Lords Sitting of 29 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (259); Local Government Supplemental (No.4)* (260); Census* (264); Petroleum* (265).
Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* (227); Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (228); Dublin City Voters Disfranchisement* (237).
Committee—Elementary Education (235–262); Telegraph Acts Extension* (206).
Committee — Report — Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment* (231).
Report—Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland)* (240); Absconding Debtors* (256–263); Sheriffs (Scotland) Act (1853) Amendment, &c.* (257).
Third Reading — Curragh of Kildare* (183); Settled Estates* (255); Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland)* (192), and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—ALLEGED DRAFT TREATY.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having given me permission to ask him a Question, I
  1150
  now rise to do so. It relates to the projected Treaty between France and Prussia. I remarked last night that your Lordships and the country would be very anxious for further information respecting the Projet de Traité which appeared in The Times of Monday. A few days after its publication in that journal my noble Friend (Earl Granville) stated to your Lordships that Lord Augustus Loftus, the British Ambassador at Berlin, had verified the document as authentic, and that it would be published in the Prussian official journals. My noble Friend also stated that he had had a conversation with the French Ambassador, who treated it as a project which had never been seriously entertained, and to which the two parties had never agreed. Since my noble Friend made that statement to your Lordships, the Prussian Government has apparently published in the official journal a letter which Count Bismarck, the Chancellor of the North German Confederation, has addressed to Count Bernstorff, the Prussian Ambassador at this Court. That letter also appears in the newspapers this morning, and after its perusal it appears to me a document of such an extraordinary nature that I can only make use of the word "appalling" to describe its tenour. It is almost impossible for us, I think, to believe implicitly what it states; but I wish to ask my noble Friend if he will state to the House what he knows of the matter? The letter is as follows:—
  "To Count Bernstorff,
  "Your Excellency will be good enough to communicate the following to Lord Granville:—
  "The document published by The Times contains one of the proposals which have been made to us since the Danish War by official and unofficial French agents, with the object of establishing an alliance between Prussia and France for their mutual aggrandizement. I will send the text of an offer made in 1866, according to which France proposed to aid Prussia with 300,000 men against Austria, and to permit Prussia's aggrandizement by 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 of subjects in return for the cession to France of the district between the Rhine and the Moselle. The impossibility of agreeing to this course was clear to all except French diplomatists. On this proposition being rejected the French Government began to calculate upon our defeat. France has not ceased to tempt us with offers to be carried out at the cost of Germany and Belgium. In the interests of peace I kept them secret. After the Luxemburg affair the proposals dealing with Belgium and South Germany were renewed. M. Benedetti's manuscript belongs to this period. It is not likely that M. Benedetti acted without the Empror's

  1151
  sanction. Finally, the conviction that no extension of territory was attainable in conjunction with us must have matured the resolve to obtain it by fighting us. I have even grounds for believing that had not this project been made public, after our armaments on both sides were complete, France would have proposed to us jointly to carry out M. Benedetti's programme against unarmed Europe, and to conclude peace at Belgium's cost. If the French Cabinet now repudiates aims, for our participation in which it has uninterruptedly laboured since 1864, either by demands or promises, this is easily to be explained by the present political situation."
  This paper actually accuses the French Government, in a time of profound peace, and of perfect amity with the rest of Europe, of joining Prussia in a violent attack on an independent State, which may be described perhaps as the most innocent and quiet kingdom in Europe. Now, it is not fair under any circumstances, but certainly not for us as neutrals in this war, and as old and faithful allies of the Emperor of the French, to accept this statement as true without hearing what may be said on the other side; but it so happens that on the very day that the projected Treaty appeared in The Times a document appeared in The Daily Telegraph, which I believe to be thoroughly authentic, though it was not official, and was in the form of a letter, signed anonymously by "An Englishman." It was not taken notice of in this House on Monday evening, for the reason I believe that the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) was not then aware of its publication; but I regard it as a French comment and key to the Projet de Traité published by The Times. It states that the writer, whose name I believe is very well known, and who has been for some time resident at Paris, had an audience of the Emperor, that they touched upon the question of the war, and that the writer afterwards inquired whether he was at liberty to repeat the Emperor's words; whereupon His Majesty answered that he wished nothing better than that he should be represented to the people of England as holding these views. The letter, although not official, may therefore be deemed trustworthy. "The Emperor," says the writer, "proceeded to say—
  "I had no notion that war was at hand, nor am I, even at this moment, by any means prepared for it. I trusted that, when the Due de Gramont had set me straight with France by speaking manfully in public as to the Hohenzollern candidature, I should be able so to manipulate and handle the controversy as to make peace certain.
  1152
  But France has slipped out of my hand. I cannot rule unless I lead. This is the most national war that in my time France has undertaken, and I have no choice but to advance at the head of a public opinion which I can neither stem nor check. In addition, M. de Bismarck, although a very clever man, wants too much, and wants it too quick. Alter the victory of Prussia in 1866, I reminded him that but for the friendly and self-denying neutrality of France he could never have achieved such marvels. I pointed out to him that I had never moved a French soldier near to the Rhine frontier during the continuance of the German war. I quoted to him from his own letter in which he thanked me for my abstinence, and said that he had left neither a Prussian gun nor a Prussian soldier upon the Rhine, but had thrown Prussia's whole send undivided strength against Austria and her allies. I told him that, as some slight return for my friendly inactivity, I thought that he might surrender Luxemburg, and one or two other little towns which gravely menace our frontier, to France. I added that in this way he would, by a trifling sacrifice, easily forgotten by Prussia in view of her enormous successes and acquisitions, pacify the French nation, whose jealousies it was so easy to arouse, so difficult to disarm. M. de Bismarck replied to me, after some delay—'Not one foot of territory, whether Prussian or neutral, can I resign. But, perhaps, if I were to make some further acquisitions I could make some concessions. How, for instance, if I were to take Holland? What would France want as a sop for Holland?' 'I replied,' said the Emperor, 'that if he attempted to take Holland it meant war with France and there the conversation, in which M. de Bismarck and M. de Benedetti were the interlocutors, came to an end.'"
  Now, it appears from this that there must have been some pourparlers upon these questions. Your Lordships will observe that there is a remarkable point in these two papers and also in the Projet de Traité. The Emperor speaks of Holland, and says that Count Bismarck would have agreed to his terms if he had consented to give up Holland to Prussia; whereas in Count Bismarck's statement and in the draft Treaty nothing is said of Holland, Belgium alone being mentioned. Now, this country must naturally be very anxious for some elucidation of those contradictory and confusing statements. My Lords, it would be very unfair to the Emperor of the French not to give him credit for the loyal manner in which he has always behaved to this country. I know it, perhaps, better than any man, for I recollect that when I was appointed to the Foreign Office for the second time, in 1858, it was, unfortunately, at the very moment when France was in a state of the highest excitement on account of the attempt of Orsini on the Emperor's life and of the letter written by the French colonels, entreating the Emperor to go to war with

  1153
  England. That letter had just been published, and had created an immense effect. I must say, in justice to the Emperor, that it was to him, and him only, that we owe it that peace was not broken at that moment. France did not then "slip out of his hand." He held her fast, and gave time for the passions of the people to subside. To him, therefore, we owe it that peace was maintained between England and France then, and that it has been maintained till now. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the Emperor's conduct during the Indian Mutiny, when he offered a passage for our troops through France, as the shortest route to India; nor need I remind you of his conduct when we received an insult at the hands of the United States in the matter of the Trent. With these recollections before me, it is with the greatest pain—with the greatest difficulty, that I can conceive that those accusations made against him by Prussia are true. In some measure, we may say the same of Prussia. Although she has not had the opportunity of showing so positively her good faith towards England, she has, as far as I know, always maintained towards us an attitude of friendly alliance. It, therefore, makes it almost impossible for us to believe that these two Powers should have at any time seriously contemplated the violent revolution in Europe which these documents represent.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the other day, after the publication of the alleged draft Treaty in The Times, I ventured to state to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government felt sure that both parties would be desirous of giving full explanations of the whole matter; and, having expressed that desire, I was anxious not to delay in any way giving publicity to any explanations which they might officially offer. I think, however, that for the future it would be more convenient to your Lordships, and more advisable in other respects, that these communications should not be carried on by daily Questions and Answers, but that I should be permitted to make them to your Lordships at the fitting time. With regard to the present Question, I will now give an Answer, though it must necessarily be a condensed one. I will not say anything that is not perfectly significant; but while I communicate to your Lordships what has passed,
  1154
  your Lordships will bear in mind that I simply repeat what has been said to me, and that I reserve any opinion I may form on any part of the question. I prefer to read the English translation of the telegram which Count Bernstorff has been good enough to put into my hands. It is very similar to the telegram which my noble Friend has quoted from this morning's papers, though it is not precisely in the same words. It is as follows:—
  "Berlin, July 28, 1870.
  "Your Excellency will communicate to Lord Granville the following, reserving a further written explanation:—
  "The Draft of Treaty published in The Times contains one of the numerous propositions which have been made to us since the Danish conflict up to recent times through official and non-official French agents, in order to bring about a Treaty between Prussia and France for the object of mutual aggrandizement. I shall send to your Excellency the tenour of another proposal made to us in June, 1866, also planning an offensive and defensive alliance, according to which France promised to us the aid of 300,000 men against Austria, and an aggrandizement of six to eight millions for the cession of a tract of land between the Rhine and Mosclle.
  "The impossibility for me to agree to such propositions were certainly clear to everybody, with the sole exception of the French diplomacy. After we had refused to agree to this or other propositions in June, 1866, the French Government began to speculate upon our defeat, and the profit it might derive from it, and to prepare it diplomatically. Since the patriotic "pang" of M. Rouher, France never ceased to lead us into temptation by propositions at the expense of Germany and Belgium. For the sake of peace I kept the secret, and treated the propositions in a dilatory manner. When the more modest French designs with reference to Luxemburg had been counteracted by events which are publicly known the more extensive propositions embracing Belgium and Southern Germany were renewed.
  "It was at this time, in 1867, that Count Benedetti's manuscript was communicated to me. That the French Ambassador should have drawn up this Draft with his own hand, and repeatedly have conferred with me on the subject without the consent of his Sovereign, is improbable.
  "The difficult phases of French discontentment and warlike inclination which we experienced from 1866 up to the Belgian railway question coincided with the inclination or reluctance the French agents expected to meet with on my part regarding these negotiations.
  "The final conviction that no territorial aggrandizement for France could be obtained with our co-operation has undoubtedly ripened the resolution to gain it by war against us. I have every reason to believe that if this publication had not taken place France would have proposed to us, after the completion of her own and of our own preparations for war, to enforce Count Benedetti's programme at the head of the two armies against unarmed Europe—that is to say, to conclude peace at the expense of Belgium.
  "The Draft of Treaty which is in our hands, and which Lord Augustus Loftus has seen, is from beginning to end, including the corrections, in Count Benedetti's own handwriting, well known to the English Ambassador.
  "If the French Cabinet now denies tendencies for which it has constantly tried to obtain our consent since 1864 by varying promises and demands, this seems very natural under the present political circumstances."
  "BISMARCK."
  My noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) has alluded to a letter which was published in The Daily Telegraph a few days ago. Now, of course, I can deal with nothing but official communications, and I can give no opinion whatever as to the authenticity of that letter or of its contents. The letter from Count Bismarck to Count Bernstorff was put into my hands yesterday morning; and in the afternoon just before the House met and when I had not time to digest what he stated to me in time to answer a Question upon it, the Marquis de Lavalette made a statement to me. The tenour of it I think I shall best state by reading a despatch in which it is embodied, and which will be sent off this evening to Lord Lyons. It is as follows:—
  "Foreign Office, July 29, 1870.
  "My Lord,—The French Ambassador called upon me on the 28th inst., for the purpose of communicating to me the purport of a despatch which had been addressed to his Excellency by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the pretended Draft Treaty published in The Times.
  "In that despatch, which M. de Lavalette was good enough to read to me, the Duke de Gramont observed that the very form in which this Treaty was drawn up, and the terms in which it is couched, showed clearly whence it came, and can deceive no one.
  "Those who have watched the course of European affairs since the accession to office of M. de Bismarck are aware from which side have come those suggestions which are now attributed to France.
  "Ever since the year 1865 M. de Bismarck has constantly endeavoured to carry out his own plans by endeavouring to turn the attention of the French Government to territorial aggrandizement. He told M. de Lefebre do Béhaine, then Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin, that Prussia would willingly recognize the rights of France to extend her borders wherever the French language is spoken, thereby indicating certain Swiss cantons besides Belgium.
  "These overtures the Government of the Emperor declined to entertain.
  "The following year, immediately after the battle of Sadowa, similar proposals were made at Brunn to M. de Béhaine, and on this occasion Count Bismarck told him that the course of France was clear. The French Government should go to the King of Belgium and explain that the inevitable
  1156
  increase of Prussian territory and influence was most disquieting to their security, and that the sole means of avoiding these dangerous issues would be to unite the destinies of Belgium and France by bonds so close that the Belgian Monarchy, whose autonomy would, however, be respected, would become in the North a real bulwark of safety for France.
  "Further reporting a conversation with Count Bismarck in July, 1866, the French Ambassador informed his Government that he reported nothing new in stating that M. de Bismarck is of opinion that compensation should be sought by the French in Belgium, and offered to come to an understanding on the subject.
  "The Government of the Emperor, the Duke de Gramont went on to say, declined to listen to these proposals, and when, at a later period, they sought the rectification of their frontiers, they expressly declined in the discussion to mention even the name of Belgium.
  "The Duke de Gramont then points out that if such designs against Belgium had really been entertained by his Government, it would have been easy to carry them out with the proffered assistance of Prussia, who was only anxious to secure the fruits of her victories.
  "These suggestions were again made at the time of the Luxemburg affair. They were unwillingly received and categorically rejected by the Emperor.
  "Finally, the Marquis de Lavalette was instructed formally to assure Her Majesty's Government that in these proposals the initiative was entirely taken by the Prussian Cabinet. M. de Lavalette then informed me that he had received instructions by telegraph to acquaint me that the document in the handwriting of M. Benedetti was written by him under the dictation of Count Bismarck, who wished to entangle the French Government in a conspiracy against the liberties of Belgium, and that then, as at other times, the scheme was positively rejected.
  "I am, &c., GRANVILLE."
  I have had a communication from M. de Lavalette since, to say that this is not a complete answer to the telegram which the French Government only received this morning, but that further information will be sent.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  (NO. 235.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3—Preliminary.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  EARL RUSSELLproposed, page 1 lines 22 and 23, to omit the words "the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council on Education" and insert "the Minister of Education or President of the

  1157
  Board of Education," with the view of confiding the charge of the education of the country to a separate Department. The Committee of Council consisted, among other Members, of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, of the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, these Members of the Government were fully occupied with the duties of their respective Departments, and were unable to give any attention to the question of education. Another reason for the change he proposed was that, although the Committee of Privy Council might be able to superintend the existing system, the extension now proposed and the many difficult and important questions to which it would give rise demanded the formation of a distinct Department. The only question, indeed, was whether the change should be made at once or whether at some not very remote date. Now, he maintained that all the difficult questions connected with political and religious differences, considering the apathy which prevailed in the rural districts, should come at once before a permanent Department, instead of being partly decided by the present interim administration. He found that the Department as at present constituted, contained 61 Inspectors and 15 Assistant Inspectors, and with the clerks and others engaged it numbered 150 persons. Now, surely, such an extensive machinery adapted to a system of such great importance required to be placed under the control of a responsible chief.
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he rose with considerable reluctance to express a difference of opinion from his noble Friend who had just sat down. He felt regret at all times in differing from his noble Friend, but most especially in differing from him on the subject of education, to which his noble Friend had given so much attention through many years of his life. He would not enter into the abstract question what was the best composition for the Education Department; but he would ask his noble Friend not to press his Amendment in the present circumstances. While he bore his willing testimony to the excellent working of the Department, he was ready to admit also that there were some serious defects, and that its reorganization
  1158
  would probably have to be considered. With regard to the present constitution of the Department, he considered that he, as Lord President, had been singularly fortunate. Their Lordships had shown, by the observations which fell from noble Lords on both sides of the House at the second reading, how much they appreciated the great ability and the eminent services of his right hon. Friend the Vice President. But he must also say that he had been fortunate in the permanent chiefs of departments. There were two men especially, whose ability and experience he could not too highly eulogize—he meant Mr. Lingen and Sir Francis Sandford, who had on all occasions given him the most complete and efficient assistance. His noble Friend (Earl Russell) had pointed to the Members of the Committee of Council on Education, who held the highest official offices of the State, and asked how is was possible that they who were so occupied with the duties of their own Departments could give any attention to education. Now, he (Earl de Grey) must mention that the composition of the Council of Education was regulated merely by two considerations—the first was that those Ministers were appointed whose Departments were more or less associated with education; and the second was the personal qualifications of the Members themselves. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, for instance, was a Member of the Committee not because he was Foreign Secretary, but because he had been for a long time President of the Council, and his assistance and advice in the Department was therefore of very great value. It was time the Committee was not often called together; but when it was called the advice of the Members on the points on which they were to be consulted was found to be of great value. But he did not mean to deny that when the educational arrangements of the country were placed on a sounder basis it might, and would, be necessary to reconsider the organization of the Department. At present they were passing through a state of transition, and it would be better to wait and see what new features the question would assume—not only elementary education, but middle-class and public school examination, for all those must come under the charge of the Department. But he would go further,

  1159
  and say that they could not make that change alone. If they made that change in the Education Department it would be necessary to take account of a great many other Departments which would be affected by the change. The question was one that eminently deserved the consideration of the Government, and it would be for the Government not only to consider what changes were necessary in this Department, but what modifications that change would render necessary in others. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would not, under these circumstances, press his Amendment.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he thought the arguments of his noble Friend were rather reasons for his Amendment than against it. When they were about to make a great change it was the proper time to consider its effects upon the other arrangements. If other Departments were likewise to be considered, he should wish to propose some extensive alteration. For instance, he should like to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and to create two new Secretaries of State—one for Ireland, and one for Law and Justice.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, his noble Friend (Earl Russell) had given cogent reasons for that proposal; while no very conclusive arguments had been used in opposition to it.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped his noble Friend would not press the Amendment. He agreed that it was not a perfect argument to say that because up to this time a system had worked well, therefore at no future time should you make a change. It was very desirable, however, that at that stage, before their Lordships knew what development the Bill would have, a decision should not be taken upon a point not comprised in the measure sent from the other House.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he should be content if he could hope that the arrangement for appointing a Minister of Education would be adopted at no very remote period.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was unwilling now to discuss whether there ought to be a Minister of Education or not; but, supposing he were of that opinion, he did not think that, having regard to the form in which the Bill was presented to their Lordships, this was the proper time for carrying out the object of the noble Earl. If, therefore,
  1160
  the noble Earl divided the House he must vote against him.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the Amendment; but he could not think this the proper occasion for proposing the alteration. He hoped the noble Earl's proposal would be carried at no distant day.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was also much disposed to agree with the noble Earl as to the expediency of having a Minister of Education; but thought it inexpedient to press the subject now.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

  PART I. LOCAL PROVISION FOR SCHOOLS.
  Clause 4, (School districts, &c., in schedule).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, this clause and the Schedule to which it related provided that the parishes should be taken as the rating unit, and that the educational rate should be levied over the entire parish. Now, nothing could be more unfortunate for the good working of this Bill than that it should be unpopular; and he thought this clause and the Schedule which related to it would have this effect. The framers of the Bill seemed to have failed to observe a process of great importance which had been going on throughout the country for many years in the subdivision of extensive parishes; and that in numberless instances the new parish, or the ecclesiastical district constituted out of the ancient parish, often surpassed both in wealth and population the old mother parish. It often happened, too, that the same causes which had led to the creation of the new parish—a spirit of self-reliance and a readiness to provide funds for ecclesiastical purposes—had tended to provide the new district with a more complete ecclesiastical and educational equipment than the old parish had possessed, and, consequently, educational destitution was greater in the old parish than in the new one. The effect of the Bill, however, would be, that if the inquiry of the Privy Council showed a deficiency of education in the mother parish, the Department would be bound to require that a school should be built and a rate levied over the whole area of the original parish; so that the subdivision which had provided fully and efficiently

  1161
  for its own educational wants would be rated over again for the wants of the mother parish. Now, there was no more fruitful cause of irritation against church rates—now dead and gone—than was created by the fact that, after a church had been erected at considerable expense and labour in a new ecclesiastical district, such district was liable to support not only their own but the mother church. Surely it could not be the intention of the Government that the same source of irritation should exist under the Bill. As the measure stood, however, there would be ecclesiastical districts with schools coming up to the requirements of the Privy Council, while the central parish would have rate-supported schools to which the whole of the inhabitants were obliged to contribute. He moved his Amendment in the interests of the measure itself, which would only work well if the rate were popular, but against which, on the grounds he had indicated, there would in such cases be considerable indignation. It was quite possible his proposal was one with which it was not competent for their Lordships to deal. If so, he should not press it; but without such a provision the satisfactory working of the Bill would be seriously imperilled.
  Amendment moved, at end of clause insert the following words:—
  "Provided always, That it shall be lawful for the Education Department by order to declare that any new parish or other ecclesiastical district which has been or shall be constituted under the provisions of any Act of Parliament shall be a parish within the meaning of the first schedule hereto, and thereupon such new parish or other ecclesiastical district shall be a parish for the purposes of this Act, and in the event of there being no overseers appointed for such new parish or district the Education Department may appoint the overseers of any parish out of which the new parish or district, or any part thereof, has been taken, to be the overseers of such new parish or district, provided that the Education Department may at any time revoke any such order."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the noble Duke was right in the supposition that the clause was one with which their Lordships could not deal, as it proposed to alter the incidence of rating, and their Lordships could not interfere with it, without trenching upon the privileges of the other House of Parliament. He would not rest his opposition to the Amendment, however, merely on that point—he was also of opinion that the
  1162
  alteration proposed was on general grounds undesirable The principle of the Bill was to take the Poor Law division as the area of rating, and the rate was to be levied through the ordinary machinery of the poor rate; and that being the case it would be very undesirable to establish a separate rate on a separate system. Similar Amendments had been rejected by the other House on precisely the same ground.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved that the Poor Law Board had now the power of dividing a parish into separate parishes, and he should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would not, on the Report, be prepared to introduce words providing that any of the new divisions should be regarded as a unit for the purposes of the Bill?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he believed the case was provided for under the Bill as it stood.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 7—Supply of Schools.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Regulations for conduct of public elementary school).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEmoved the omission of the words—"A copy of which regulations shall be conspicuously put up in every school." Was that desirable? The object sought to be attained by the use of those words was, no doubt, that parents should know on what conditions their children were admitted to the school; but the very persons who did not go into the school were the parents, while the children did, before whose eyes he thought it was very undesirable that the regulations should be constantly placed. He did not object to the regulations themselves; but they were the result of a compromise after a somewhat bitter controversy, and they retained marks of that bitterness in their provisions relating to attendance at Sunday schools, and the conditions under which the children were to receive religious instruction. If it were thought essential that the parents should be distinctly informed of the regulations, it would be much better to send a printed copy of them to the parent of every child in the school.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that if that were done the consequence would be that the children would have to read the regulations to their parents in almost every cottage.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as the words of the clause were considered a necessary security for the children, and the best and most convenient mode of providing that security.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYconcurred in the spirit of the remarks with which the Amendment had been proposed. If some such alteration were not made in the clause the children, who had the regulations constantly before them in school, would be misled into believing that it was better not to go to church, seeing that the regulations stated that no child should be required to go there, or to have any religious instruction.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that, as the clause stood, the children would be very likely to put whatever pressure they could on their parents, in order to get relieved from religious instruction and have more time for play.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to the first sub-section of the clause, which to his belief was not only not contrary to the principle of the measure, but which in point of fact would tend to carry out the intention of the framers of the Bill, and to render the clause, which at present was somewhat ambiguous, rather more clear. The sub-section, as it now stood, declared that—
  "No child shall be required, as a condition of being admitted into or continuing in the school, to attend or to abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere."
  He believed that the intention of his noble Friend (Earl De Grey) was to leave the matter to the option of the parent of any child; but Mr. Forster, who had the conduct of the Bill in the other House, put a different interpretation on the words. To make the meaning quite clear, therefore, he would propose the insertion of these words at the commencement of the sub-section—"Whenever it shall be contrary to the wish of his parent or guardian" no child shall be required to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, &c. He
  1164
  would remind their Lordships that if the clause were interpreted according to the sense put upon it by Mr. Forster, it would at once disqualify all the schools in connection with the National Society from receiving the Parliamentary Grant. There were no fewer than 13,000 schools in connection with that Society, which might be regarded as the representative of Church education in this country. Three years ago there were 1,500,000 scholars on the registers of the Society, which had received aid to a large extent from public as well as private sources. The total amount it had directly administered during the last 40 or 50 years was no less than £1,000,000, while the amount subscribed for the erection of schools amounted to something like £12,000,000. Therefore, this society had a very strong claim to have its interest protected by that House, yet, as the sub-section now stood, the Society would be disqualified, because it was one of the conditions of that society, that all the children receiving instruction in its schools should attend religious instruction and go to some place of worship; and the society could only allow that condition to be dispensed with under this Bill where the parents of a child actually objected to its being carried out. There was nothing in the Amendment which was at all inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.
  Moved, "Whenever it shall be contrary to the wish of his parent or guardian."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  EARL NELSONsaid, he had himself intended to move an Amendment to the same effect as that just proposed by his noble Friend. He believed that the provision about children not being forced to attend the Church schools really went to the root of the religious difficulty; for it was no doubt true that hitherto, notwithstanding the Conscience Clause, a great many children of Dissenting parents were pressed to attend the Sunday schools. He, therefore, would not advocate any alteration which would prevent the clause from being a real and practical Conscience Clause. At the same time, a fair amount of support ought to be given to the National Society, which had no objection to children being withdrawn from the Sunday schools and the services of the Church at the request of their parents

  1165
  or guardians. That society objected, however, to place on the walls of the schools a notice to the effect that no child should be required to attend that kind of instruction for the imparting of which the society had been mainly founded.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that school children might be divided into two classes—those who received regions instruction at home and those who did not. In the interests of those who did not, their Lordships ought to insist that they should have religious instruction in school unless their parents objected to it. If there were any positive objection on the part of the parents that objection ought to be respected; but if there was no such objection, the children ought to be compelled to comply with the requirements of the school in respect of religious instruction.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, there was one point which had not been noticed; the clause as it stood would enable all the Church of England children, whether their parents wished it or not, on every Saint's day, inasmuch as those days were appointed by the Church of England for religious observance, to put on their caps and go to play; and nobody could stop them, for they would be acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle) had raised a very ingenious difficulty, which he confessed he had not foreseen. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would not expect him to do more than promise to consider the point; but he must say that he very much doubted whether the clause would bear the construction put upon it. As to the main question, he was sorry to say that it was not in his power to consent to the Amendment which had been suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon). Their Lordships would remember the circumstances under which the clause assumed its present form, and the various propositions which had been made in respect to this question of the Conscience Clause by a very influential body in "another place." With these propositions Her Majesty's Government had been unable to agree, and the clause, as it at present stood, was the result of much discussion and compromise. He admitted that the religious difficulty had
  1166
  been very greatly exaggerated; but the clause had been much canvassed in the other House, and he believed the concessions that had been made were due to the conscientious convictions of the Nonconformists. Looking back on the history of the clause, he earnestly hoped their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment, the effect of which would be to render it possible to establish a direct and compulsory connection between Sunday schools and schools which were now for the first time erected as a part of a really national system.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that poor men would often be afraid to make a declaration that they did not wish their children to receive religious instruction; but he thought the difficulty would be met by an alteration in the wording, so that the sub-section might run thus—
  "No parent shall be required to cause his child, as a condition of being admitted to the school, to attend religious instruction."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it appeared to him that the question in this clause was not a question between Church and Dissent, but whether they would put into an Act of Parliament that a child of five years of age was to be asked whether he would have religious teaching or not. There was no objection on that side of the House to leaving the matter to the discretion of the parents; what they did object to was the extreme absurdity of putting up in the school a placard that the child was to choose for himself whether he would or would not be taught religion. His noble Friend (Earl De Grey) seemed to attach great importance to religious teaching, and also to the supposed safeguards in the clause, and he imagined his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon) would have no objection to insert qualifying words before the words in line 13—"instruction in religious subjects;" so as to meet any objections, while removing from the clause the reproach of asking a child of five years to choose on a question of such momentous importance.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, there could be no objection to the proposal of the noble Marquess.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the pressure should be put on the parents and not on the child.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no objection to the insertion of

  1167
  some qualifying words as proposed by the noble Marquess. The noble Earl then suggested certain terms.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he should be sorry to make any alteration in the clause if it could possibly be avoided—for as it now stood it was evidently the result of a compromise; at the same time, it was necessary to remove any patent defects. But with regard to this religious instruction, who was to be the negotiator with the schoolmaster? Was it the child or the parent? The clause at present left that perfectly uncertain. From the 1st section one would draw the conclusion that the child himself would perform this function; but the 2nd section enabled the parent to withdraw the child. Thus, if the parent wished to keep the child at religious instruction, and the child did not wish it, the latter could withdraw—for the parent had no power under the clause to make him attend. If the child happened to be an enlightened child, he might say—"I desire only secular instruction;" but his parent might desire that he should receive religious instruction—whose wish was the schoolmaster to obey? The Government should make it clear what they really meant. The clause in the Act relating to Irish schools was to the effect that no child should receive religious instruction whose parents or guardians disapproved; and that was what should be in the present clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he approached this question with some anxiety. He believed that this clause had been gravely considered in the other House of Parliament, and that it was the result of a compromise of very varying opinions, in which each party had sacrificed some of their peculiar views. The Nonconformists were represented in the other House, where they had been able to state their views: but in their Lordships' House they were not represented; and that was a consideration that could not be ignored. In his opinion, if the Amendment proposed were adopted, the principle of the old church rate controversy would be raised, and the whole principle of the Bill would be destroyed at one blow. As the clause now stood the child would not be asked any question—the whole thing was to be left to the parents, who might do exactly what they pleased: they would not have
  1168
  to express their assent to, or dissent from, anything. When they wished the child to do a thing they could make him do it. When they wished him not to do it they could make him refrain from doing it. The schoolmaster or school managers had nothing to do with imposing conditions. He hoped their Lordships would do nothing to disturb the compromise that had been arrived at.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he thought the clause inevitable under the circumstances and ought to be accepted. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it contained a provision that the objection by the parents should be in writing; but the Government were driven from that position. Then a proposition was made that the objection of the parents should be stated; but the Government were again overruled. No doubt the reason in both cases was that those who opposed the proposed provisions knew that the parents never would object. However, the provision at present in the Bill was the result of a compromise, arrived at after long and angry discussions. The compromise was a very unsatisfactory one no doubt; but it was inevitable. After a long conflict, several nights' debate, and many Divisions, all parties came to the conclusion that the terms in the clause were the only terms in which they could agree. He thought the Government had saved a great deal for the friends of scriptural education. They had saved the admission of the Bible into the schools, and they had saved religious instruction as an integral part of the education to be given in them. But he feared very much that the adoption of the Amendment, however just that Amendment might be, would be regarded in the House of Commons as a breach of the compromise, and consequently would cause the loss of the Bill. He should very much regret such a result. And why? Because he felt as sure as he did of anything, that if this Bill were lost a measure of purely secular education would be passed by the House of Commons next year. He believed that even many of those who had stood up for the Bible this year would in another give up the struggle from more weariness. He implored their Lordships not to run the risk of exposing the country to the loss of this Bill.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONhoped their Lordships would give a careful consideration to the advice just given by the noble Earl, who spoke with so much authority on this subject. He was anxious, if possible, to bring about a satisfactory settlement, and with that view he would suggest an Amendment to be substituted for that of the noble Earl, if he (the Earl of Carnarvon) would so accept it. What he begged to propose was that after the words "any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere" these words should be inserted, "from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent." Some slight verbal Amendments would be required in the previous part of the sub-section in order to make the words proposed read with the rest of the sub-section.
  THE EARL of CARNARVONsaid, he was much obliged to the President of the Council and would accept his suggestion.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Then an Amendment made by inserting—"from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent."
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLmoved to omit the words—
  "The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting."
  So much had been said about the arrangements and adjustments which had occurred "elsewhere" that it was almost impossible to believe that any arguments could have weight with their Lordships; but the objection to those words being retained in the clause was that by such a provision religious teaching would most certainly suffer; and the opinion of all experienced schoolmasters was against it, as was shown by their meetings and Petitions. He wished to confine their Lordships to the simple issue whether they would be well advised to pass the clause in such a shape, when the opinion of many practical men in all parts of the kingdom was against it? What had induced the House of Commons to pass the clause in its present condition after the many objections that
  1170
  had been made to it? This clause was prospective, and the words were a compromise in respect to a state of things that might come into existence. It was in contemplation to apply compulsion hereafter, and it would be a formidable argument against that plan if it could be applied to religious instruction; the limit of time was therefore thought to be a convenient mode of meeting the objection. He contended, however, that the interests of religious education ought not to be sacrificed for some probable and prospective advantage to be derived if compulsion were applied to secular education.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he heartily supported the Amendment. Religion must be the essence of all education, and if it were driven into a corner—if it were placed, so to speak, on the outskirts of secular teaching—what must be the impression made both on the children and the teacher? You thereby discredited and disparaged Christianity itself, treating it as though it were a thing to be ashamed of — as though secular instruction were the one thing needful, and religious instruction of comparatively minor importance: and he feared that the result before long would be a race of godless teachers and infidel scholars—that the sanguine expectations of many as to this Bill would be frustrated, and that many of the children thus educated would be disaffected and disloyal, using their instruction as a means of mischief rather than of good.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERadmitted that it was somewhat of an inconvenience to tie down the teacher to the precise time at which any specified instruction should be given; but he did not share the exaggerated opinions of the evils resulting from such an arrangement. To say that religious instruction was treated with contumely by being placed on the "outskirts" of secular teaching was to assume that there was some special virtue in the middle school-time. His own experience, however, as a schoolmaster was that the beginning of the school-time was the best by far, and if he wished to choose any special hour for giving religious instruction he should choose that time in preference to any other. He therefore believed it would be very unwise to disturb a compromise, in order to remedy what, at worst, would be but a small inconvenience.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDpointed out that there was no security that if the child were withdrawn from religious instruction it would be taught anything daring this interval. He thought the clause gave to religious instruction the appearance of being a punishment.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought that some of the objections expressed to this clause arose from the fact that it was supposed to restrict the teaching of religion to the beginning and end of the day; but as there were two school meetings per day, and religious instruction might be given at the beginning and end of each meeting, it followed that there were four distinct times at which religious education might be given. By adopting the Amendment their Lordships would get rid of the security intended to be afforded by the Time Table Conscience Clause. No doubt any interference with the time of teaching was, to some extent, inconvenient; but he found, from the tables sent to the Education Department in accordance with a Minute issued some time since, that nine-tenths of the existing time tables were framed, as to the period of religious instruction, in perfect accordance with this clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped, after the concession which had been made by the Government in the earlier part of the clause, and the explanation just given by the noble Earl, his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol) would not deem it necessary to press his Amendment. He wished, he might add, to point out that if religious instruction were to be given for a half or three-quarters of an hour or so at the opening of the school, many children would not, in all probability, attend till the expiration of that time, and considerable irregularity would thus be produced.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in answer to the suggestion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), pointed out that although a child might be withdrawn from the religious instruction, it did not follow that he was to be withdrawn from the school.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERwas of opinion that in the morning, at the opening of the school, was the best time to give religious instruction, which to be solidly given must be regular. The morning, also, would be the most convenient
  1172
  time for the clergyman to attend. He therefore preferred the original clause to the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked, that the part of the clause of which the noble Earl (Earl De Grey) had just spoken, if read alone, did not provide for the withdrawal of the child from the school; but when taken in connection with the Proviso as to the time at which religious instruction should be given, a strong presumption arose that the object of proscribing that religious instruction should be imparted at the beginning or end of the meeting, was to enable the parents to withdraw the child from the school altogether at those times. Therefore the Government would do well to consider whether they ought not to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon), in order to remove any doubt which might exist on this point.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he would not press his Amendment in the present state of the House.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment to the effect that the time table should not only be approved, as provided by the clause, but also be "formed and framed" by the Education Department.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that if the Department were to issue a certain number of forms, which they were prepared to approve, the elasticity of the system which the Bill desired to establish would to a great extent vanish. It was clear, however, that the Department ought to have a certain amount of control over the arrangements of the time table, in order to insure that sufficient time was devoted to secular education; but dry forms would restrain the action of the managers in a very inconvenient manner. In his opinion the proposal embodied in the Bill was far simpler than that of his noble Friend, which he trusted would not be pressed.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought nothing could be more inconvenient than to have a great variety of modes of arrangement for time tables sent out to different schools. The result would probably be that the Education Department would themselves suggest

  1173
  a form applicable to all schools, and it would, therefore, be much better to insert it in the Bill in the first instance.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Amendment was not open to the objection of the Lord President, as it merely provided that the necessary forms should be approved—not prepared—by the Committee of Council.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment for the purpose of preventing children being kept away from school during the time devoted to religious instruction. It provided that during the time religious instruction was being given, children whose parents objected to such instruction should receive instruction in secular subjects.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could conceive cases in which it would be almost impossible for two sorts of instruction to be going on at the same time; where, for instance, there was only one school or one teacher.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, there were many parents who would not keep their children away for the purpose of their avoiding religious instruction, but would withdraw them for the sake of the half-hour's work. He thought the school Boards should have power to regulate the schools according to the condition of the localities.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought that the object aimed at by the noble Earl would be attained by the clause as it stood. The Proviso would very seriously infringe on the principle upon which the clause was founded—if, indeed, it would not render the clause altogether illusory. It was necessary that the rights of conscience should be secured absolutely.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, as he had understood the noble Earl (Earl De Grey), the clause did not give power to withdraw altogether.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that remaining in the school was consistent with withdrawing from religious instruction.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the arrangement should be such as would not encourage suspicion that the right of withdrawal was being infringed, and suggested to insert the provision—
  "Any scholar so withdrawing shall receive instruction in other subjects if the same can be done
  1174
  without the scholar being in the same room in which such religious instruction is being given."
  This would impose no rigid rule on the school managers, and yet would preserve the right of parents.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would consider this proposal in conjunction with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, and announce his decision on the Report.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper suggesting a Proviso that when there is a class-room the managers may, with the consent of the Education Department, cause instruction to be given in religious subjects at any other time to be specified in the time table, and approved by the said Department. He trusted this also would be taken into consideration by the noble Earl.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, from his experience in schools, was able to say that children were instructed in the same room in all sorts of subjects in different classes without any interference with each other, and that therefore the proviso suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) was quite unnecessary.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was afraid he could not accept it, as it went far beyond the scope of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon).
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved to insert in sub-section (2), line 27, the following words:—
  "Provided that when there is a class-room the managers may, with the consent of the Education Department, cause instruction to be given in religious subjects at any other time to be specified in the time table, and approved by the said department;"
  and in order to give greater effect to this Proviso, he had to move the further Amendment that "the Inspector shall be bound to perform" no duties which might extend to an inquiry into the religious instruction given at the school. The Amendment was proposed in the interest of the district Inspectors; and he was confident the other House would not refuse to consider any Amendment of the clause for which good ground could be shown.
  EARD DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that admitting the value of the services of the Inspectors he preferred the clause

  1175
  as it stood. He did not think conscientious parents would object to the mode in which it provided for the religious instruction of their children: nor was he inclined to believe that the Inspectors in the future would act differently from the efficient manner in which they had hitherto discharged the arduous duties of their office. There was nothing in the clause to prevent the Inspector from examining the children, as a private individual and out of school hours, as to their religious knowledge.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid, that the clause, in its present form, would postpone the effective and universal operation of the measure, unless the Education Department acted in defiance of all precedent. Before a school could obtain a Parliamentary Grant, it was required to be under a certificated teacher. It was estimated by the Department that they would be able to send out 1,600 certificated teachers per annum, which, after allowing for the estimated annual waste of 900, left only 700 available teachers; whereas no fewer than 25,000 certificated teachers would be required after the Bill came into force, in order to entitle the schools to the Parliamentary Grant: so that, unless the Department relaxed their terms, upwards of 20 years must elapse before the object of the Bill would be attained. Another matter to which he wished to refer in passing was the charge directed by some persons against the clergy of the Church of England, that in their efforts and self-sacrifice for the spread of education they had been actuated by nothing better than sectarian and proselytizing motives. That charge he most emphatically repudiated. His belief was that, on the contrary, they had engaged in school work simply to elevate the condition of the people by whom they were surrounded. He regretted the Bill did not afford more encouragement to the clergy to continue their efforts in the cause of education.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONassured the right rev. Prelate that none could be more ready to acknowledge the great services of the clergy of the Church of England in the cause of education than the Government, and he did not think it fair to speak of this Bill as one in which those efforts were disregarded
  1176
  or discouraged. No doubt the Bill did not deal with the question the right rev. Prelate had raised; but he promised that the whole matter should come under the careful consideration of the Education Department.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 13—Proceedings for Supply of Schools.
  Clause 8 (Determination by Education Department of deficiency of public school accommodation).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to add to the clause—
  ("As also every Sunday school not at present used as an elementary day school, but of which the trustees or managers are willing that it should be so used within the meaning of this Act; provided, that in estimating the amount of school accommodation required for such district due allowance shall be made for the number of children between the age of eight years and the age of thirteen years subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts Extension Act, or the Hours of Labour Regulation Act, or any further extension of those Acts, where under the same school provides for two sets of children, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon, and where consequently the total accommodation is for double the number of children who can be received at any one time.")
  He also wished to know whether the Inspectors in examining into the sufficiency of educational accommodation would be directed to take into account the amount of industrial instruction given in many of the schools at present established in some of the poorest and densest portions of the metropolis, and the other large towns of the country. If not the majority of them would be closed?
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought the object which the noble Earl wished to secure would be achieved by the Bill as it stood.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it would be very desirable that instructions should be given to the Inspectors, to guide them in coming to a conclusion as to the efficiency of the school accommodation in any particular district; because it would be exceedingly hard and unjust on those who supported the schools to have to bear the expense of appealing in order to set right any mistake the Inspectors might make. It was absolutely necessary that the gentlemen employed in making the Returns should take into

  1177
  account those matters to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had alluded.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the noble Earl had not replied to the question whether industrial employment would be taken into account, for, if it were not, the greater number of the schools in which the poorest classes were educated would be annihilated?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the Inspectors would have to be satisfied that the schools gave a sufficient and proper education to those children who were required to attend. In reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he had to remind him that there were clauses in the Bill which related particularly to the adoption of industrial schools.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 27 — Management and Maintenance of Schools by School Board.
  Clause 14 (Management of school by school Board).
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEmoved to omit the regulation as to religious catechisms and formularies, and to insert the provision that "at whatever time religious teaching may take place no catechism or formulary" should be taught in schools. He thought the Amendment would have no effect on the sense of the clause, though it would have on its meaning, and would have no general bearing on the character of the Bill. Having little local knowledge of the circumstances with which the Bill had to deal, he could only look at the general character of the Bill, which seemed to him, so far as he could understand it, to have much in it that commended itself to their Lordships' acceptance. The great difficulty in connection with the subject of education was that which arose from the difference of religion; and this Bill had had to encounter all those difficulties which sprang from the religious animosities which were the bane of this country. He admired much of the machinery for national education provided by the Bill; but he thought it a subject of great regret that there was no clear indication in this
  1178
  Bill that it was the intention of Parliament that there should be religious teaching in these schools. It should be remembered that this was not a Bill which was intended to mould the character of the youth of England alone; it spoke, he might say, to the youth of the world at large; and in these times it was their duty to speak out clearly and distinctly their opinion that religion was an essential part of education. Now there were allusions to religious teaching in the Bill; but there was no distinct declaration that there should be religious teaching. It might be that it was an oversight on the part of the framers of the Bill, and to remedy that oversight he begged to propose his Amendment.
  Amendment moved, page 6, line 7, to omit ("no religious catechism or formulary,") and insert ("at whatever time religious teaching may take place therein no catechism or formulary.")—(The Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he regretted he could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend; nor did he understand how his Amendment could be less of a mere allusion to religious teaching than the words to which his noble Friend objected. The clause, as it stood, simply and directly expressed the intentions of Parliament, and the Amendment would require no further religious instruction. He did not see how Parliament could make any direct declaration with respect to religious teaching without adopting some formulary; which would be contrary to the whole principle of the Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONattached no value to the introduction of the mere name of religious teaching, and thought the words proposed to be inserted would be of no service. Parliament could not define religious teaching, and he thought the only satisfactory way was to leave it to school managers to settle it for themselves in their own way.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he sympathized with the object which the noble Viscount had in view, and regretted that, in the case of the school Board schools, there was not some greater recognition of the necessity of religious instruction. It might, however, be a question whether it was wise to impose, by Act of Parliament, the necessity of doing that which it might be

  1179
  reasonably presumed would be done by the voluntary action of the school Boards themselves; and he submitted to the noble Viscount whether his object was not attained by Section 7, which, in the case of public elementary schools, required a Time Table Conscience Clause, and as these were public elementary schools there was thus an inferential recognition of the necessity of religious teaching.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD COLCHESTER, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he hardly hoped, at this stage of the Bill, to succeed in making so considerable a change as it proposed; but he was anxious to express his strong protest against the form in which the clause had come up to their Lordships. When introduced into the other House of Parliament the Bill contained no restriction as to the religious teaching which the school Board might see fit to provide for those children whom their parents did not withdraw. The noble Earl (Earl De Grey) stated that he still had a parental affection for the clause in its old form: but unhappily, when opposition arose "elsewhere," the Ministry, like a prince of antiquity, sacrificed their child to appease the winds; or, like the subject of a more modern caricature, threw out one of their children to divert the wolves who pursued the rest. It appeared to him that the original clause was just and fair, and that similar justice and equity were not to be found in the present clause. As it stood, where the Church had a majority its formularies and catechism might be taught, subject to a right of withdrawal of children whose parents dissented. If any sect of Dissenters were in the majority they might equally authorize Dissenting teaching; and if the majority were opposed to denominational teaching it might be omitted altogether. The noble Earl (Earl De Grey) urged that by this latitude dissension, ill-blood, and sectarian animosity might be stirred up in the localities. This argument, as far as it had weight, seemed to go too far:—it applied to our whole constitutional system and all our system of local government. Debates in the Houses of Parliament might create irritation. General Elections, especially if, like the last, they turned on religious questions,
  1180
  might excite the highest amount of religious agitation. Such an argument, so far from being one to be expected from the President of the Council of a Liberal Ministry, was rather what he should have expected from philosophers of the type of Hobbes or Joseph de Maistre—men who, with great talent and great earnestness, advocated absolute as against constitutional government. And, in fact, the very argument now used by the opponents of the original clause was precisely what he found in Clarendon was used against the extension of the power of the House of Commons—that it would cause faction in the places where they were chosen. If, however, the object were good, the clause failed to carry it out. The school Board might still establish either any form of religious instruction or no religious instruction whatever. Churchmen, Dissenters, Secularists might still struggle for the election of the Board who elected the schoolmaster. The only limitation was the somewhat ambiguous one of the exclusion of catechisms and formularies distinctive of any peculiar denomination. He did not know how those words would be interpreted. He hoped the Ministry would explain whether they intended to exclude only such formularies as were peculiar to any one denomination alone, or any which, like the creeds, were common to many religious bodies, but not to all. If it were intended in the former sense, then, as except Roman Catholics, who were scarcely any where a majority, and the Presbyterians, who scarcely existed in England, the only body using distinctive formularies was the Established Church. An invidious distinction was thus created, and a special disability imposed on that Church. But local dissension as to the religious management of the school was not excluded. It could only be excluded by a regulation far more sweeping, far more restrictive, and which neither the House nor the Ministry would be prepared to advocate. He did not think that it was to avoid dissension that this change was demanded. The opponents of denominational education themselves—only an education sect or party—claimed to be the whole people. They demanded that their principles should prevail not only where the majority of a district desired it, but where the majority repudiated them altogether. They wished, in fact,

  1181
  to establish an undenominational ascendancy in districts where the people were denominational. Now, he regarded these pretensions as grasping, unjust, irrational. He considered that they had been exposed and torn to pieces by the Vice President of the Council in his speech on the subject. And it was to be regretted that he and the Education Department, abandoning the views he had eloquently and convincingly upheld, should have altered this clause in accordance with the fallacies which he had overthrown. The Amendment which he ventured to propose was one which fell far short of the latitude of the clause originally introduced. It only suggested that where a majority of the ratepayers expressed a desire that the restrictions on religious teaching should not apply, their wishes should not be thwarted by the opinions of a small minority among themselves, or the theories of a political sect elsewhere. In a later clause of the Bill the school Boards, which were here restrained from giving certain teaching to children willing to receive it, were empowered to compel the attendance of the children of unwilling parents. If both these clauses were retained, it would appear certainly to support the admission of the Government that their Bill was neither logical nor consistent. He urged the Government and the House to remedy in some degree this blemish, and, as the words he moved proposed, allow respect to be shown to the wishes of localities, when expressed by unmistakable and decisive majorities. They thus might modify the evil of a clause which was both unjust and insufficient, but for which the Government were not originally responsible, which was contrary to their better judgment, and which was only adopted in deference to a clamour undeserving of the respect it received.
  Amendment moved, page 6, line 14, insert—
  "Unless a majority of ratepayers of the school district petition the Education Department in favour of such teaching."—(The Lord Colchester.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment, which would only re-open that difficult question which induced the other House to adopt the change in the Bill embodied in this section.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLdesired the noble Earl to explain the meaning of the sub-section, for at present he was in doubt between two opinions—would it be allowable to teach any religious catechism or religious formulary which was not distinctive of any particular denomination—for instance, would it forbid the teaching of our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour, because that duty was inculcated in the Church Catechism; or whether it merely forbad the teaching of a Church formulary as such?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONwas understood to say the section would forbid the teaching of the Church Catechism as such.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNasked whether it would forbid the teaching of the Lord's Prayer, which, although in the Church Catechism, was common to all Christians?
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, the noble Earl's explanation was unsatisfactory.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Government appeared to have tried to reconcile conflicting sides by using words which neither side could understand, and when they had done that they announced they had effected reconciliation. The result was it was impossible to give any clear legal definition of the 2nd sub-section; it would be differently interpreted in all places, and each set of disputants would submit their case to the Committee of Council; and the utter absence of definition would give the Committee an absolute and despotic authority in determining the matter. As a matter of fact, the use of the word "distinctive" would admit the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed, because they were common to the Presbyterian as well as the Church of England, and not "distinctive of any particular denomination."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this Act would be interpreted, as all Acts were, according to the reasonable meaning of the words. If a man was found teaching the contents of the Church Catechism in a sectarian spirit or as a formulary he would be checked.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Fees of children).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved the omission of the words, "the whole or any," in order to prevent school Boards from defraying the whole of the school fees of children whose parents were too poor to pay them.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the Amendment. No doubt it was not desirable that the Board should give education gratuitously where it was possible for the parents to pay towards it. In Scotland the parochial Boards were authorized to give free education to the children of parents who were unable to pay for it; and under this clause, which was very carefully worded, the same discretion was given to the school Boards to be created by the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Maintenance by school Board of schools and sufficient school accommodation).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved an Amendment, to the effect that the school Board might remit the whole or part of the fee in the case of a child whose parents were unable to pay the same—
  "With the sanction of the Education Department, if no offer is made with the sanction of the said Department by any body of managers within six months to undertake the same without assistance from the rates."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Powers of school Board for providing schools.)
  LORD HOWARD OF GLOSSOPmoved the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He thought it was not the object of the Bill to prevent voluntary schools having a fair chance as compared with other schools. In towns like Middlesbrough, which had nearly tripled its population in 10 years, there must be ample room for voluntary action. Now, the plan he proposed was not a violent but a reasonable one. It was that a school Board for a district should have power to purchase land by compulsion, thereby placing it on an equality with the school Boards under the Bill. All he contended for was that voluntary education should be placed on a par, and no more, with the new system of education
  1184
  which the Bill would establish. He begged to move the omission of the words "every school Board" at the commencement of the clause.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment. He could not go so far as to assent to enable private and individual bodies to take land except by the process laid down in the Bill. Neither could he agree to a proposal to give them power to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; moreover that was a proposition which the other House of Parliament would not be likely to accept.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Managers may transfer school to school Board).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved an Amendment—line 42, after "purpose," insert—
  "Provided that in every case under this section the majority of those voting at any meeting to give effect to its provisions shall be not less than two thirds of those present at such meeting."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHmoved to insert a new clause between Clauses 22 and 23—
  "If the ratepayers of any district in which a school shall have been transferred to a school Board shall at a meeting duly summoned for the purpose resolve that such school shall cease to be managed by the school Board, and there are trustees or other persons who in the opinion of the Education Department will represent the management of such school before it was transferred and who are willing to undertake the management thereof, the school Board may transfer to such trustees or persons such school, and convey and assign the schoolhouse and any other property belonging to such school vested in the school Board; but in every case such transfer shall be made only,—(1) with the consent of the Education Department; and (2) with the consent of a majority of the School Board; provided, that no money raised by rates shall be applied for the support of such school after the transfer thereof by the school Board."
  He thought that schools transferred to school Boards should not be irremovably fixed, so that no opportunity could be afforded the managers of the schools to resume the control of them. He thought the clause would be as much in the interest of the ratepayers as of the managers.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he did not object to the principle of the clause; but thought that it would require some amendment at a future stage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause inserted.
  Clause 23 (Alterations of regulations affecting management, &c.).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved to omit the clause, on the ground that it gave a power in excess of any power given in any other part of the Bill, and which would operate injuriously against the parish schools.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons. There might be occasions in which it would be useful to have such a power vested in managers. He was willing to be guided by the sense of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Establishment of free school in special cases).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved to omit the clause.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was impossible to deny the existence of many districts where the inhabitants were too poor to pay school fees.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 65: Majority 4.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Establishment of industrial school).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to insert after Clause 27—
  "The school Board shall have the power of granting the use of rate-provided schools for the purpose of religious instruction or any other purposes except those of a place of religious worship, provided that such use shall not interfere with the ordinary school hours."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he must oppose this addition.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 35—Constitution of School Boards.
  Clauses 28 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 36 to 38—School Board in Metropolis.
  Clause 36 (School Board in metropolis).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment, giving to the metropolis the same six months' grace as was given to large towns and rural parishes. He could see no reason why Returns should not be made in London, as well as in every other part of the country, for no one could tell the amount of educational accommodation in the metropolis.
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the reason for putting the Act in force at once in the metropolis was the pressing necessity for avoiding delay in the establishment of schools. The want of schools in the metropolis was so well known and acknowledged that it would be a waste of time to wait until inquiries had been made. The only effect of the Amendment would be to cause unnecessary delay in the formation of the school Board, and in ascertaining the educational wants of the metropolis.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHasked how the metropolis was to be rated? Would each district have to provide for its own wants, or would the rates be spread over the whole area?
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked if the Government had made allowance for voluntary efforts?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the education rate would be levied over the whole area of London; and, even, if in one district the education should be sufficient, that district would be rated to supply the requirements of another district. It was impossible for voluntary efforts to supply the educational deficiency of the metropolis. The joint efforts of the school Boards and of voluntaryism would be needed for many years to come to supply this deficiency.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 73 (Attendance of child at school).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was the height of absurdity to require children five years old to go to school. For himself he should never dream of educating a child of that age. It might be desirable to keep them out of mischief; but he begged his noble Friend to alter the limit of age from five to seven years.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed an Amendment altering the ages of children who should be required to attend school. The clause said that these children should be "not less than five years nor more than thirteen years." He proposed it should read, "not less than four nor more than ten years." It should be borne in mind that the exercise of such power was at the discretion of the local authorities. The great object should be to make the Bill as acceptable and palatable as possible—to take from it all that might be alarming. The measure was tentative and experimental. Now, in the London ragged schools there was a vast number of children not much more than two years old. They were not subjected to teaching, but they were brought by older children, were taught habits of order and regularity, and went through some few motions of physical exercise. Now, if the little girls of six years of age were taken to school, who, when the mother went out charing—and go she must in many cases—would take care of the younger ones? The neglect, the dirt, and danger in which these little things passed their lives was lamentable. In many parts of the manufacturing districts children of five, four, and even three years of age were put to continuous labour, and it was only that very day that he had heard of a child of two years of age who had gone through a large amount of work. Now, the Workshops Act was no protection to those children, because they toiled in the houses of their parents, and the only protection which could be given them was that they should be placed under the care of the school Boards. In London the number of employments in which children were engaged under 10 years of age was very small. That was, however, the age at which they began to be employed, and at which parents expected to gain something by their labour. If, therefore, it were to be insisted on in the Bill that those children were to attend at school from 6 to 13, for the purpose of being educated, a perfect panic would be created
  1188
  throughout the country. The parents would believe that the children were to be taken whether they wished or not, and that they would not only lose their services, but would be obliged to provide for their maintenance while they continued to go to school. The extent to which persons in London depended on the labour of their children their Lordships could scarcely be aware of, and it was impossible that a man could maintain a wife and family on 9s. or 10 s. a week, unless he was assisted by such labour. If, however, a motive such as that embodied in his Amendment were held out to the parents it would be the means, while securing the education which was required, of leaving them the services of their children. It would to a certain extent be effecting that which it was proposed to effect by the Factory Acts, and until that principle was introduced—the combination of labour and study—he did not think the Legislature would be justified in saying that parents should be altogether deprived of the services of their children from the age of 6 to 13. At the outset, therefore, it was, he contended, desirable that the limit should be fixed at 10 years; if that was not found to answer it might be afterwards extended to 12 or 13. He found, during a visit to the Potteries, a great number of children, some on half-time and some who did not work at all, but went regularly to school; but the masters had told him that the half-time children from Lancashire were superior intellectually to those who were engaged in studying the whole day. Various Returns in the higher standards furnished evidence of a similar result. Let them, therefore, do all that they could to introduce a system which had operated so successfully; but until they had introduced it to a certain extent it would, he maintained, be unjust that up to the age of 13 parents should not be allowed to derive any benefit from the labour of their children. He was the more anxious to make the Bill acceptable because he saw that the principle that the State should provide education would work so rapidly that in the course of a short time thousands of children would be thrown on the streets who were now receiving a certain amount of care and instruction. He was informed that within the last few days three ragged schools, containing over 1,000 children, were to close on

  1189
  the 29th September, because it was believed the Government intended to take charge of all the poor children. He was anxious, therefore, that when voluntary efforts ceased the operation of the Bill should be made as easy and effective as possible.
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section 1, line 34, to leave out ("five") and insert ("four"), and leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("ten.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he could hardly imagine that the school Boards would resort to a system of compulsion; and even if they did he doubted whether the magistrates would enforce it. In his judgment this clause would be the most unwise and impracticable one in the Bill, and he should like to see it omitted altogether.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he was satisfied that efficient instruction could be imparted to infants, and submitted that, as the time allowed for the education of children was exceedingly short, it was of great importance that they should begin to be taught at an early age. In answer to the arguments urged by the noble Earl, he would remind their Lordships that the power to compel the attendance of the children was only a permissive one, and that it might be desirable in some localities to continue the education to the age of 13. Again, the power of compulsion was to be exercised by Boards elected to a large extent by the parents of the children, so that it would be no easy matter to adopt the compulsory system, if the parents were opposed to it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYremarked that under the clause the school Boards might select any limit of age they pleased provided they did not go lower than five nor higher than 13 years. If we were to have compulsion at all he did not see how it could be put on any other basis.
  LORD LYTTELTONthought this permissive compulsion was one of the most unwise things that had ever been attempted. He doubted whether those who were most zealous to carry it out would not grievously fail in doing so, and thereby bring discredit on the cause of compulsory education, which he had himself advocated for many years. He objected to the clause because the indefinite powers conferred by it would in many instances
  1190
  be vested in persons utterly incapable of exercising them in a proper and judicious manner.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, it would be found impossible to carry out the system of compulsory education up to the age of 13. Boys from 10 to 13 were of great use to the farmers. A boy 10 years of age could earn 6d. a day. This amounted to £8 a year; and where a man had six boys they together could add £50 a year to the labourer's income. To cut off such a sum from the income of a man with 10 s. a week and a family, was a hard matter.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONpointed out that the clause simply would not allow compulsion to be exercised on children of lower age than five or higher age than 13; the Boards could fix on any ages within these for the limit. The Amendment of the noble Earl wholly or partially exempting children who had reached a certain standard of education from compulsion he willingly accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at end of clause insert—
  ("Provided, that any bye-law under this section requiring a child between ten or thirteen years of age to attend school shall provide for the total or partial exemption of such child from the obligation to attend school if one of Her Majesty's inspectors certified that such child has reached a standard of education specified in such bye-law.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD COLCHESTERurged the rejection of the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 74 to 93, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART II. PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.
  Clause 94 (Conditions of annual Parliamentary Grant).
  THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment, in page 36, line 12, after "school" insert—
  "Or that it shall be carried on by a teacher certificated by the Education Department."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONhoped their Lordships would not assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to add, at end of Clause 94—
  "Provided, that no conditions shall be required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to

  1191
  obtain an annual Parliamentary Grant by any Minutes of the Education Department not in force at the time of the passing of this Act, unless such Minutes shall have been laid for six weeks upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament and shall not have been objected to in an Address to Her Majesty from either House."
  Were the clause to be passed as it stood it would be competent for the Privy Council to turn the compromise secured by the Church of England, after what, he must confess, was a severe battle, into a complete defeat. The Amendment he proposed would give that body some security that the results they had obtained should not be destroyed at the caprice of the Executive for the time being.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was willing to accept the first part of the Amendment; but he did not think the House of Commons would approve the regulations of the Privy Council being set aside by a single vote of the House of Lords. He had no objection to accept the Amendment, provided the noble Marquess would make it necessary that the Address should be agreed to by both Houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he must ask the House to consider his proposal as a whole, because without it the security for the future of the Church of England would be very precarious indeed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved to add another column, showing the amount of rate levied for school purposes exclusively.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that having addressed the House upon the subject of the mode of election proposed by this Schedule at some length upon the second reading of the Bill, he did not propose to make many observations on the subject on the present occasion. He did not think that election by Ballot was a mode fairly applicable in the present case. As the Schedule stood it was provided that—
  "Any poll shall be taken by ballot in accordance with the principles upon which a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855."
  He proposed that in lieu of the foregoing
  1192
  words, there should be inserted words providing that in the metropolis the poll should be taken in like manner as votes are now taken under the Metropolis Management Act of 1855, and that in other districts it should be taken in like manner as the poll is now taken of burgesses or ratepayers in the election of town councillors or guardians, as the case may be. If this Amendment were adopted, the votes in the country districts would be taken as the votes for Poor Law Guardians had been taken for many years past.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("taken") to the end of the paragraph, and insert—
  ("In the Metropolis in like manner as a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and shall be taken in any other district in like manner as a poll of burgesses or ratepayers (as the case may be) is usually taken in such district.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would not delay their Lordships at that late hour by going at any length into the circumstances under which the Ballot system had been introduced into the Bill. He was sorry he could not agree to the Amendment. He did not regard taking the votes by Ballot in the same sense the noble Duke did, but as a convenient mode of conducting these elections. Its adoption in this Bill would have the advantage of shielding the voters from the pressure of political leaders or the leaders of any particular religious denomination, who wished to see a man elected on the Board not from his educational merits, but solely from his connection with a particular party or denomination. He believed it was by no means an imaginary danger, considering that an amount of denominational heat had been expressed in reference to this Bill that he had not expected to see exhibited in these days.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYregretted that the mischievous word "Ballot" had been introduced into the Education Bill. He detested secret voting. He had never blackballed a man but once, and then he told him of it immediately after.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 72: Majority 19.
  Words struck out.
  Then the words—
  ("In the Metropolis in like manner as a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and shall be taken in any other district in like manner as a poll of burgesses or ratepayers (as the case may be) is usually taken in such district,")
  inserted in lieu thereof.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, referring to the question he had opened upon a previous clause of the Bill, moved to insert—
  "Whereas it is most desirable to extend the advantages of education throughout the whole compass of England and Wales in such manner that no one shall be excluded from any elementary school by reason of religious scruples, and also to consider religious instruction grounded on Christian principles as the true complement of sound elementary education."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONasked his noble Friend not to press the Amendment, which was undesirable—besides which there had been a practice of late years to dispense with long Preambles that had no enacting power. He could not agree with the statement that there was not in the Bill any provision as to religious instruction, although it was not set out in so many words. The words proposed might raise questions which it would be undesirable to discuss.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think the noble Earl was justified in dealing with the Preamble as a formality after the animated conflict which took place on the Preamble to the Bill of last Session. In the present state of the House he did not think that his noble Friend could press his Amendment; but he thought the words proposed would give a more satisfactory interpretation to the Bill. The Government might accede to words which they themselves confessed could not do any injury.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 262.)

  PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Petroleum Acts 1862 and 1868—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 265.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, A.M., to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.