Flynn, James Christopher Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Forster, Henry William Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter- Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W
Chance, Frederick William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Keswick, William
Channing, Francis Allston Fuller, John Michael F. Killbride, Denis
Cheetham, John Frederick Fullerton, Hugh Kincaid, Smith, Captain
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Clancy, John Joseph Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Bibb, James (Harrow) Kitson, Sir James
Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Laidlaw, Robert
Cleland, J. W. Ginnell, L. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Clough, W. Gladstone,Rt Hn Herbert John Lambert, George
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham Gooch, George Peabody Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm
Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Grant, Corrie Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cogan, Denis J. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Farem
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Griffith, Ellis J. Leese,SirJoseph F (Accrington
Condon, Thomas Joseph Grove, Archibald Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Corbett,CH (Sussex,E. Grinst'd Gulland, John W. Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Haddock, George R. Lewis, John Herbert
Cory, Clifford John Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Liddell, Henry
Courthope, G. Loyd Hall, Frederick Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Cowan, W. H. Halpin, J. Lockwood,Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hambro, Charles Eric Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Hamilton, Marquess of Lough, Thomas
Craik, Sir Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Lowe, Sir Francis William
Crombie, John William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Lundon, W.
Crooks, William Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'd Lupton, Arnold
Crosfield, A. H. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) Lyell, Charles Henry
Crossley, William J. Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Lynch, H. B.
Davies, D. (Montgomery Co.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Davies, Timothy(Fulham) Harwood, George Mackarness, Frederic C.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Maclean, Donald
Delany, William Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Haworth, Arthur A. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hayden, John Patrick MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S;
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Hazel, Dr. A. E. MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Dickinson, W.H. (S. Pancras,N Hazleton, Richard M'Arthur, William
Dixon, Sir Daniel Healy, Timothy Michael M'Calmont, Colonel James
Dobson, Thomas W. Sedges, A. Paget M'Crae, George
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)
M'Kenna, Regniald Pickersgill, Edward Hare Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
M'Killop, W. Pollard, Dr. Stuart, James (Sunderland)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sullivan, Donal
M'Micking, Major G. Power, Patrick Joseph Sutherland, J. E.
Magnus, Sir Philip Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.) Talbot, Rt. HnJG(Oxf'dUniv.
Mallet, Charles E. Priestley, W. E.B.(Bradford, E. Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Radford, G. H. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston) Rainy, A. Rolland Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Marks, H. H. (Kint) Raphael, Herbert H. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Marnham, F. J. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Ratcliff, Major R. F. Thomasson, Franklin
Massie, J. Rawlinson, John Frederick P. Thompson, JWH (Somerset, E
Meagher, Michael Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Meehan, Patrick A. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Thornton, Percy M.
Menzies, Walter Reddy, M. Tillett, Louis John
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Tomkinson, James
Micklem, Nathaniel Redmond, William (Clare) Torrance, A. M.
Molteno, Percy Alport Rees, J. D. Toulmin, George
Money, L. G. Chiozza Remnant, James Farquharson Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Montagu, E. S. Rendall, Athelstan Valentia, Viscount
Montgomery, H. H. Renton, Major Leslie Verney, F. W.
Mooney, J. J. Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Richardson, A. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Morley, Rt. Hon. John Rickett, J. Compton Vivian Henry
Morpeth, Viscount Ridsdale, E. A. Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)
Morrell, Philip Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wallace, Robert
Morse, L. L. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) Walsh, Stephen
Murnaghan, George Robertson,Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) Walters, John Tudor
Murphy, John Robertson,SirGScott(Bradford Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Murray, James Robinson, S. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Myer, Horatio Robson, Sir William Snowdon Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton
Nannetti, Joseph P. Roche, Augustine (Cork) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Napier, T. B. Roe, Sir Thomas Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Rogers, F. E. Newman Waterlow, D. S.
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Rose, Charles Day Watt, H. Anderson
Nichols, George Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Weir, James Galloway
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) Rowlands, J. Whitbread, Howard
Nield, Herbert Runciman, Walter White, George (Norfolk)
Nolan, Joseph Russell, T. W. White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Norman, Henry Salter, Arthur Clavell White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Norton, Capt, Cecil William Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whitehead, Rowland
Nuttall, Harry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Whitley. J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien.Kendal (Tipperary, Md Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wiles, Thomas
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Schwann, Chas. E(Manchester) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Brien, William (Cork) Sears, J. E. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W. Seaverns, J. H. Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, A.Stanley (York, E.R.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson. Hn. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
O'Doherty, Philip Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wilson, John (Durham. Mid)
O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth) Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Dowd, John Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.)
O'Hare, Patrick Simon, John Allsebrook Winfrey, R.
O' Kelly,James(Roscommon, N. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wodehouse. Lord(Norfolk, Mid
O'Malley, William Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
O'Mara, James Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton) Woodhouse,Sir JT (Hnddersf'd
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Parkes, Ebenezer Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Paul, Herbert Soames, Arthur Wellesley Young, Samuel
Paulton, James Mellor Spicer, Albert Younger, George
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Stanger, H. Y. Yoxall, James Henry
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Pearson, Sir W.D (Colchester) Starkey, John R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease
Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n Steadman, W. C.
Percy, Earl Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Perks, Robert William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Philipps, J Wynford (Pembr'ke Strachey, Sir Edward

MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock) moved an Amendment to the effect that a school recognised as a public elementary school, should be carried on in premises owned by the local authority. He took it that it was only fair that the public should have the complete ownership of the public elementary schools. If the local authority had not complete ownership they would not have a free hand, for they would have to go to the owners cap in hand and ask for certain conditions. In many cases the conditions would be of a humiliating character, and even injurious to the conscience of the parents. If they did not own the schools they would have to make arrangements of a temporary nature, and the making of temporary arrangements was simply temporising with a great subject. They would put the local education authority in the position of paying guests; they would he there on condition that they behaved themselves. If they did not own they must hire the schools. What would be thought of a proposal to hire barracks for oar soldiers, or a temporary lodging for our King? Was the owning of the schools objected to on the ground that it would be confiscation? It was not proposed to confiscate property. It was proposed that the schools should be purchased where that could be done. A fair price would be offered, and if the local authority could not buy the present schools, they should build new schools. The only other objection he could imagine was that of cost. If the proposal were carried out, might it not be possible to purchase or build schools at a price not much greater than they would have to pay for the use of other people's property? The objection of cost was not a very great one, and ought not to be considered by this wealthy country. This country ought not to plead poverty on this question of education. From the seeds sown in our schools we were to-day reaping a rich harvest in the improvement of temperance, in the diminution of crime, and in the standard of morality and general prosperity. He hoped that ultimately the country would be able to say that its public schools were national or semi-national property.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 10, at end to add the words 'and carried on in premises owned by that authority.'"—(Mr. Luttrell.)

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

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.

said the alternative suggested by his hon. friend was a very attractive one. It would be an exceedingly nice thing that the State should own all the schools in which the great work of education was carried on. But when they considered that there were 14,000 schools and that the circumstances under which they existed varied, he thought everyone would be disposed to agree with him that the greater freedom left under the Bill as it stood was much more desirable than the alternative suggested by his hon. friend. There were many objections to the course suggested. First of all the objection in regard to cost was a serious one. His hon. friend swept that somewhat lightly aside. The hon. Member asked what would be thought if we were to hire barracks for our soldiers. His answer to that was—Why not? Sometimes the Government hired houses. There was another point which the hon. Member did not seem to have considered, namely, that many schools were handed over free, or almost free, to the local authority. It would be impossible to accept such gifts if they were to adopt such a stringent proposal as this. It was desirable to give the local authorities the greater freedom which they would have under the clause as it stood to make the best arrangements they could. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.

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

supported the Amendment. He thought it would in the long run be cheaper to build new schools than to take over old schools. He had had some experience of taking over voluntary schools, and as a rule large sums of money had to be spent in putting them into a satisfactory condition. It would not be difficult to show that building would be cheaper and much more efficient. There were many cases where the owners were willing to sell, and where, therefore, there would be no need to build. In other cases, say in the rural districts, not more than £10 per head need be spent in providing the school accommodation necessary. A school for a 100 children would only cost £1,000, and the annual charge to pay interest and also to pay off the loan in a period of sixty years would be about £35 or £40. Considering the condition of some of the present schools, it could easily be seen that rent and repairs would amount to more than the sum required to pay the interest and principal on a new building. He thought that the £1,000,000 to be placed in the hands of the Board of Education by this Bill would be amply sufficient to pay principal and interest on new schools in all our parishes. If that step were taken they would have the children properly housed.

MR. LUTTRELL

said that after the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he would not put the Committee to the trouble of going to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the Amendment standing in his name was intended to raise the question as to an assurance that some provision should be made for the religious instruction of children during school hours and, as far as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the parents. He thought that any one who had read the Bill must be struck with the meagreness of the provision made for all classes of religious teaching except that under Clause 4 and the particular kind of religion known as Cowper-Temple teaching. He wanted to be sure that a school should not be recognised unless, either by the by-laws of the local authority or in compliance with provisions of the Code, provision was made for religious instruction of some sort, or if possible of a variety of sorts. If the Amendment was carried the Board of Education would not approve of by-laws which did not make the provision required, or would insert requirements in the Code. He desired that one way or the other the meagre provisions made should be supplemented by something of the sort embodied in the Amendment. The provisions for religious teaching other than Cowper-Temple teaching depended entirely, apart from Clause 4, on the arrangements made by the local authority with the managers. The managers did not contract with the local authority on equal terms. It was only in certain schools, in the transferred voluntary schools, and at certain times and under certain very distinct conditions, that special religious teaching was admitted at all. He asked that in all cases this should be admissible, and, beyond that, that in all cases the wishes of the parents, so far as was possible and reasonable, should be considered. Further, he asked that this religious instruction should be assured in the hours of compulsory attendance, in order that that close connection or pracctial identity of religion with education which he thought the Government, as interpreted by the Parliamentary Secretary the other night, certainly by all on his side of the House, and, as he believed, by the great majority in the country, had at heart might be secured. If religion and education were to be brought together as part of one general scheme then the scope of religious teaching should be enlarged. They were told that that was practically impossible, but he doubted whether that was so. They had had from the hon. Member for East Mayo an account of the system in New South Wales, by which there was a general admission of all forms of religious instruction in the schools without any inconvenience. The President of the Board of Education had I given an extreme instance of a rural school in which there were a certain number of Church of England children, of Baptists, of Wesleyans, of Roman Catholics, and some whose parents did not want religious instruction at all, and had pointed out the difficulties that might arise if all these children wanted their religious teaching at the same time and in the same place. Of course, it was always possible to reduce these things to an absurdity. The difficulties were not so great as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. Some of the children might perfectly well get their religious instruction during school hours outside the school under new by-laws, if parents specially requested that their children should be allowed to be absent from school for religious instruction to be given elsewhere. From personal knowledge he knew of a country school in a single school area with an average attendance of 80 to 100, among whom were ten or twelve Roman Catholics. But these latter, during the religious teaching, went to their priest at the commencement of the school day and came to school in time for secular instruction. He believed that sort of arrangement would be made in many cases. These arrangements were matters of convenience. They had to meet the difficulty of different denominations wanting different sorts of religious teaching; but the right hon. Gentleman had given up in despair the attempt to accommodate himself to the various needs, and said they must all have one thing—Cowper-Temple teaching, or nothing at all. That was a counsel of despair. It was only in a limited number of single school areas that the difficulty arose in a serious form. In these cases the difficulty might be met; and if it was not met by the method he suggested of endeavouring to accommodate, as far as possible, the teaching to the requirements of the parents, it certainly would not be met by the scheme of the Government, which reduced everybody to one common level and offered only one sort of teaching, which was distasteful to many and even repugnant to some.

And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

But the said Private Business having been deferred till to-morrow, the proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill were resumed.

[Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]

SIR WILLIAM ANSON,

continuing Ms speech, submitted that the wishes of the parents in the matter of religious instruction should be consulted. The Act of 1902 made some effort to meet the wishes of the parent, and he thought that those efforts might be carried further, and that in all cases and in all schools the parents' wishes should be respected. He denied that the parents were indifferent. On the contrary, they cared a great deal about it, and desired in nearly all cases that religious instruction should be provided of one sort or another, whether undenominational or denominational, and, if the latter, then they desired that it should be of a particular character. Now in the Bill there was no security, for the Government were not prepared to insist that the local authority should furnish any security that any religious teaching should be given. They had neither security nor freedom, for the Government denied them the power of introducing the sort of religious teaching which the parent might want. Therefore it was he proposed the present Amendment, which would give to the parent throughout the country not only security that some religious instruction should be given, but the freedom of asking and obtaining the sort of religious teaching which they believed was essential to their children's welfare in this world and the next.

Amendment proposed—

In page 1, line 10, at the end, to add the words 'and unless provision is made by by law or otherwise for the religious instruction during school hours of the children attending the school in accordance, so far as possible, with the wishes of their parents, whether such instruction be or be not permitted under Section 14 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'" —(Sir William Anson.)

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

MR. LOUGH

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in moving his Amendment, alluded to some remarks which his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education had let fall at an earlier period in the afternoon. That showed the difficulty of saying anything new upon this subject, as they had gone over the same ground half a dozen times. In the very next sentence the hon. Gentleman alluded to a reply which his right hon. friend had already given on the subject of the present Amendment. The idea of consulting the parents was very attractive, but it was also very difficult to give effect to. There were no means of taking the opinion of the parents in a regular and organised way, and it was no part of our present electoral system. So far from being meagre, he contended that the Bill was full of provision for religious instruction. In the first place, it provided for the system known as Cowper-Temple instruction. That system was going on in 9,000 of the largest schools in the country, and was being taught to 3,000,000 of children, or more than half of the children attending the elementary schools of the country. The system was giving the greatest satisfaction. No complaint was ever made in regard to it. The more the syllabuses were discussed the more they could understand the great satisfaction with, which the system was viewed in all parts of the country. What would the Amendment do? It would open up the religious difficulty in all the 9,000 schools in which no religious difficulty existed at present. Why not let well alone? Why disturb the condition of things in those 9,000 schools in which a majority of the children were being taught? He thought that to do so would rather increase their difficulty. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a compulsory by-law for which he himself was partly responsible, which allowed children to be withdrawn from the schools, whose parents desired to give them special religious instruction. He did not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he thought that he quoted it as an example of the system which he desired to set up by his Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he did not do that, but he alluded to the by-law as one way out of the difficulty suggested by the President of the Board of Education, when he took the case of a school, in which there were children belonging to four or five denominations, each one of whom might want to be instructed in religion in the same room at the same time. He said that the by-law had given to them the means by which they might get their instruction elsewhere.

MR. LOUGH

said it seemed to him rather striking that that illustration should be drawn. In the case put before the Committee it was suggested that in a school there might be twelve or fourteen Roman Catholic children and those children could get at another place the religious instruction they desired to have. That regulation already existed. The more they considered the difficulty of carrying out proposals of this kind the more they were satisfied that they would be utterly impracticable and would cause a great breach in the educational system at present proposed. What were the facilities given under the Bill? He had already alluded to the 9,000 schools which contained more than half the children in which that religious instruction was given to compete satisfaction. Then there were the facilities given under Clause 3, by which religious instruction of a special character could be given on two days a week in the transferred schools, and then there were the facilities given under Clause 4 to minorities which desired them. He thought any hon. Gentleman with an independent mind upon this matter would see from those provisions that the Government had approached this difficult question in a spirit of the greatest conciliation, and that an attempt had been made to arrive at a uniform system which would meet the requirements of different localities.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said it was admitted by many that the syllabuses mentioned by the hon. Gentleman could be used, and so far as they were known, many of them were, for the most part, admired. What he desired to know was how far they were carried out and how far, for example, the syllabuses adopted by the authority were not practically abolished by the same authority after the next election and so allowed to fall into desuetude and to become no longer a living factor in the religious instruction in the schools. Another question he desired to put was this. A Return had been prepared in another place at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. When the Return proposed by him was first moved for, there was a question in which the authority was asked how far the syllabuses were carried out. That portion of the Return applied for by the right rev. Prelate was not conceded, and that which he (Sir F. Powell) and many of his friends believed to be the most important part of the case remained in its original and primeval obscurity. It would be a matter of considerable satisfaction to the Committee to learn that these syllabuses were carried out. He thought an Amendment on the lines now suggested was really desirable in order to secure religious instruction during school hours. The best that could be said of the Bill at present was that it did not altogether forbid religious instruction, and he greatly desired that it should be supported by more emphatic sanction. His right hon. friend the late Secretary to the Board of Education had introduced a new by-law. He had done so with some hesitation and with some misgiving, and had said that that by-law would be most carefully watched in its operation, and he had rather indicated that if it did not work as he intended it should, in favour of religious education in accordance with liberty, he was determined that it should be withdrawn. The object of his hon. friend was to secure that during school hours there should be some religious instruction, and that was the purport of his present Amendment. With that view he most heartily agreed. He was sure that the argument of his hon. friend was one of very great force and he hoped it would sooner or later have the approbation of Parliament. The Amendment introduced the parents. If it were wise for the Government to introduce the parents in Clause 4 it could not be an error to introduce them in this clause. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that they should not look too much to foreign countries. That was a very wise observation. But still they sometimes learnt from what was going on abroad. At the present time a most important statute was passing through the Parliament of Prussia upon this very subject, and if the report in The Times was at all correct it would be found that even in that somewhat autocratic country some attention was sometimes paid to parents. This Amendment enshrined some most important principles, which he hoped in some form or other would be adopted in our legislation.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said the Amendment embodied his own remedy. He fought in 1897 a London school board election on a similar question. He believed this was the most practical remedy that could be proposed for the religious difficulty. It was put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Oxford University as a constructive policy. It was met very airily by the Secretary to the Board of Education, who brushed it aside as perfectly impracticable and quite out of the question. The hon. Gentleman in his speech certainly did not bring any real argument to shew why it was impracticable and impossible. Its merits, among others, were that it embraced all schools, treated everybody equally fairly, and gave freedom of religious teaching to all denominations. He was unable to see why they should not in the first place ask the parents whether they desired both undenominational and denominational teaching for their children; in the second, whether they preferred denominational teaching only; in the third, whether they preferred undenominational teaching only; and in the fourth whether they would rather have no religious teaching at all. It enabled parents to have all those alternatives. What would actually occur in practice would probably be that there would be special teaching for Roman Catholic children, special teaching for a good many Anglican children, probably undenominational teaching for a number of other children all classed together, because the Nonconformists would all accept the Cowper-Temple Clause, and in the last place there would be a certain number of children withdrawn altogether because their parents preferred them to have secular instruction instead. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had ever studied the industrial schools of the country. If he had not and if he would look at the Act of 1866, he would see that the system now advocated was practically the same as that at present in use in the industrial schools. He had never heard that there was any difficulty in carrying it out there. It had worked very well for the last forty years, and he could not see why it should not continue to work satisfactorily. He would like to examine, too, more fully, what went on in our military and naval schools. He was given to understand that there also in the case of Roman Catholic children the priests came in specially to give religious teaching and the system worked without difficulty. If they turned away from home, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had just pointed out, in Prussia the same system also obtained under the Prussian law— Special provision for religious instruction must be made if there is a minority of at least twelve pupils. The expense falls primarily on the commune, but in cases of necessity State aid is given. He had never heard, and he had tried to make inquiry, that the system worked badly in Prussia. Again he found in the law of Belgium— The religious instruction given is that of the denomination to which the majority of the pupils belong. If the number of the minority reaches twenty in schools with one master, or forty in schools with two or more masters, religious instruction will be given at the school; if the numbers fall below these limits, the religious instruction cannot be given at the school, but the children must have every opportunity of receiving instruction in a place chosen by their minister. He failed, therefore, to understand why the Government should airily brush aside this suggestion, found so practicable abroad, as absolutely impracticable here. New South Wales had been mentioned. The New South Wales Act was more specific than the cases to which he referred. Section 7 of the New South Wales Public Instruction Act, 1880, said— In all schools under this Act the teaching shall be strictly nonsectarian, but the words 'secular instruction' shall be held to include general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatical or polemical theology. Section 17 stated— In every public school four hours during each school day shall be devoted to secular instruction exclusively, which by Section 7 includes general religious teaching— And a portion of each day, not more than one hour, shall be set apart when the children of any one religious persuasion may be instructed by the clergyman or other religious teacher of each persuasion, but in all cases the pupils receiving such religious instruction shall be separated from the other pupils of the schools. There, again, was a remedy in actual practice. It was perfectly clear that in New South Wales the children could have secular instruction, which included general religious teaching, and those parents who desired something more special for their children were able to have at the hands of the minister or other teacher of their particular persuasion the special religious teaching which they wished. If the Government were to accept his hon. friend's Amendment they would not be making a new experiment at all, because it had been tried in England in industrial schools and to some extent in the Army and Navy schools, and on the Continent and in our Colonies. He wished the Government would not set themselves so deliberately against this proposal. They had before their eyes cases where it had succeeded, and if they would only give it a trial they would at any rate be able to see if it could not succeed in the present instance. For the moment he would not plead for more than that. If it were a miserable failure, a different law could be enacted. But he believed the chances were that if those who were chiefly concerned with the management and discipline of the schools set themselves to establish a system of this character, in nearly every locality it would work. It would be found that in some localities the Anglicans would require special religious teaching, but some would not, and the Roman Catholics would require special religious teaching; whereas very likely the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, and the Baptists would all agree upon the Cowper-Temple teaching, but if these denominations desired more specific teaching they would all agree upon the same teacher or minister to give it. He did not speak merely from hypothesis. This arrangement really went on in Western Australia. There these four different denominations agreed upon the same delegate to enter the school and teach the special teaching that was required, and the system worked perfectly well in that Colony. He thought all these definite instances were sufficient to show that there was a good case for the constructive remedy which the Opposition were now putting forward, and he entreated the Government to consider his hon. friend's Amendment most carefully and without summarily prejudging the issue.

MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

said he was struck with two arguments put put forward by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Board of Education. The first was as to the impracticability of ascertaining the wishes of the parents in regard to the religious instruction of their children. He thought the hon. Gentleman did the Government a wrong in attributing to them such sterile mindedness and such impotence. He thought he could suggest to the hon. Gentleman a way of ascertaining the wishes of the parents right away. The way was simple: it was to ask them. He thought that in the course of three days he could himself ascertain the wishes of every parent in any school in the country by sending a circular round. The other point he was struck with in the hon. Gentleman's speech was when he spoke of the great satisfaction with which the Cowper-Temple clause and its working was regarded throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman would have been more correct if he had said that from half, or somewhat less than half, the country, some very noisy complaints had arisen, and he might have added that from the other half, or somewhat more than half, no complaints whatever had arisen, or, at any rate, they had not come to his ears. He was very glad that this Amendment had been introduced thus early in the first clause. If it could be accepted it would very much alter his attitude to the Bill. It would altogether mitigate his opposition to it. It would do so because it saved religious education. He thought the fact that the Government had introduced Clause 6 showed that their heart was with the secularists. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper which he liked better than that of his hon. friend, but he supported his hon. friend's Amendment with all his heart. It was very admirable so far as it went. There was in it a plea for freedom for parents, for teachers, and for denominations. It was very much needed to remove a great blot, a great injustice, a great scandal from the pages of the Bill. It would also help to clear the consciences of many Dissenters who—as he knew from conversations with them—were very much perplexed and deeply troubled. There must be religious teaching, and they had got to unite religious teaching or reconcile universal religious teaching with universal religious equality and religious freedom. That, he took it, was the problem. They could not get this along the lines of the Bill. They could not get it by giving a paramount position to any one religion. They could not get it by securing to the Roman Catholics or the Jews all their schools, and by abolishing 80 per cent, of the Church of England schools. They could only get it by treating all alike. The Amendment recognised the denominational structure of English society. It recognised the religious divisions of the community. It recognised, as a Roman Catholic might say, that they were living a in condition of conscientious schism. It founded itself on the right of the parent which this Bill, except in Clause 4, almost completely ignored. He was sorry to hear hints that poor parents did not care much for religious teaching or about its kind or quality. His own experience, which was a practical one extending over thirty years, was that they cared every bit as much about it as the rich and the well-informed. One reason why he liked this Amendment so much was that by respecting the wishes of the parents it would inevitably tend to aggregate the children of the same persuasion in the same school, so that in it there should be one faith, one atmosphere, one teacher, and that was the ideal school. He earnestly desired an end to these religious squabbles, and there would be an approach to that end if in educational matters the religious opinions of parents were consulted. It was on this ground that he asked for support of the Amendment.

MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education stated that Cowper-Temple instruction was now practically universally given, and was giving universal satisfaction. He wished to point out that under seventy-one school boards in three counties he found there were six in which Bible teaching was given, in thirteen the Bible was read with a few comments, in thirty the Bible was read without any note or comment, and in twenty-two the Bible was not even read at all Under none of those seventy school boards was a single test of religious knowledge instituted.

MR. BIRRELL

What are the names of the counties?

MR. CARLILE

Anglesey, Carnarvonshire, and Merionethshire.

DR. MACNAMARA

What is the date?

MR. CARLILE

replied that the date was 1895. In those three counties there were 126 schools, and ten of them had Bible teaching, twenty-six Bible reading with a few comments, sixty gave Bible reading without any note or comment, and in thirty schools no Bible was admitted. And so it would be seen that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, when he stated that Cowper-Temple instruction was universally taught, failed to convey the actual facts of the case. He supported the Amendment because it embodied those four principles which they had constantly advocated, and should continue to struggle for until they had secured them in perpetuity for their children. Under a number of school boards no religious instruction was given, and they were thus placing in the minds of the children a power and a weapon which it was very wrong to place within their control without giving them the power of guiding and using that power, which alone could prevent them becoming a source of danger to themselves and the community in which they lived. They claimed that religious instruction should be given, and that any education worthy of the name must appeal to the three-fold nature of the child. There was the physical, the mental, and the spiritual nature of the child, and any education which failed to appeal alike to all those spheres was deficient. Any education which did not appeal to the highest principles in the child lacked the qualification that education ought to have. He utterly failed to see how, by the moral instruction to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had referred, he was going to bring about the state of things which he had described.

A certain book of "Moral Maxims" was one of the books used as a substitute for religious instruction out of the Bible in one of our large boroughs. The hon. Member for North Camber well knew the book, because he had been an assistant master under a board where this book was used, and where it was still used. No religious instruction was given in that borough. When this book of moral maxims was handed to the teacher, three lines of a note which the author had inserted on the first page were ruled out. The lines crossed out were— In using this manual, teachers are recommended as far as possible to enforce and illustrate the lessons by suitable references to Holy Scripture. When that volume of moral maxims was handed to the teacher, the one instruction of any value was lined through in ink, and the teachers were not allowed to illustrate in any sense any of the moral maxims in the book by a reference to Holy Scripture, and there were 8,000 children in the schools in that borough. The book opened with a chapter upon honesty, and contained the statement that "Honesty was the best policy." So it is, but the man who acts only on that principle is a rogue. That was the kind of teaching which was used in some council schools as a substitute for Divine truth. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what power there was behind those so-called moral maxims to enable the child to carry them out? Behind the Holy Scripture there was the power of the Holy Spirit of God to enable the child to carry out in its daily life the principles taught it in the school, but what power of this kind was there behind these moral maxims? This Amendment also laid down that the religious instruction should be given during school hours, and they considered that was an essential thing in the 14,000 voluntary schools in this country. They did not like religious instruction divorced from secular instruction. They desired the children not only to receive religious instruction but to be religiously instructed right through school hours; they wanted them to associate this teaching with the same mistress or master who imparted. both their religious and secular instruction. They wanted a religious atmosphere surrounding the children, and he did not see how that was possible if religious instruction was to be divorced from secular instruction. To do that would be placing religion in an inferior position in the child's mind. The President of the Board of Trade had told them— He wanted the councils to take the school time-table into their own hands. Do not let the managers draft it, but let the council themselves so draft it as to permit a short interval to elapse before the school proceeded to the religious instruction. Let all the children go out for a few minutes. Then let those who prefer Catechism to play return for the religious instruction, while their fellows would be free to continue their play. He contended that the children should be given perfect freedom, subject to their parents' consent, to choose which they preferred, learning the Apostles' Creed and the parsons' Catechism or their own play. He had no doubt that the children would have such regard for apostolic succession as would draw them back to the school while the wicked went their way bird-nesting. That gave them a good idea of what the President of the Board of Trade had in his mind in regard to this question, and it also gave them a good idea of what it was hoped might be brought about by some members of His Majesty's present advisers. So far as he was concerned he would not trust a man like that with the religious instruction of children. He would not trust him with the moral instruction of children or even with the moral training of a litter of puppies, for they would bite and snarl, and steal. For those reasons he disapproved of religious instruction being divorced from secular instruction. Churchmen asked for definite religious instruction, and Nonconformists seemed to be incapable of understanding them on that subject. He was sure, however, they were genuinely willing to try to understand them. No syllabus could, in their view, take the place of definite Church teaching in the schools. They felt that no Nonconformist teaching should take the place of it. The Nonconformists seemed to recognise the fact that they themselves were entitled to have strong conscientious feeling against the teaching which Churchmen desired, but they failed to recognise the fact that Churchmen had equally strong conscientious objection to having their children insufficiently taught the Divine truths which appertained to their eternal welfare. They believed the welfare of the children was bound up in the kind of teaching they got in these schools and the atmosphere in which that teaching was given.

*DR. MACNAMARA

said he concurred entirely in the statement of the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division, that the Ministerialists had the greatest difficulty in meeting him because they did not understand his mind. He had listened to the hon. Gentleman's views with extreme interest, but with an entire lack of understanding, What was he to understand by the hon. Member's statement that he would not trust the President of the Board of Trade with the moral training of a litter of puppies? Was he to take that literally or not?

MR. CARLILE

rose and was understood to say that he regretted that he could not remain in the House to listen to the hon. Member as he had had no food.

*DR. MACNAMARA

said he thought it possible that they might manage, even in the absence of the hon. Gentleman who had just gone out, to discuss the important Amendment proposed by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. The Amendment said that no school should be recognised as a public elementary school unless provision is made by bye-law or other wise for the religious instruction during school hours of the children attending the school in accordance, so far as possible, with the wishes of their parents, whether such instruction be or be not permitted under Section 14 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870. The Amendment raised a very vital problem, and he wished to point out to the Committee at once that, if accepted, it would destroy Clause 6 of the Bill. The Amendment provided for the paying of public money for compelling children to go to school and to receive religious instruction, while Clause 6 provided that attendance during the time for religious instruction was not to be required. When the Committtee came to Clause 6 they would have to consider seriously the question whether they should or should not compel children to be in attendance at religious instruction. He had an open mind in regard to the policy laid down in Clause 6. There was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. It did seem a little illiberal to compel a parent to send his child to school at a time when religious instruction was being given of a kind which he did not wish the child to receive. The hon. Gentleman who had just gone out had talked of school boards not giving religious instruction at all. They were an infinitesimally small number and confined to one part of the country where peculiar local difficulties, and the intolerance of the church, had as much to do with the decision as anything else. This Bill carried them no further than the Cowper-temple system itself. The Cowper-Temple system left it to the school board to say that there should or should not be religious instruction given in the schools. When he heard of this being out of touch with the feelings of the people, he asked why did the electors in the infinitesimally small number of places where religious instruction was not given in the schools not insist on religious instruction being restored to the school curriculum? The hon. Member for St. Albans Division had referred to a book of morals which was used in the schools of Huddersfield. He himself was an assistant teacher in that borough; in 1882–1883, but the book of morals referred to was not in use there then, and he never had anything to do with it.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

This book was published in 1884.

*DR. MACNAMARA

said the more serious part of the Amendment was that it provided that, in all the schools, not only should the children come under compulsion, but that, so far as possible, there should be religious teaching given in accordance with the wishes of the parents. That was State provision of denominational teaching all round. That was the proposal of Clause 27 of the Bill of 1896 and the phraseology of the Amendment was to the same effect as that of that clause. The proposal was considered impracticable in 1896, and he considered it absolutely impracticable now. It was pan-denominationalism, which he had ventured to call pandemonium. He recognised it was perfectly just, fair, and logical that, if they were to do anything at all, they should endeavour to make provision all round for all denominations. What would happen in such a case? The local authority would have to make provision in the appointment of its teachers for the exigencies of religious teaching, and the conduct of the schools in secular subjects would have to be subordinate to the necessities of the case in this respect. Such a proposal was absurd. In a school of 120 children instanced by the President of the Board of Education there would he a head teacher and two assistants. Seventy Church children would demand the services of two teachers, and there would be only one teacher to teach the remainder of the children, of whom thirty might be Methodists, ten Baptists, five Roman Catholics, and five not associated with any particular church. He was not prepared to incur the enormous expense of appointing a teacher specially to meet the needs of the five Roman Catholic children; and yet, under a system of pandenominationalism the needs of five Roman Catholic children would be just as important as the needs of seventy Church children. In the Bill of 1902 there was a similar provision for pan-denominationalism, but there was also a proviso that "due regard should be had to the economy of the rates." This was a grotesque and impracticable proposal, and he should vote against it.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman with some disappointment. The hon. Gentleman had talked about the practical difficulties of carrying on a school under certain conditions, but he had simply dismissed an Amendment containing an important principle by merely saying the proposal was absurd. He appealed to the Committee that they could not proceed for Clause 1 as it stood now until they had considered it in a very different spirit from the claims put forward by the hon. Gentleman. He did not think the hon. Member could have read the Amendment.

DR. MACNAMARA

I have, with great care.

Mr. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. Gentleman found fault with the Amendment because it provided that all the children should attend religious instruction.

DR. MACNAMARA

No; to attend school during religious instruction.

MR. WYNDHAM

Yes; but the hon. Gentleman said that the time to consider this matter was on Clause 6. But that clause was solely connected with the parent's right to cause his child to attend at the school house only during secular instruction. Taking the matter as it now stood, the hon. Member held that the children should attend for religious instruction if the parents so desired it specifically, but if otherwise they should not. He compared that with the speech of the right hon. the Minister for Education who proposed with great earnestness that religious instruction should be given everywhere; that it should embrace all the fundamental truths of Christianity. But could that be carried out if the matter was left where the hon. Member for North Camberwell left it? As the question was left by the hon. Member the children need not attend, and the teacher need not give instruction. That carried with it the result that such religious instruction as would be given under the Bill was to be given at the cost of the teacher. That was not a generous recognition of the desire of the Minister for Education that religious instruction should be given everywhere, and that it should embrace the fundamental truths of Christianity. But if the Committee were in earnest in desiring that religious education should be given to the children, they could not leave the matter as it now stood. If numbers in the lobby meant anything, the Committee desired that the children should get religious instruction in the schools. It should not be left to chance, it should not be given at the cost of the teacher, it should not be in the power of parents who wanted the help of their children in their home life to deprive them of religious instruction. This Amendment provided that during the hours in which the children were attending school, religious instruction should be given, and in so far as it was possible the religious instruction should be that which the parents desired. That was a claim upon which they would have to insist. Given that religious instruction was required, and that it was desirable also to violate no man's conscience, it was for the Government, and not the Opposition, to devise a plan that would fulfill those two conditions. They declared that the Bill in its present shape did nothing of the kind. The Government were ready to face the situation that arose where four-fifths of the parents of the children desired some kind of denominational teaching; in such a case they were to have it, and to have it taught by teachers who believed in it. But if the Government were ready to concede that, how could they adduce the argument as to the practical difficulty against this Amendment, which embodied a proposal of a far less drastic character? The argument the Government now advanced would militate agains their own proposals in Clause 4. By that clause the Government had recognised that there must be some, even a great, concession to the wishes of parents. But they also recognised that if that concession was made there were other minorities who might sometimes suffer. It was not a sufficient argument to say that the practical difficulty was not capable of solution. Why should not some regard be paid to the conscientious convictions of parents who lived in a locality where opinion was divided equally? The Minister for Education that afternoon, in referring to Clause 4, felt; this difficulty of leaving Clause 1 as it stood; but he said that to leave it apart from the other provisions of the Bill would lay the Government open to the charge of intolerance. Then why did they not have some regard for the deep convictions of the parents who did not live in a locality where there were four-fifths of the same denomination? The hardship was alt the same. If it was intolerant in one case it was intolerant in the other. There was no answer to that. The Minister for Education had said that he sought an English settlement. That phrase would not be forgotten. If there was to be an English settlement, was it extravagant for Churchmen to claim that the historic Church of England should have fair play with other denominations? In the main the Government were bargaining with that Church—if the word "bargain" could be used in this connection—which had done more for secular as well as religious education than other bodies, and which had built more schools. The fabrics were there, they represented sacrifices and sincerity of purpose. Ought not the State to see that that Church received fair play? If they did not, it would not be an English settlement, and such was the inherent love of justice in the country that their efforts would fail. Complaint was made by many supporters of the Government that under the Act of 1902 hardship and injustice still remained in the village schools in the single school areas. But that Act was supported as zealously by the hon. Member for North Camberwell as it was by any hon. Member who supported the Government of the day. Would that hon. Member deny that he had stated that the children in Church schools ought not to have worse paid teachers than other schools and worse equipment because they were in Church schools.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that what he had stated in regard to the Bill of 1902 was that it was a great reform to get rid of the idea of charity and to keep up the voluntary schools out of public funds, but he had said that such a measure should be accompanied by full popular control.

MR. WYNDHAM

observed that the hon. Member had stated that these schools should not be bad schools, that the children should have the same cubic feet of accommodation and that the teachers should be as well paid as in other schools. Did the hon. Member say that because these schools had to be made good schools therefore the right of the Churchman to have fair play from the State lapsed? Such, a contention was a complete non sequitur and admitting the hon. Member's idea to the full that every school should be a good school, and conducted in the way in which good schools were, to make them good schools would not affect the claim to justice put forward by any other persons in this country who came and said they were suffering hardship and injustice in the village schools in the single school areas. He was quite willing that injustice should be cured, but it should be cured without inflicting hardship upon others. There was no reason why greater hardship and injustice should be inflicted on a larger number of persons. Such a state of things was intolerable, but this was the settlement that the Government were putting forward in this measure. He believed that the Government would be driven eventually to make a fair compromise as between all denominations and to set up a denominational system that would do justice to the desires of all denominations. There was no escape from such a remedy. The objection of Churchmen to the Free Church Catechism was far less than their objection to the editing of the Bible. On what principles were Biblical passages to be selected? In the syllabuses mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury the other evening the Gospel of St. Matthew was quoted. Why not the Gospel of St. Luke? Why should a selection of the Scriptures be made at all, and if they had to be made, why should not the work be undertaken by the Church to which the parents of the children belonged? This after all was surely an affair of the parents and not of the county council. He quoted from a speech of the Education Minister made before, the general election in which the right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of making Cowper-Temple instruction a reality, and that wherever possible the parents should be given the right to have definite religious instruction of a special character if they so desired it. The passing of the first clause would entail the making of some general provision to meet the claims of justice, and then the provision must be made mandatory throughout the country. The Minister for Education had also written, among his other works, a book on trusts, and he hoped that every trustee would read it, for therein it was declared that a trustee as a man of honour could not surrender his school until the Government propounded some fair basis of general compromise throughout of the country.

LORD R. CECIL

said he desired to speak upon this Amendment because for the first time the question had arisen as to whether a solution of the religious difficulty was to be arrived at on the lines of the Bill or upon the lines that the parents should settle what religious instruction their children were to have. The lines of the Bill were what was called the Cowper-Temple Clause, and he had not yet heard from any part of the Committee any kind of defence of the Cowper-Temple Clause. The nearest approach to a defence to it was reached by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who said he defended it on the ground that it was wholly illogical.

DR. MACNAMARA

I said it could be defended on the ground that it had thirty-five years success behind it.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was coming to that in a moment. The hon. Member said it could not be defended on any logical ground. It was a most remarkable state of things when the Committee was asked to confirm a solution come to in 1870 because it was illogical. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had referred to the success of the last thirty-five years. What did the success consist of? Were we more religious to-day than we were thirty-five years ago? He wondered whether any hon. Member opposite had read Mr. Booth's hook on religious work in London. Did he sanction the view at all that the churches had a greater hold, or that religion had a greater hold on the population of the Metropolis to-day than it had thirty-five years ago? They had the evidence of the hon. Member for Leicester, who told them that the religious instruction given under the Cowper-Temple Clause was in his opinion from a spiritual point of view absolutely useless. When they had it quoted as a success for thirty-five years they were entitled to inquire what was the evidence of that success. So far as he was concerned he had not heard in the course of this debate any evidence whatever of it. It was one of those phrases which by continuous repetition had come to be regarded as proof. If they left that aspect alone, they were next told that any one who objected to undenominationalism was opposed to the simple teaching of the Bible. Several gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had had the courage to suggest that the Church of England was opposed to the simple teaching of the Bible. He regarded it as in the highest degree—the phrase was that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—in the highest degree arrogant for anybody to state that any Christian denomination did not value the teaching of the Bible. He was quite sure that none of the hon. Members representing Ireland would suggest that their Church undervalued the simple teachings of the Bible. Such an assertion could only be excused by the extreme ignorance of those who made it. If any Church valued the teachings of the Bible that Church was the Church of England. The teaching of the Bible was laid down in its formulae and in the Prayer Book, and it formed the basis of its faith. If it could not be proud of anything else, the English Church could pride itself on the fact that it was based and based only on the teachings of the Bible. What they said was that undenominationalism could not teach the Bible in its fulness. It was a great claim and was put forward at the time of the Reformation that the Bible was not taught in its fulness. If it was to be taught in its fulness it must be so, taught denominationally. Hon. Members opposite had really not considered it. He was reluctant to quote passages from the Bible in this Committee, but he would ask how was it possible to teach the Epistle to the Romans, the general Epistle of St. James, the first chapter of St. John, or the Epistle to the Ephesians except denominationally? They all teemed with passages, the discussion of which had divided Europe. How was it possible to teach those great principles and dogmas of Christianity undenominationally without ignoring the discussions altogether? That was one form of denominationalism.

MR. HAY MORGAN (Cornwall, Truro)

We do not want to teach those passages.

LORD R. CECIL

said he took up the hon. I Member's interruption. That was the exact solution of the Bill— instead of teaching the Bible in its fulness, it proposed to teach selections from the Bible—selections made not by the great historic Churches, with the assistance of the Church councils and the divines, but by the county councils. Not the most audacious Gentleman opposite would dare to construct a schedule to this Bill setting out the passages of the Bible that might be read, and those that might not be read. Yet that duty was to be entrusted to the county councils. The great objection he had to undenominationalism, even at its best, was its vagueness.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

Would the noble Lord tell the Committee to what denomination St. Paul belonged.

LORD R. CECIL

said that St. Paul, at any rate, was not in favour of making any selections from the Bible. He was in favour of teaching the Bible as a whole. [An HON. MEMBER: How do you know?] Because St. Paul said so.

THE CHAIRMAN

This question is hardly in order on this Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was only trying to demonstrate that the alternative to the religion which was selected by parents was the religion selected by the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

I meant the interjection about St. Paul.

LORD R. CECIL

said he desired to leave the plane to which he was led unwillingly by the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to return to the seriousness with which this discussion ought to be carried on. He was about to urge that the great objection he had to undenominationalism, even at its best, was its vagueness. Assuming that undenominationalism meant—and there was no guarantee whatever that it did—the teaching of what was called fundamental Christianity, there remained the great difficulty that even amongst those who were best instructed there were various conceptions of what fundamental Christianity really was. From the Treasury Bench and the one behind it had come three separate descriptions, each one of which was of a religion which would have been quite acceptable to a Mohammedan and was emphatically not Christianity. If the Minister for Education and his colleagues gave descriptions of fundamental Christianity which many Members of the Committee could not possibly accept, how could they expect that the fundamental Christianity arrived at by the county councils of the country without any guidance from Parliament or anybody else would be in any way adequate to the description it pretended to bear? If it were true, as he ventured to say it was, that undenominationalism, even at its best, was highly unsatisfactory, what were the alternatives? Supporters of the Government sometimes said, "If you reject this proposal your only alternative is the secular basis." He doubted whether they would hear so much about that after the division this evening; but so far as he was concerned he desired in all seriousness to press upon: those hon. Members who were members of Nonconformist bodies that the secular system would be a serious blow to Christianity, and most serious to the Nonconformist communities. It would mean that, while the rich, vigorous, well-organised bodies would have an opportunity of teaching their children their respective beliefs, the poorer, less numerous, and less organised bodies would be at a very serious disadvantage. The Church of England had probably less to fear than the smaller bodies from such a settlement. There was another, and the only possible alternative, and to his mind it was the only fair settlement—namely, to accept this Amendment' and bring up the children in the beliefs of the various denominations to which their parents belonged. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had suggested a number of practical difficulties. He himself had come across a variety of difficulties raised in every private Bill that came before a Committee upstairs. They were raised by Gentlemen who thoroughly understood the questions of which they spoke, but somehow or other Committees of this House did not always regard those difficulties, and when the Bill became law they somehow or other disappeared. The difficulties of administration, the difficulties suggested by the school of 120 children, five of whom were of one denomination, five of another, and so on, looked all very pretty on paper, but when the Bill became law there would be very little difficulty at all in arriving at a practical solution. He had no doubt himself that a solution based on the lines of this Amendment would work well. He was very little moved in dealing with a subject of this kind by the question whether there might be a certain, amount of confusion in the school, for the real question at issue was of far more importance in his view. He agreed that there was nothing so troublesome to the ordinary man as the person who had religious convictions. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He regarded it as being of the utmost importance that children should be brought up in the religion of their parents. It was the duty of this Committee and the Government to find a way out of this difficulty and secure that supreme result. The scheme put forward by the Government was illogical and indefensible, and failed altogether in its object, and this clause was one which the Committee ought not to accept.

MR. BIRRELL

said he had not listened to the noble Lord without finding it very difficult to make out exactly what he meant. He could not entirely make out whether the noble Lord desired to teach the Protestant children of this country some kind of religious teaching to which he attached enormous importance or whether he was really desirous that they should receive in the public elementary schools of the country the kind of religious teaching their parents wanted. He wished every religious body would be careful to publish syllabuses giving an exact notion of what should be taught, so that parents might know precisely what doctrines would be taught to their children. His own belief was that the syllabus to which reference had been made, now in use in most of the counties, honestly interpreted the wishes of the great majority of the parents. In addi- tion there was the third clause, which was intended to secure that the Church, Catechism, the Prayer-Book, and what were called Church principles, so far as they were generally understood, should be taught twice a week in all the old Church schools. He accordingly believed that very little difference would be made by this Bill in the kind of religious teaching that was given. The noble Lord had asked whether we were distinctly a more religious people now than we were thirty-six years ago. That was a question no one could answer. The forces of irreligion and the forces of materialism in all classes of society and all quarters of the globe were so strong that it was very hard to say what would have been the condition of things, had any other course been pursued. But of one thing he was certain, that according to the common testimony of parents and teachers alike, and even by the admission of prelates of the Church, the teaching which had been given in our board schools had had some influence and some effect. In the Church schools religious teaching was too often a lifeless and formal thing. The Member for Leicester had got into a little trouble for making some criticism on religious teaching in both board schools and voluntary schools. Everybody who knew anything about the matter knew that very often this teaching was very defective and lifeless. He had received a letter that morning from a clergyman, who enclosed a pamphlet lie had published in which he said that going into a Church school he found a Church teacher apostrophising a small urchin— Stand out in the middle of the class, you good-for-nothing little ragamuffin, and tell me what Jesus says about peacemakers. That was not the way to teach the Beatitudes. To call attention to the fact that religious teaching' both in Church schools and Board schools might often be lifeless was a criticism of method and was different from saying that all religious teaching was lifeless.

LORD R. CECIL

said his argument was directed to this. It was constantly said that board school teaching had been a great success. He asked on what evidence that assertion was based

MR. BIRRELL

said the only evidence that could be produced was the very general testimony of teachers themselves that great benefit had resulted from board school teaching, and that view had received the warrant of persons of greater authority than the noble Lord. It had been contended that it was the duty of the Government to surmount the practical difficulties in the way of a pan-denominational system. He did not know how they could be got over. The noble Lord had said this was a matter of such vital importance that the discipline of the school was to be totally disregarded. The £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 which this country devoted to giving secular instruction to our children was apparently so insignificant that it was not to be regarded as compared with the importance of giving definite and dogmatic teaching to little children between the ages of five and fourteen years. He did not think the Government could quite take that view. He thought they were entitled to say it was a very difficult matter to know how to arrange for all the denominations to come in between the hours of 9 and 9.45 and give instruction to the different classes of children attending a school. The example he had taken of 120 children was, he could assure the noble Lord, by no means imaginary. It was a very real example. He had spoken of seventy children belonging to the Church of England and thirty children belonging to the Primitive Methodists. He knew many schools in East Anglia where the proportions were the other way—seventy Primitive Methodists and thirty children belonging to the Church of England. It was not unusual in England to find a school with 120 scholars belonging to the Church of England, the Methodist and Baptist bodies, and the Roman Catholic Church, together with some whose parents would not wish them to receive any religious instruction at all. There was nothing strange or false about that: and it was quite in accordance with the experience of everybody who had made himself acquainted with the working of the schools. The practical difficulty, therefore, was an enormous one, and baffled, he believed, all possible attempts at solution. If we were to have the pan-denominational system he did not think it would be right to have it under terms which would make it almost impossible for many denominations, such as the Methodists, to have anything like fair play in the matter. Under that system the present difficulty would be found to exist—namely, that parents would be unable to get the religious instruction they desired for their children, and they would perforce have to fall back on the dominant sect of the school. It was not fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had tried their hands at solving this problem and had failed, to say it was the duty of the Government to solve something which time and space, over which they had no control, prevented their solving. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had invited the trustees of 14,000 schools to buy a little book of his on "Trusts." It would be very desirable, perhaps, that they should. But he felt bound to warn them against it, because they would not find a single word in it dealing with public or educational trusts. It dealt with the duties of private trustees, marriage settlements and wills. There was the greatest possible difference between private trusts, wills, and settlements, and public trusts; One reason was that; public trusts had been torn in two by this House again and again. The Government were not tearing them one bit; more than they had been torn heretofore. This was an Amendment which they could not accept because it would be found impracticable. It could not be worked without completely breaking up the discipline of the schools, or without imposing upon a number of denominations something which would appear to give them equality and freedom, while as a matter of fact, they would find themselves totally unable to supply the teaching that would be of any use, and therefore they would have to fall back on the dominant sect of the school where their children were sent. For these reasons it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said he thought the Committee should hesitate before it rejected an Amendment which was admitted to be logical, just, and fair. This Amendment was the Education Bill promised by the Minister for Education at the general election. It left the Cowper-Temple clause untouched. The right hon. Gentleman told the country during the election that, while in all schools he would have Cowper-Temple teaching, he would attempt to provide that in all schools there should be denominational education so that people who wanted more than Cowper-Temple teaching should be able to enjoy the benefits of such instruction. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Why did he not find out that it was impracticable before he told the electors that was the Bill they were going to have?

MR. BIRRELL

I never said that was the Bill they were going to have.

SIR E. CARSON

said he told them that was the Bill he was going to try to give them. He said— Not only was he desirous that there should be Christian education, Bible education, in all the schools; he was also anxious that in all the schools there should be facilities given if they could be arranged on proper terms, whereby all denominations would have opportunities of instructing the children who attended these schools in what they believed to be their religion. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment if the words "if they can be arranged" were inserted? If he would not, then he would have misled the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the Amendment; he had dealt with generalities as to impossibilities. They asked by this Amendment that provision should be made by by-law, or otherwise, at the expense of the State, or otherwise, whereby instruction was to be given in the schools. [Cries of "Or otherwise."] This was not a matter to be treated as a joke or to be got rid of by unmannerly interruptions. Since the debate began nobody had been able to point out any injustice in this Amendment. All they asked was perfect equality, and that was what they did not get from the Bill as it stood. Would anyone suggest that equality was given by the Bill? He noticed that there were no cheers from the Government side of the House. No, it was because it could not be contended by anyone that equality was given by the Bill. How could there be equality when thousands and thousands said that they were satisfied with the system of the Bill, and other thousands and thousands declared that they were dissatisfied? If he might digress for a moment, he might say that the former had every right to be satisfied, because if the Bill was to give religious teaching at all, it was to give religious teaching with a view to capture the maximum number of votes. The Bill was on the straight road to the very Amendment which was negatived just before the dinner hour. And why? Because, in the first place, it was quite possible that local education bodies might not adopt any religious education in the schools at all. That had happen: at the present time; there were fifty seven places where religious teaching was not given. In the second place, the religion the Government had laid down to be taught was entirely unsatisfactory to millions of children in the schools. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen said "no"; but surely the only way to test that was by what people said. In the third place—and he took it that this was the most serious part in relation to the children—it was proposed that the Opposition should be satisfied that such religion as the Government grudgingly gave, should be taught, by a person who did not believe in is.[MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Yes, because there was to be no test. He contended that any such system as that was the secularisation of religion; and he thought that the secularisation of religion was far worse than the secularisation of the schools. If the schools were secularised they might have still the teaching of religion outside; but the moment religion was secularised in the schools it would be a very great disadvantage in the future for the religious teaching of this country. Objection had been made to the Amendment that it was impracticable. Why should it be impracticable that each denomination should be allowed to go in and teach its own children? He believed that for a very long time in Ireland the two religions which divided the people in that country were taught in the same National schools, and he never knew that any difficulty had arisen from it. He could not but believe that what was practical in Ireland was also practical in England. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had said there would be a difficulty about the teachers; but he maintained that there would be no such difficulty if the chance was given to denominationalists to obtain the teachers at the public expense. The truth of the matter was that the Government did not want to come to any compromise; that they would not listen to anything in the nature of equality. The Parliamentary; Secretary to the Board of Education had said that it was the intention of the Government to meet the views of the Roman Catholics and the Jews, but he held: that before this Bill became law it should be made applicable to all sects and denominations alike. There were only two possible ways. One was to allow no religion in the schools at all, or that all religions equally should be taught in the schools. That was the system which the right hon. the Minister for Education advocated during the general election, and that was the system which the right hon. Gentleman had abandoned, but to which the Opposition would attempt to hold him all through this controversy.

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

wished to say a few words from his own point of view on this question. As he understood it, the Amendment proposed that after the Committee had rejected the idea of secular education, each denomination should have the right to give its own definite instruction in the schools. The Committee had done a very-remarkable thing that day in rejecting the logical solution of this difficulty from the non-sectarian point of view, a solution which had received a smaller number of votes than in 1870. The Government had taken up the attitude to the present Amendment that they could not assent to the principle that each denomination should have the right to give its own teaching. Though of course Catholics maintained the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals, in rejecting this Amendment a new and exceedingly startling doctrine had been brought forward by hon. Members and that was the infallibility of Birrell. The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not have the denominationalist religious solution of this difficulty. He said he must have religion, but it must be on the cheap. He had to regard the whole question economically; he had to regard not religious education, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not provide each of the religious sects with their own religious teaching because modern English economics did not allow of it. He (Mr. Healy) had been endeavouring to ascertain the number of days on which the average Christian went to church on Sundays. He was not compelled to go, but during, say, twenty years of his life he would go on fifty out of fifty-two Sundays. That was 1,000 times that he went in order to learn the doctrines of his Church and religion. Under this Bill a scholar had to go to school 300 days in the year compulsorily, and if he did not go his father and not himself would be sent to gaol. Taking the average school period as four years, a child had to go 1,200 times to school to learn a religion in which he did not believe, whereas the ordinary Protestant citizen who was not under compulsion went 1,000 times. When they had rejected the secular solution they had no right to impose on people a form of religion which was not adopted by a single Nonconformist body or by the Roman Catholics or by the Church of England, but which was the solution of a number of gentlemen sitting in county councils who had neither training nor practical experience in this teaching. Surely the Government under these circumstances would be well advised to leave the various schools alone and provide for the various bodies the religion they desired to be taught.

COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

wished to say a few words upon the practicability of the proposals which had been put forward from the Opposition side of the Committee. His solution, if he might present it without transgressing the laws of order, would be that there should be compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching in every school in the kingdom alike, whether board school or voluntary school, but that it should be supplemented. He believed that this country was still a Christian country, and he was sure, that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would. say with him that if we were a Christian country we ought to have the courage of our convictions and in some form or another have Christianity taught to our children. They were told that they could not teach religion to little children, and that they could not teach dogma to them. His own feeling was that there was no religions teaching which was not dogma, although they could make their dogma as simple as they liked. He believed that there was no religious teaching which would not contain the germ of Christianity, and that they must commence by giving such teaching to the young. He believed that they could teach religious dogma to very little children indeed. It was objected that they ought, not to got the children into the school and then sort them out in separate pens, one in this pen and one in the other. But they were told that children must go to Sunday school. Was not that a sorting of them out into pens? Moreover, did not all parents take their children to church or chapel on Sunday, and did not that convey to the youthful mind the idea that there were different religions in the country in these days? Of course it did, and of course parents would take their children to their particular place of worship. But to return to the question of practicability his suggestion was that Cowper-Temple teaching should be given in every school in the kingdom, both board school and voluntary school alike, on three days a week, but that the parents of every denomination should have the right to have their children taught in the religion of their denomination on two days a week. Hon. Members talked, however, about the difficulty of sorting the children, but he did not see where that difficulty, arose for Nonconformists always said they did not want denominational teaching. As a matter of fact it was almost only the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics who would demand denominational teaching. If those two sects afforded an example to other sects it would be a great advantage, but at present it was only those two religions which demanded such teaching; that simplified the matter, because if the Nonconformists did not want denominational teaching they need not have it. He agreed with everything that had been said on the other side as to the value of the Cowper-Temple teaching; it was very good teaching indeed. But it was not enough. Hon. Members opposite talked about a foundation, but what was the use of making half a foundation for a whole house. They could not forget that there were thousands of people in this country who said that Cowper-Temple, teaching was not sufficient and that they wanted something more. Hon. Members opposite said they should not have anything more. Of course they would be told that Clause 3 provider for that, and that Clause 6 gave them another chance, but where was that provided for and where was that chance given? In the voluntary schools only. What about the 1,500,000 children who were in the elementary schools of the country, the parents of many of whom would be thankful if they could get for their children denominational teaching on one or two days a week, but who could not get it. Both sides must admit making mistakes. Hon. Member? opposite must deeply feel the mistake? they made in 1870. He admitted also that mistakes were made in the Act of 1902, but were they going to perpetuate the mistakes in this Bill? Surely they should endeavour to rise to higher things on the stepping stones of their own dead selves. Could not hon. Members opposite say that in 1870 Cowper-Temple religion was established in the land to a certain extent, that in 1902 the Unionist Party had too much denominational teaching—could not the Committee now say, "Never mind Party advantage and Party triumph, what we want now is that there should be a solid foundation for Christian teaching, and that there should not be anyone in this country deprived of it?" It was said that clericalism was the enemy. Clericalism was not the enemy; the enemy was unbelief and carelessness. Were we not to see that our children had religion? They could have too little religious teaching, but not too much. Let them give that religious teaching as trained teachers could give it, and they could give it best. Let the trained teachers give what religious teaching they liked, and let them have the power to give the religious teaching which they liked to give. Let them by all means have a system which should be alike for all—the Cowper-Temple system if they liked —but in all the schools let them have the power to teach the children the religion which their parents believed. Let not hon. Gentlemen opposite press their fingers upon the consciences of those who honestly and sincerely believed that denominational teaching was right for their children. He could tell the Committee of working men and working women who, when a petition was put before them to sign praying for religious teaching, said, "Give it me and I will take it round."They did that because

they wanted their children taught some-sort of denominational religion. By giving undenominational religious teaching in every school in the kingdom to those who wanted it and by providing denominational facilities to every school in the kingdom to those who wanted that they would get justice and, as lie thought, truth.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 367 (Division List No. 101.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Ambrose, Robert Du Cros, Harvey Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Anson, Sir William Reynell Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan Lowe, Sir Francis William
Anstruther-Gray, Major Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lundon, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Faber, George Denison (York) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO. Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.
Ashley, W. W. Fardell, Sir T. George MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H Fell, Arthur M'Calmont, Colonel James
Balcarres, Lord Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond. Ffrench, Peter M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Ediuburgh,W
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. M'Kean, John
Banner, John S. Harmood- Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Killop, W.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Fletcher, J. S. Magnus, Sir Philip
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Flynn, James Christopher Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks Forster, Henry William Mason, James F. (Windsor).
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East Meagher, Michael
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Meehan, Patrick A.
Blake, Edward Ginnell, L. Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Boland, John Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton
Bowles, G. Stewart Haddock, George R. Mooney, J. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward Halpin, J. Morpeth, Viscount
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hambro, Charles Eric Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Bull, Sir William James Hamilton, Marquess of Murnaghan, George
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford Murphy, John
Burke, E. Haviland- Harrison, Broadley, Col. H. B. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hayden, John Patrick Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hazleton, Richard Nield, Herbert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Healy, Timothy Michael Nolan, Joseph
Cave, George Hervey,F.W.F(Bury,S.Edm'ds O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hills, J. W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hogan, Michael O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Hornby, Sir William Henry O'Doherty, Philip
Clancy, John Joseph Houston, Robert Paterson O'Dowd, John
Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond. Hunt, Rowland O'Hare, Patrick
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewish'm Joyce, Michael O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. O'Malley, William
Cogan, Denis J. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W. O'Mara, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph Keswick, William O Shaughnossy, P. J.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kilbride, Denis Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Courthope, G. Loyd King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) Parkes, Ebenezer
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
Craik, Sir Henry Lane-Fox, G. R. Percy, Earl
Delany, William Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Farehn Power, Patrick Joseph
Dolan, Charles Joseph Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Donelan, Captain A. Liddell, Henry Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Doughty, Sir George Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. AR Reddy, M.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) White, Patrick (Meath, North
Redmond, William (Clare) Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.
Remnant, James Farquharson Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Roche, Augustine (Cork) Starkey, John R. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Sullivan, Donal Young, Samuel
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ. Younger, George
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Salter, Arthur Clavell Thornton, Percy M. TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire) Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Walrond, Hon. Lionel
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cairns, Thomas Fullerton, Hugh
Acland, Francis Dyke Cameron, Robert Furness, Sir Christopher
Adkins, W. Ryland Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford S.)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Gibb, James (Harrow)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cawley, Frederick Gill, A. H.
Alden, Percy Chance, Frederick William Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Channing, Francis Allston Goddard. Daniel Ford
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cheetham, John Frederick Gooch, George Peabody
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Grant, Corrie
Ashton, Thomas Gair Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Cleland, J. W. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Astbury, John Meir Clough, W. Griffith, Ellis J.
Atherley-Jones, L. Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.; Grove, Archibald
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cobbold, Felix Thornley Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gulland, John W.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cooper, G. J. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Barker, John Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd Hall, Frederick
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cory, Clifford John Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barnard, E. B. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Barnes. G. N. Cowan, W. H. Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn' ss-sh.
Barran. Rowland Hirst Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hart-Davies, T.
Beale, W. P. Cremer, William Randal Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Beauchamp, E. Crombie, John William Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne Crooks, William Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Crosfield, A. H. Haworth, Arthur A.
Beck, A. Cecil Crossley, William J. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bellairs, Carlyon Dalziel, James Henry Hedges, A. Paget
Benn, John Williams (Dev'np'rt Davies, David(Montgomery Co.) Helme, Norval Watson
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bennett, E. N. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Berridge, T. H. D. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Henry, Charles S.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex. Romford) Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Billson, Alfred Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Higham, John Sharp
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Dobson, Thomas W. Hobart, Sir Robert
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh. Dodd, W. H. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Hodge, John
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Holden, E. Hopkinson
Brace, William Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hooper, A G.
Bramsdon, T. A. Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.
Branch, James Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Horniman, Emslie John
Brigg, John Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Brooke, Stopford Elibank, Master of Hudson, Walter
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Erskine, David C. Hyde, Clarendon
Bryce, Rt. Hn.James (Aberdeen Essex, R. W. Illingworth, Percy H.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Evans, Samuel T. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Eve, Harry Trelawney Jackson, R. S.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Everett, R. Lacey Jacoby, James Alfred
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fenwick, Charles Jardine, Sir J.
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Findlay, T. Alexander Jenkins, J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Byles, William Pollard Fuller, John Michael F. Jones, David Brynmor(Swans' a
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nuttall, Harry Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kearley, Hudson E. Parker, James (Halifax) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Kekewich, Sir George Paul, Herbert Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain Paulton, James Mellor Summerbell, T.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek Sutherland, J. E.
Kitson, Sir James Pearce, William (Limehouse) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Laidlaw, Robert Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) Perks, Robert William Taylor Theodore C.(Radcliff)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke) Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Lambert, George Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lamont, Norman Pickersgill, Edward Hare Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Pollard, Dr. Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Thomasson, Franklin
Lehmann, R. C. Priestley, Arthur (Grantham Thompson, J.WH(Somerset, E.)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Priestley, W.E.B(Bradford, E.) Tillett, Louis John
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Radford, G. H. Tomkinson, James
Levy, Maurice Rainy, A. Rolland Torrance, A. M.
Lewis, John Herbert Raphael, Herbert H. Toulmin, George
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Trevelvan, Charles Philips
Lough, Thomas Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro') Verney, F. W.
Lupton, Arnold Rees, J. D. Vivian, Henry
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rendall, Athelstan Walker, H. I). R. (Leicester)
Lyell, Charles Henry Renton, Major Leslie Wallace, Robert
Lynch, H. B. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th Walsh, Stephen
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpton Walters, John Tuder
Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Richardson, A. Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Rickett, J. Compton Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Maclean, Donald Ridsdale, E. A. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
M'Arthur, William Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
M'Callum, John M. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
M'Crae, George Robertson, Sir G. Scot (Bradf'rd Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)
M'Kenna, Reginald Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Waterlow, D. S.
M'Micking, Major G. Robinson, S. Watt, H. Anderson
Maddison, Frederick Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Mallet, Charles E. Roe, Sir Thomas Weir, James Galloway
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Rogers, F. E. Newman Whitbread, Howard
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Rose, Charles Day White, George (Norfolk)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Rowlands, J. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Marnham, F. J. Runciman, Walter White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Russell, T. W. Whitehead, Rowland
Massie, J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Masterman, C. F. G. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer.
Menzies, Walter Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wiles, Thomas
Micklem, Nathaniel Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wilkie, Alexander
Molteno, Percy Alport Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Mond, A. Scott, A.H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Sears, J. E. Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Montgomery, H. H. Seaverns, J. H. Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Shackleton, David James Wills, Arthur Walters
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Morley, Rt. Hon. John Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Morrell, Philip Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Morse, L. L. Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morton, L. Alpheus Cleophas Simon, John Allsebrook Winfrey, R.
Murray, James Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, .)
Myer, Horatio Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Napier, T. B. Snowden, P. Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd.
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Yoxall, James Henry
Newnes, Sir George; (Swansea) Spicer, Albert
Nicholls, George Stanger, H. Y. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Peace.
Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r) Stanley, Hn. A. (LyulphChesh.)
Norman, Henry Steadman, W. C.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the remaining Amendments to the clause upon the Paper were either out of order or contained matter which had already been disposed of.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he desired to point out that on this clause, which practically made every school a provided school, it would have been greatly to the convenience of the Committee if the Government had given them even the smallest intimation of the course they were going to pursue on those later clauses of the Bill which in some way mitigated or were expected to mitigate the full force of Clause 1. Of course, if the Government's intention was to remain rigidly fixed in the formulas they themselves had determined upon, they had no announcement to make. The Government, however, did not think that the wording of the clause, at all events, was satisfactory, and they were prepared to make modifications to an extent which the Committee could not conjecture. But hon. Members might have been in a better position to judge of the policy they were pursuing had the Government taken the Committee a little more into their confidence. It might be because the Government had not made up their minds as to what modifications they ought to accept. They were torn between different and irreconcilable schools of thought. There was the Minister for Education, whose opinions they knew from sources more authentic than those of his speeches in defence of the Bill, because there were other speeches of the right hon. Gentleman available which were not made in defence of anything or of any Government; and he presumed that in a position of irresponsibility the right hon. Gentleman had a better insight into what he would do had he the power, had a more clear and unmistakable insight, than anything they could gather from his statements made under the inevitable responsibility of office, when he had to consult, not merely his colleagues in the Cabinet, but the varying forces in the House and in the country with which he had to deal. It might be, and probably was, that neither the right hon. Gentleman himself nor the Government had any doubt in their own minds as to the future policy they were to recommend to the Committee, but that they were waiting to see, he would not say how the cat jumped but, at all events, in what direction the political forces which acted upon them were going to drive them in dealing with Clauses 3 and 4, and the clauses dealing with trusts. That was not the only complaint they had to make as to the conduct of the Government on this clause. Nor was it the most serious complaint. He understood and sympathised with the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to maintain a discreet silence as long as and as well as possible with regard to the provisions of the Bill. But he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must feel, after the arguments the Committee had listened o, that the position which he and his friends had taken up was one which was absolutely indefensible. The Government made every school a provided school. By doing so they prevented the appointment of a teacher by any denomination, although as regarded Clause 4 the teacher was expected to teach the religion of some denomination. He did not know how they were going to remedy that in the later clauses. He saw indications of a remedy in the speeches made to deputations, but he saw no indication of the same desire either in the speeches delivered in the House or in a Government Amendment on the Paper. What was the plea the Government had systematically put forward in the House? The plea was that the public desired simple Bible teaching, and the Government were going to give it at the public expense; and anything else that was to be given, was to be given under serious limitations, under limitations which he thought inflicted a gross injustice on the voluntary schools, a gross wrong upon the consciences of many parents of many children. He would suppose that a Government which was prepared to endow a particular form of undenominational teaching would take care at all events that undenominational teaching reached a certain standard of religious excellence, and that arrangements were made to see that those who taught it should have adequate qualifications for teaching it. Neither of these provisions was in the Bill, nor was there any indication that they were to be. Therefore it seemed to him that on their own theory as to what education ought to be the Government had fallen lamentably short of their own standard— deficient though it was in the opinion of those who had no quarrel with the Free Church Catechism, but who had some regard for the consciences of the parents. Why were the Government endowing out of the rates a particular form of religion and refusing any kind of facility for those who professed another kind of religion? Even if only a small minority of parents preferred the denominational system, was no effort to be made to meet their conscientious desires? He could not gather from the speeches of the Minister for Education that he had the smallest idea outside Clauses 3 and 4 of meeting to any extent whatever the claims of the great body of the schools now non-provided. Two logical solutions had been proposed for this difficulty—the secular solution, rejected by an enormous majority, and that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. A third solution had been proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford University—a solution which permitted Cowper-Temple teaching to be paid for out of the rates, provided that side by side with it was the other teaching which so many parents desired. How could the Government reject all these solutions? Was it not plain that one of them must ultimately be accepted? Did the Government seriously say that, in spite of the enormous sums which the denominationalists had spent, and in spite of the undoubted wishes of large numbers of parents, they were not only going to pay for one kind of religious teaching alone, but they were going to forbid other people from paying for their own religious teaching? Mr. A., Mr. B., and Mr. C. might be satisfied with the teaching, but Mr. D., Mr. E., and Mr. F. would come and say:—"That teaching does not satisfy us. May we teach what we think our children ought to learn? We are quite ready to pay the whole cost of it, and do not want to go upon the rates. Will you, please, give us, not financial equality, for it could not be, but religious equality?" The Minister for Education replies:—"This is inconsistent with my Bill." He did not say it was inconsistent with justice—no man could say that. The injustice which the Government were deliberately intending to inflict upon vast masses of the population was of a kind which every man could understand, which every man would realise, and which the country would soon realise, if it had not already done so. How could the Government hope to base a solution of the religious difficulty upon so rotten a foundation as was provided in this Bill? It was not as if denominationalists asked for equal treatment—they were merely asking by this Amendment to have unequal treatment; they were merely asking to be allowed to pay for that which other people received pay for out of the rates. Even that the Government refused. No attempt to solve this question based upon such a fundamental injustice could really stand continuous criticism, or could become part of the permanent educational system of the country. He hoped the Minister for Education would feel the force of the appeal now being made to him. Was it unreasonable to ask him to give some indication that he was prepared to consider a demand, on the face of it just and reasonable and consistent with parental rights and with true religious education? Would the right hon. Gentleman not make some indication of a desire to meet demands so inherently and so intrinsically in accordance with common justice and with common sense? They would, no doubt, on the later clauses of the Bill, raise in substance the demand which he now made, but he did feel that the Committee ought not to pass from Clause I without the Minister in charge of the Bill getting up and telling the Committee how he proposed to meet the arguments which he had advanced, and what hope he could hold out to those who represented not a small minority in this country, that the demands which they said were intimately bound up with religion and parental rights would receive consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.

MR. BIRRELL

said that if there was any truth whatever in the formidable allegation just made against the Bill—and for the moment in speaking of the Bill he meant Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4—that it inflicted an intolerable injustice upon a vast number of the people of this country, then the Bill, even if it became an Act, was doomed to failure. It was, however, the belief of the Government that this measure, capable of improvement as it might be, did not inflict upon any considerable number of the people of this country, particularly on the parents of children in daily attendance in public elementary schools, between the ages of five and fourteen years, any injustice whatever. In the Church school the Catechism and the definite dogmatic teaching of the Church of England might be taught if only the owners were anxious that they should be taught. That surely was not putting too much upon the owners. If they made a bargain to that effect, the teaching must be given by the law of this country. [Cries of "No.] Certainly. If the local authority took the school and the conditions were accepted, these stipulations became obligatory and secure by law. What happened now in a large number of the Church of England schools? In Gloucester they used three days a week the Gloucester County Council Syllabus, and on two days the Catechism and the Prayer Book were taught. Apart from the question of the teacher, which would have to be most carefully considered, he saw very little difference between the religious instruction given in these schools now and that which would be given under the Bill. Considering the matter from the point of view of substantial practice, he saw no reason why the Church of England should not have the satisfaction of knowing that, in the voluntary schools of the country, so far as they were taken over by the local authority, their children would still receive just the same manner of teaching as they did now. With regard to children in the provided schools, if a hardship was imposed upon the children of Church of England parents and other children who desired dogmatic teaching, all he could say was that the hardship was one which they had endured thirty-five years, and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made no effort to do away with. Exposed as he was to every kind of logical battery and artillery, he still believed that as a matter of fact the method of education adopted had given complete satisfaction. It was no use to say that a parent in a town was dissatisfied with a Board school education for his child because his second cousin in the country was able to send his child to a Church school. Although he would be glad if the practice suggested were possible in our Board schools, although there was nothing in it contrary or shocking to the senses, he had come to the conclusion that it would create greater ill-temper and more difficulty than the plan he proposed. But he submitted that the language of the right hon. Gentleman, if he would permit him to say so, was really grossly exaggerated. The protests which one received from parents were couched in language which seemed to make it plain that they did not apprehend what was before them. They seemed to imagine they would be deprived altogether of the opportunities of having their children taught the Catechism or the Prayer-book. He did not think that was at all likely to be the case; but if it was it would be the fault of the trustees of the schools, who would not negotiate with the local authority upon the terms suggested. He was perfectly satisfied of this much, that when syllabus teaching was properly developed and properly given, it would be found in no sense inconsistent with Church teaching of the Protestant persuasion, and entirely consistent with the wishes of the parents. He wished there were some means by which there could be placed before the parents the kind of teaching their children would get. He believed they would be perfectly satisfied, and would consider that there was provided in the vast majority of schools a system of religious education every bit as good as they could wish for. If they went into the matter with particularity it would be found, he believed, that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to teach the children something the parents did not desire. He thought the time had come when the Committee might come to a decision on the clause. There was no real or substantial difference in the Liberal Party about it, nor were there many people who took part in the recent general election in any doubt as to its being the natural outcome of that general election, when it was made plain that all public elementary schools should be placed under one control and become provided schools. When they came to Clauses 3 and 4, which they would have every opportunity after the recess for discussing, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that every information would be, and would have to be, given to him and to the Committee as to the form those clauses were to assume. He hoped now right hon. Gentlemen were in favour of that clause. They received those clauses with scanty civility when they made their appearance. For a long time he thought they were going bitterly to oppose them and suggest alternative schemes. He rejoiced to think that those clauses now commended themselves to their minds, and only required to be strengthened in certain particulars. At all events the Government adhered to those clauses, and intended they should not be illusory. But w hen they were told that the syllabus teaching, which the Committee was becoming more and more acquainted with, had inflicted an intolerable injustice and a grievous sense of wrong on the mass of the parents, he could only say, with all courtesy, he did not believe it.

*MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said he could not help feeling when the Minister for Education made his last speech this evening that he was surely one of the most unfortunate of men, because in spite of all his eloquence, ability, and power of expression he had failed to convince many Members even of his own Party of the reasonableness of his proposals. Those who sat below the gangway representing Ireland were irreconcilably opposed to the proposals of the Government. The almost unanimous hostility of the Roman Catholic Members ought to supply the right hon. Gentleman with a basis for reflection whether or not the boasts he made that the Bill considered fairly the claims of all denominations were justified. He could at least speak on one point of sympathy with, he believed, large numbers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was that he did not happen to be a member of the Church of England. If he were sending his child to a public elementary school he himself would be satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching. But upon what principle of justice and liberalism could they go to the hon. Member for North Louth and other Members below the gangway representing Ireland, or to the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, and say to them, "We have here a syllabus which is admirably moral, and we have here a hymn of which I will read you a verse in order that you may satisfy yourselves"? That was exactly the line of argument adopted by the Minister for Education. Was the Party opposite, because it was in a majority, to force those who did not believe in this teaching to pay for it because the syllabus was moral or the hymns good? The Committee that day had rejected more than one scheme which would have swept away once for all this grievance. The opportunity had been deliberately flung away, and when they appealed to the country on this clause they would be able to say that they had advocated Amendments in respect of which not one opponent had said that they were unjust, and against which was only the unsupported allegation that they were unworkable. No one who had any experience of the permanent Education Department would believe that those proposals were unworkable, and when they went to the country which had been misled by the proposals of the Government they would be able to show that this clause was unjust, whereas Ministerialists could only idly allege that the proposals of the Opposition were unworkable. [Cries of "Divide" and "Order."]

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved to report progress as a protest against the interruption from the Ministerial benches.

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot accept that Motion. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] The 11 o'clock rule has not been suspended for nothing.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On n point of order, I am well aware that a discretion lies in the Chair as to whether or not a Motion for adjournment.should be put. But may I ask you whether, under the special circumstances that the debate on the clause which the Government have admitted to be the most important in the Bill has only been on for an hour, that those who oppose it have had, to put it mildly, extreme difficulty in getting a hearing, it would not be desirable for the Committee to adjourn to a period when the majority would be in a more patient temper, or at all events more disposed to allow the opponents of the clause to advance their arguments, however ineffectual, with a fair chance of being heard?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that I have not raised any objection to hon. Members advancing arguments. What I did say is that I cannot accept the Motion.

SIR GEOEGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby)

said he had listened with a great deal of pain to the speech of the Minister of Education. [Cries of "Divide," and interruption.]

THE CHAIRMAN

appealed to the House to give the hon. Member a hearing.

SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY

said he had listened to the speech of the Minister for Education with pain because he had hoped he would have given some indication of what he would do to meet the desires of a large number of people in this country who disagreed with the provisions of the Bill. He objected to the view, from whichever quarter it came, that the Bill was promoted with a view to meeting the vast majority of the Nonconformists of this country. There was a strong minority of Nonconformists in England who yet believed in the principle of religious freedom, and he thought that when they realised that the Bill in its main provisions, instead of establishing the principle of religious freedom, was aimed at destroying that principle and of placing under one particular form of teaching all the various religious bodies of the country, they would strongly resent the proposals. He understood that the grievance of the passive resister was that he objected to his money being taken for the payment for teaching certain religious beliefs in which he himself did not believe. If this Bill ever became law it was pretty clear that there would be a very large number of people paying for religion in the State schools in which they did not believe, and which they did not desire that their children should have taught to them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he thought the Bill would meet the wishes of parents. How did he know that? What right had the right hon. Gentleman to make that proposition unless he had asked the parents? He happened to be chairman of an education committee educating nearly 20,000 children. He took that position in 1902 to endeavour to find out how the Act would fulfil the expectations of its promoters, and, speaking generally, he could say that the Act had fulfilled those expectations. He had been very much surprised that the Government had not asked the Education Committees what they had to say about this Bill. There was not an education committee throughout the length and breadth of the country whose opinion the Government had considered. Had the Government asked the parents of the children? He himself had done more in that direction than the Government. He had caused a circular letter to be sent to various large education committees of England asking a number of questions. One was— How many parents of children in your schools have complained, for have lodged a complaint with your Education Committee or the head teacher of the school, as to the religious teaching that has been given in the school since the Act of 1902 came into operation? He got a reply from Liverpool—his connection with which the right hon. Gentleman said he was proud of—and to the effect that they had not had one complaint in their schools since 1902. He inquired of Bristol, which the right hon. Gentleman represented with so much distinction in this House, and that city also wrote that they had not a solitary complaint to make. Not one child in 100,000 in the schools in England had complained as a result of the Act of 1902. There were no people in the world more likely to make a religious grievance known than Englishmen. If parents were dissatisfied with the religious teaching given under the Act of 1902 there would have been multitudes of complaint long before this, but as a matter of fact there had been no complaints. To inform the country that they were satisfying a large body of Nonconformists by this Bill was stating something that was not true. What he desired was religious freedom for all sections of the community. He thought the Amendment they were discussing was directed towards that end and would provide the foundation for a settlement, and would give freedom to every parent to have taught what he desired. It was assumed that the Catholics would be satisfied with the provisions contained in Clauses 3 and 4, but he ventured to say that both those clauses would have to be very much amended in order to satisfy the wishes and desires of those who had a right to speak for the Catholics. Were the Government going to do for one section of the people what they refused to do for another section? Religious freedom and religious intolerance were great principles which could mot be applied to one Church and refused to another. He felt that in not giving some expression of the real mind of the Government upon this question the President of the Board of Education was not acting fairly to the Committee or justly to the country, and that instead of giving satisfaction these proposals would create a greater storm than ever.

LORD R. CECIL

said he thought the time had now arrived when a Motion to report progress might very properly be made. Clause 1 which was said to be the backbone of the Bill could not be adequately debated at that hour of the night. The Leader of the Opposition had explained to the Committee some of the injustices which appeared on the face of the clause apart altogether from its actual working. He wanted to present to the Committee the actual working of the clause as it appeared to those who were interested in the voluntary schools of the country. He had never under-estimated the injustice which was said to have been done to Nonconformists by the Bill of 1902, but in all those rural districts with which he happened to be acquainted the injustice complained of never had any practical existence. He wished to explain to the Committee how this clause would appear to Church people. He did not ask them to say that the clause was; wrong, but he asked them to put themselves in the position of a Churchman in a quiet country parish in the South of England. There they had been accustomed to the schools being carried on by the Church and by the clergy. What would be the position of those schools under this Bill? Let the Committee consider the question from this point of view. The parents sending their children to those schools would conceive this Clause as one which would wantonly turn the clergy out of the schools. [Cries of "Hear hear" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that, and that was exactly the spirit of the Bill. It was not that they desired so much to remedy ft grievance as to take vengeance on the Church. That was how the action of the Government would be understood in the parishes to which he was referring. Action of that kind had always been bitterly resented by Englishmen. It was that kind of conduct that brought about the expulsion of James II. from the throne. It was the petty personal injustice manifested in the way in which he treated certain individuals far more than any disapproval of his principles or the principles of his Government that brought about his downfall, and that was the kind of injustice the Government were going to inflict under this Bill in a number of small parishes in the South of England. That was quite apart from the actual logical injustice of not allowing Churchmen to teach their religion even at their own expense. It was the ejection of these clergymen from schools where there was no practical grievance that would be regarded as a wanton piece of injustice. It was said that Clause 3 was obligatory, that the local education authority might make an arrangement with the owner, but if they asked too much the arrangement would break down, and they had to go to the Commission of three, and there was nothing obligatory on the Commission of three. There was no appeal from them. When the President of the Board of Education asserted that the facilities under Clause 3 were obligatory he could only conclude that he had in his mind some draft of the Bill which had not yet been presented to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech by denying that any injustice was going to be done to the members of the Church of England, but had he been present at some of the public meetings which he himself had attended, he would never have made that statement. At the meeting held in the Albert Hall there were 10,000 people present, and for anyone to say that those people were not in earnest was positively ludicrous. He had never been more impressed by the earnestness of a meeting. If there were only these 10,000 people with a burning sense of grievance the Act could not remain on the Statute book. But before the Act was amended or abrogated there would be a period of great turmoil.

LORD HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, K.R., Thirsk)

said he did not think the discus- sion on Clause 1 should be terminated to-night. The problem now before the Committee affected the future education of the children of the country, and hon. Members who disapproved of the proposal of the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not in the strongest possible terms express their disapproval of, and even disgust at, Clause 1. The effect of the clause would be to abolish definite religious instruction in our schools. The extinction of the voluntary schools would open the door to secularism. While the basis of the Bill was secular, the bias of it was most certainly Nonconformist. The idea that religious teaching could be banished from the schools, and that parents in the middle of their daily work should undertake the duty of instructing their children in the religious beliefs which they thought to be right, was absolutely absurd. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He did not for a moment suppose that if the parents had time and. ability they would not willingly undertake the work.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord appears to be discussing what does not properly come under this clause.

LORD HELMSLEY

said he was led away by the interruption. The alternative proposed by the Government of giving facility of entry to the schools might have some advantages, but he did not think it was a practical or desirable one.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The matter which the noble Lord is discussing is not dealt with by Clause 1.

LORD HELMSLEY

May I ask if I am not at liberty to discuss the clause as a whole and not the alternative?

THE CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, can discuss the clause as a whole.

LORD HELMSLEY

said hon. Members opposite had tried to make out that Cowper-Temple teaching ought to be encouraged because the indefiniteness suited all creeds and all denominations, but the truth had come out at the eleventh hour that it was their definite religious teaching. That was the teaching which they wished to thrust down the throats of all the children in the country, no matter what the parents might wish the children to be taught. The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorganshire said this afternoon that it was essentially the right of the people of a locality to say that simple Bible teaching should be given to their children in the schools. There was not a clause in the Bill for the improvement of education or for settling the religious difficulties which had agitated Parliament and the country for the past thirty years. The fact came out more plainly as the debates proceeded that this was a Bill which more than anything else aimed a blow at the Church of England and at definite religious teaching, while endowing the system of religious instruction favoured by Nonconformists contrary to the wishes of the parents of the people of England.

MR. HADDOCK (Lancashire, North Lonsdale)

said he wished to ask on what question the general election turned. Was it not on the question of Chinese labour?

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Gentleman must remember that the question before the Committee was that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

MR. HADDOCK

said that what he wanted to put out was that at a bye-election it had been decided that the parents should have the right to have their children brought up in their own religion. The Ministerialists had a large majority in the House, bat had any attention been paid to the enormous number of petitions which had been presented against the Bill? There had been a cry all through the country that this Bill was intolerable.

*MR. J.F. MASON (Windsor)

said that if this clause was passed as it now stood the result would be to give the children of the country a form of secular education. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had said that religious teaching could not be left in the hands of parents or Sunday schools. Perhaps it was said there might be some private individuals who had sufficient knowledge to impart religious instruction, but mere attainment of knowledge did not qualify a person to be an efficient teacher. His own idea was that if professional teachers were not allowed to give that instruction, religious teaching would have no avail. If that was to be the effect—which he really believed the majority of the people of this country would not submit to—what could the result be? The hon. Member for Leicester had made the remark the other day that parents had no right to demand religious instruction at the hands of the State. He himself contended that the parents, as parents, had no right to demand any education for their children at the hands of the State; they recognised the responsibility which lay on themselves. However, the State having given free and compulsory education to the children in the interests of the State and of citizenship, if the majority of the people of this country who were the State, required that religious education should be given by professional teachers, and no teachers were available except the State teachers, it was now the duty of the State to undertake the counterpart of the work by giving the necessary machinery for providing denominational religious instruction.

Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided;—Ayes, 358, Noes, 169, (Division List, No. 102.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight Grant, Corrie
Acland, Francis Dyke Cawley, Frederick Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Adkins, W. Ryland Chance, Frederick William Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Channing, Francis Allston Griffith, Ellis J.
Agnew, George William Cheetham, John Frederick Grove, Archibald
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Alden, Percy Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Gulland, John W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Cleland, J. W. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Clough, W. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hull, Frederick
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Astbury, John.Meir Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Atherley-Jones, L. Cooper, G. J. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Corbett-,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn' ss-sh.)
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hart-Davies, T.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cory, Clifford John Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Barker, John Cowan, W. H. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) Haworth, Arthur A.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cremer, William Randal Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Barnard, E. B. Crombie, John William Hedges, A. Paget
Barran, Rowland Hirst Crooks, William Helme, Norval Watson
Beale, W. P. Crosfield, A. H. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Beauchamp, E. Crossley, William J. Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Henry, Charles S.
Beck, A. Cecil Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Bellairs, Carlyon Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Higham, John Sharp
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt) Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Hobart, Sir Robert
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.). Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Bennett, E. N. Dobson, Thomas W. Hodge, John
Berridge, T. H. D. Dodd, W. H. Holden, E. Hopkinson
Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford) Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Holland, Sir William Henry
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hooper, A. G.
Billson, Alfred Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Horniman, Emslie John
Black, Alexander Wm (Banff) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bolton, T.'D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Elibank, Master of Hyde, Clarendon
Brace, William Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Illingworh, Percy H.
Bramsdon, T. A. Erskine, David C. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Branch, James Essex, R. W. Jackson R. S
Brigg, John Evans, Samuel T. Jacoby, James Alfred
Brodie, H. C. Eve, Harry Trelawney Jardine, Sir J.
Brooke, Stopford Everett, R. Lacey Jenkins, J.
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Fenwick, Charles Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs) Ferguson, R. C. Munro Johnson W. (Nuneaton)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Findlay, Alexander Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fuller, John Michael F. Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Fullerton, Hugh Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Furness, Sir Christopher Kearley, Hudson E.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Gibb, James (Harrow) Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Byles, William Pollard Gill, A. H. King Alfred John (Knutsford)
Cairns, Thomas Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Kitson, Sir James
Cameron, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Laidlaw, Roberts
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gooch, George Peabody Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lambert, George Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon)
Lamont, Norman Perks, Robert William Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Philips, J. Wynford (Pembroke) Summer bell, T.
Layland-Barratt, Francis Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Sutherland, J. E.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Taylor, Austin. (East Toxteth)
Lehmann, R. C. Pirie, Duncan V. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lever, A. Levy (Easex, Harwich Pollard, Dr. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Tennant, K. P. (Salisbury)
Levy, Maurice Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lewis, John Herbert Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Thomas. Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lough, Thomas Radford, G. H. Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Lupton, Arnold Rainy, A. Rolland Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Raphael. Herbert H. Thomasson, Franklin
Lyell, Charles Henry Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E.)
Lynch, H. B. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Tomkinson, James
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rees, J. D. Toulmin, George
Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs.) Rendall, Athelstan Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Mackarness, Frederick C. Renton, Major Leslie Verney, F. W.
Maclean, Donald Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) Vivian, Henry
M'Arthur, William Richardson, A. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
M'Callum, John M. Rickett, J. Compton Wallace, Robert
M'Crae, George Ridsdale, E. A. Walsh, Stephen
M'Kenna, Reginald Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
M'Micking, Major G. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Maddison, Frederick Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Ward, John (Stoke upon Tr't)
Mallet, Charles E. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd) Ward, W. Dudley (Southanipt'n.)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wardle, George J.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Robinson, S. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan.)
Marnham, F. J. Roe, Sir Thomas Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Rogers, F. E. Newman Waterlow, D. S.
Massie, J. Rose, Charles Day Watt, H. Anderson
Menzies, Walter Rowlands, J. Wedgwood. Josiah C.
Micklem, Nathaniel Runciman. Walter Weir, James Galloway
Molteno, Percy Alport Russell, T. W. Whitbread. Howard
Mond, A. Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) White, George (Norfolk)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Montgomery, H. H. Scarisbrick, T. T. L. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Whitehead. Rowland
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Morrell, Philip Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Morse, L. L. Sears, J. E. Wiles, Thomas
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Seaverns, J. H. Wilkie, Alexander
Murray, James Seddon, J. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Myer, Horatio Shackleton, David James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Napier, T. B. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Shipman, Dr. John G. Wills, Arthur Walters
Nicholls, George Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster) Simon, John Allsebrook Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Norman, Henry Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Soames, Arthur Wellesley Winfrey, R.
Nuttall, Harry Spicer, Albert Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Stanger, H. Y. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Grady, J. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudderef'd)
Parker, James (Halifax) Steadman, W. C
Paul, Herbert Stewart, Halley (Greenock) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Paulton, James Mellor Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Strachey, Sir Edward
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, K.E.) Ashley, W. W. Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester)
Ambrose, Robert Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balcarres, Lord Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks
Anstruther-Gray, Major Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) Beckett. Hon. Gervase
Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Bignold, Sir Arthur
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Banner, John S. Harmood- Blake, Edward
Boland, John Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bowles, G. Stewart Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hazelton, Richard O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Bull, Sir William James Helmsley, Viscount O'Doherty, Philip
Burdett-Coutts, W Hervey,F. W.F. (BuryS.Edm'ds O'Dowd, John
Burke, E. Haviland- Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) O'Hare, Patrick
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh) O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N.
Carlile, E. Hildred Hills, J. W. O'Malley, William
Cave, George Hogan, Michael O'Mara, James
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Houston, Robert Paterson O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Joyce, Michael Percy, Earl
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.) Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Power, Patrick Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham) Keswick, William Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kilbride, Denis Reddy, M.
Cogan, Denis J. King.Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Redmond, William (Clare)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lane-Fox, G. R. Remnant, James Farquharson
Courthope, G. Loyd Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Craig, Captain James (Down,E Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Craik, Sir Henry Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Delany, William Liddell, Henry Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Devlin,Charles Ramsay (Galw'y Lockwood,Rt,Hn.Lt.-Col.A. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Dolan, Charles Joseph Long.Col.Charles W.(Evesham Salter, Arthur Clavell
Doughty, Sir George Lowe, Sir Francis William Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lundon, W. Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East
Du Cros, Harvey MacNeill, John Gordon Swift- Smith,F. E.(Liverpool, Walton
Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.) Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Calmont, Colonel James Starkey, John R.
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sullivan, Donal
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinburghW Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Fell, Arhur M'Killop, W. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Magnus, Sir Philip Thornton, Percy M.
Ffrench, Peter Mason, James F. (Windsor) Tuke, Sir John Barry
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Meagher, Michael Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mechan, Patrick A. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Fletcher J. S. Meysey-Thompton, E. C. White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher Middlemore.John Throgm'rt'n Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Forster, Henry William Mooney, J. J. Wilson,A.Stanley (York, E.R.)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Morpeth, Viscount Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Muntz, Sir Philip A. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ginnell, L. Murnaghan, George Young, Samuel
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Murphy, John Younger, George
Haddock, George R. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Halpin. J. Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Hambro, Charles Eric Nield, Herbert Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Hamilton, Marquess of Nolan, Joseph
Hardy, Laurence (Kent.Ashf'rd O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided;—Ayes, 365; Noes, 162 (Division List No. 103.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Ashton, Thomas Gair Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Acland, Francis Dyke Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry Barnard, E. B.
Adkins, W. Ryland Astbury, John Meir Barran, Rowland Hirst
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. Atherley-Jones, L. Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)
Agnew, George William Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Beale, W. P.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Beauchamp, E.
Alden, Percy Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Beaumont, W.C.B.(Hexham)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Beck, A Cecil
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barker, John Bellairs, Carlyon
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerst Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R
Benn, John Williams(Devonp't Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edwan King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo Erskine, David O. Kitson, Sir James
Bennett, E. N. Essex, R. W. Laidlaw, Robert
Berridge, T. H. D. Evans, Samuel, T. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Eve, Harry Trelawney Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Everett, R. Lacey Lambert, George.
Billson, Al red Fenwick, Charles Lamont, Norman.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Layland-Barrat, Francis
Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire Findlay, Alexander Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Bolton.T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lehmann, R. C.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Fuller, John Michael F. Lever, A.Levy (Essex Harwich.
Brace, William Fullerton, Hugh Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral).
Bramsdon, T. A. Gibb, James (Harrow) Levy, Maurice
Branch, James Gill, A. H. Lewis, John Herbert
Brigg, John Gladstone.Rt.Hn.Herbert Jo'n Liddell, Henry
Brodie, H. G. Goddard, Daniel Ford Lough, Thomas
Brooke, Stopford Gooch, George Peabody Lupton, Arnold
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh) GordonJ. (Londonderry, South) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Grant, Corrie Lyell, Charles Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Greenwood, G. (Peterborough] Lynch, H. B.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Griffith, Ellis J. Macdonald,.J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Grove, Archibald Mackarness, Frederic C.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles Gulland, John W. Maclean, Donald
Bules, William Pollard Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cairns, Thomas Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Arthur, William
Camerson, Robert Hall, Frederick M'Callum, John M.
Garr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis M'Crae, George
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Kni't Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil M'Kenna, Reginald
Cawley, Frederick Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Micking, Major G.
Chance, Frederick William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Maddison, Frederick
Channing, Francis Allston Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh Mallet, Charles E.
Cheetham, John Frederick Hart-Davies, T. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Mansfield, H. Rendalll.(Lincoln)
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Haslam, James (Derbyshire Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston)
Cleland, J. W. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marnham, F. J.
Clough, W. Haworth, Arthur A. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew,W.) Hazel, Dr. A. E. Massie, J.
Cobbald, Felix Thornley Hedges, A. Paget Masterman, C. F. G.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Helme, Norval Watson Menzies, Walter
Collins.SirWm.J. (S.PancrasW. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Micklem, Nathaniel
Cooper, G. J. Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen.W.) Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Henry, Charles S. Mond, A.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Montgomery, M. H.
Cory, Clifford John Higham, John Sharp Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hobart, Sir Robert Monran, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cowan, W. H. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morpeth, Viscount
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hodge, John Morrell, Philip
Craig,Captain James(Down,E.) Holden, E. Hopkinson Morse, L. L.
Cremer, William Randal Holland, Sir William Henry Morton, Alphens Cleophas
Crombie, John William Hooper, A. G. Murray, James
Crooks, William Hope, W.Bateman(SomersetN Myer, Horatio
Crosfield, A. H. Horniman, Emslie John Napier, T. B.
Crossley, William J. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, David (MontgomeryCo Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Newnes, Sir George (Swansea).
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hutton, Alfred Eddison Nicholls, George
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hyde, Clarendon Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Illingworth, Percy H. Norman, Henry
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Jackson, R. S. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dobson, Thomas W. Jacoby, James Alfred Nutta'll, Harry
Dodd, W. H. Jardine, Sir J. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness Jenkins, J. O'Grady, J.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Parker, James (Halifax)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pual, Herbert
Dunne, MajorE Martin(Walsall Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea Paulton, James Mellor
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.. Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Kearley, Hudson E. Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Elibank, Master of Kincaid-Smith, Captain Perks, Robert William
Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke Sears, J. E. Wallace Robert
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Sea veins, J. H. Walsh, Stephen
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Seddon, J. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds.S).
Pirie, Duncan V. Shackleton, David James Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Pollard, Dr. Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Price, CE(Edinburgh, Central) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Shipman, Dr. John G. Wardle, George J.
Priestley, W.EB(Bradford, E.) Silcock, Thomas Ball Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Radford, G. H. Simon, John Allsebrook Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Rainy, A. Holland Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Raphael, Herbert H. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Waterlow, D. S.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Watt, H. Anderson
Rea,Walter Russell (Scarboro') Spicer, Albert Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rees, J. D. Stanger, H. Y. Weir, James Galloway
Rendall, Athelstan Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh Whitbread, Howard
Renton, Major Leslie Steadman, W. G. White, George (Norfolk)
Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th Stewart, Halley (Greenock) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Richardson, A. Strachey, Sir Edward Whitehead, Rowland
Rickett, J. Compton Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ridsdale, E. A. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Wiles, Thomas
Roberts, G. H. Norwich) Summerbell, T. Wilkie, Alexander
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Sutherland, J. E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robertson. SirGScott(Bradf'rd Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Tavlor, John W. (Durham) Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Robinson. S. Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wills, Arthur Walters
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E. Wilson, Henry J. (York.W.R.)
Rogers, F. E. Newman Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rose, Charles Day Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rowlands, J. Thomasson, Franklin Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Runciman, Waller Thompson, J.W. H. (Somerset) Winfrey, R.
Russell, T. W. Tomkinson, James Wodehouse,Lord (Norfolk, Mid.
Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland) Toulmin, George Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Woodhouse.SirJ.T.(Hudd'srf 'd
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Verney, F. W.
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Villiers, Ernest Amherst TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.
Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester Vivian, Henry
Scott, A H(Ashton-under-Lyne) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
NOES.
Abraham Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Forster, Henry William
Ambrose. Robert Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Gibbs, G. A. (Brislol, West)
Anstruthey-Gray, Majör Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.) Ginnell, L.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Clancy, John Joseph Haddock, George R.
Arnold-Forster,Rt. Hn.HughO. Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Halpin, J.
Ashley, W. W. Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. Hambro, Charles Eric
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirH. Cogan, Denis J. Hamilton, Marquess of
Balcarres, Lord Condon, Thomas Joseph Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)
Balfour,Rt. Hn.A.J.(CityLond.) Courthope, G. Loyd Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Craik, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick
Banner, John S. Harmood- Delany, William Hazleton, Richard
Baring, Hun. Guy (Winchester) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway) Healy, Timothy Michael
Beach Hn. Michael Hugh H. Dolan, Charles Joseph Helmsley, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Doughty, Sir George Hervey,F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Blake, Edward Du Cros, Harvey Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)
Boland, John Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan) Hills, J. W.
Bowles, G. Stewart Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hogan, Michael
Boyle, Sir Edward Faber, (George Denison (York) Houston, Robert Paterson
Bridgeman, W. Clive Faber,Capt.W. V. (Hants.,W.) Hunt, Rowland
Bull, Sir William James Fardell, Sir T. George Joyce, Michael
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fell, Arthur Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.
Burke, E. Haviland- Ffrench, Peter Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Butcher, Samuel Henry Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.
Carlile, E. Hildred Flavin, Michael Joseph Keswick, William
Cave, George Fletcher, J. S. Kilbride, Denis
Cavendish Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Flynn, James Christopher King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)
Lambton, Hn. FrederickWm. Nield, Herbert Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Lane-Fox, G. R. Nolan, Joseph Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Lockwood,Rt,Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Smith, FE (Liverpool, Walton)
Long, Col Chas. W (Evesham) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William O'Doherty, Philip Stanley, Hn. A. (Ormskirk)
Lundon, W. O'Dowd, John Starkey, John R.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift O'Hare, Patrick Sullivan, Donal
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) O'Malley, William Thomson. W. Mitchell (Lanark.)
M'Calmont, Colonel James O'Mara, James Thornton, Percy M.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tuke, Sir John Batty
M'Killop, W. Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington Walker, Col.W. H. (Lancashire)
Magnus, Sir Philip Percy, Earl Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Meagher, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Meehan, Patrick A. Ratcliff, Major R. F. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Rawlinson, John Frederick P. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Reddy, M. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Mooney, J. J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Young, Samuel
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Redmond, William (Clare) Younger, George
Murnaghan, George Remnant, James Farquharson
Murphy, John Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Nannetti, Joseph P. Roche, Augustine (Cork) Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday June 11th.

While the remaining Orders of the day were being read over, several hon. Members moved, but objection was taken in each case,

MR. MOONEY (Newry)

on a point of order, asked whether it was competent for any Member of the House to move any Order of the day after 11.30 of the clock.

*MR. SPEAKER

said if the hon. Gentleman would refer to Standing Order No. 1, Sub-section 8, he would find these words— Provided always that if any business exempted after the operation of this Order is disposed of the remaining business, etc." (See Standing Orders). That meant that the Orders of the day have to be gone through.

MR. MOONEY

said that under a further Standing Order, which was published in the amended Standing Orders, it was definitely stated that no business was to be entered upon at 11.30 of the clock, when Mr. Speaker automatically left the chair.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he thought the Order remained exactly the same, only there was a change in the time. It was necessary for the House to go through the Orders.

MR. MOONEY

said his point was, whether in going through the Orders of the day formally, it was competent for a Member to move a Bill.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think it it stands as an Order of the day an hon. Member is entitled to move it.

And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Two o'clock.