EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL

HL Deb 10 December 1902 vol 116 cc537-642

House again in Committee (according to order).

Clause 7:—

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

said there were two Amendments to the first part of Clause 7 which very much resembled each other—the one he had placed on the Paper, and the other standing in the name of the Bishop of Winchester. He would have been glad to have withdrawn his Amendment in favour of that standing in the name of his right rev. brother, but he thought the latter was a little vague, and did not quite carry out the purpose of his Amendment. He had not the slightest desire to interfere with any direction given by the local authority to the managers of schools respecting secular instruction, except in one particular, namely, to provide that they might give such instruction about the filling up of the time table as might make it necessary to have religious instruction either an hour before school or an hour after. If such a thing were done it would be necessary, supposing that the Bishop of Winchester's Amendment were carried, to ask the question whether they were required to give religious instruction in the hour before or in the hour after school, and whether that would give "reasonable facilities" for religions instruction? To get that question answered they would have to go to the Hoard of Education, and he was by no means certain that they would get from that body any permanent answer, because the all knew that from time to time the paramount authority at the Board of Education changed. He imagined that if a certain party were paramount, the answer would be that to require them to give religious instruction out of school hours was not to afford reasonable facilities, but he expected the opposite party might just as likely say that it was affording reasonable facilities. He wanted to make the latter answer impossible, as it would be if the House accepted his Amendment. He had once tried the effect of giving religious instruction before and also after school hours. He tried it when ho was Bishop of Melbourne, but it failed, as it was bound to fail. How could they expect that children would get up an hour before school time to attend a religious lesson, or how could they expect them when they were weary of the day's work to continue an extra hour after school? He might be told that this could be made compulsory. Yes, but complaint would be made that the strength of the child was being overtaxed and injured. That complaint would be a reasonable one, and if it were insisted upon that the children should attend, the parents could get over the difficulty by pleading the Conscience Clause and withdrawing the children from religious instruction. That was what they would do, and unless they made a regulation that religions instruction should be given during school hours, he himself thought that religious instruction would become a delusion and a snare. If they could not secure the giving of religious instruction in school hours, they would very speedily make an end altogether of religious instruction. He did not believe that it was the intention to make religious instruction a farce or impossible. Therefore he trusted that his Amendment might receive favourable consideration.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 43, after ' grounds' to insert 'but so far as such directions have reference to the timetable of a school in which religious instruction is given they shall provide that a reasonable time be secured during school hours for religious instruction.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)

EARL STANHOPE

supported the Amendment and expressed the hope that His Majesty's Government would accept it. It was not of any of the supporters of the Bill to limit secular education might be crowed out unless a definite time was given for it during school hours.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

hoped the Government would not accept the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment, which went a considerable way beyond the Amendment standing in the name of the Bishop of Winchester. The Bishop of Manchester complained that as the Bill now stood children might not get religious instruction at all.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

Not in school hours.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

said arrangements could be made, and should be made, for religious instruction to be given, where so desired, out of school hours. The children attending rural schools came, many of them, from a long distance. Therefore it was only reasonable that they should not be deprived of any part of the time now allotted to secular education. The Bishop of Manchester had referred to the Conscience Clause. Some of these children came as many as three, four and five miles to attend school. Were they, while this religious instruction was going on, to be taken out of the school? If so, where were they to go? In his opinion the Amendment would not tend to solve the religious difficulty. In Church schools they would get this instruction under their trust deeds. He did not know why they should compel all the voluntary schools to adopt the principles of the Church schools. There were a great number of voluntary schools where the religious instruction was strictly undenominational. If some Clause of this kind were inserted he feared they would have a good deal of friction. He did not speak now in the interests of party but in the interests of religious peace. He hopes the noble Duke would not accept the Amendment, for it would not assist the cause of education.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said the noble Earl who had just spoken had a little misapprehended the difference, if any, between his intention in putting down the Amendment which stood in his name and the intention of his right rev. brother of Manchester. Personally, he did not care much whether one Amendment or the other was accepted, but he thought it was most important that religious teaching should be given during school hours. The noble Earl seemed to suppose that at present religious teaching was given outside school hours. That was not so, and all that the Amendment proposed was to retain it in its present position. Religious teaching could only be given at the beginning or at the end of school teaching, and all that the Amendment suggested was that the regulation of the education authority should not be such as to render that teaching impossible.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

hoped the noble Duke would make quite clear in his reply whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would override the general principle of the time at which religious instruction should be given.

EARL SPENCER

If it is laid down that religious instruction should only be given at the beginning or end of the school hours, that may obviate some of the objections which I feel to the Amendment now before the House. I certainly should prefer the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, because I think it is more consistent with the present law. If as he says, and I have no doubt it is the case, that religious instruction must be given at the beginning or the end, I should be prepared to agree to his Amendment. But the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment is much wider, and, under his proposal, time might be taken right in the middle of school hours for religious instruction.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

There is not, I conceive, either in the Bill or in these Amendments, anything which in any degree overrides the provision of the Act of 1870, regulating the times at which religious instruction should be given. It certainly was not the intention when Government promoted this Bill, that the hours of religious instruction should be relegated to a time outside the school hours. In case there should be any doubt upon the subject, the Government are perfectly willing to accept the Bishop of Winchester's Amendment, amended as follows— But no direction given under this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religions instruction during school hours.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

withdrew his Amendment in favour of that which the Government were willing to accept.

*THE LORD BISHOP Of WINCHESTER

said he would be very glad to move his Amendment in the terms proposed by the noble Duke.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 4, after 'managers,' to insert ' but no direction given under this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DAVEY

moved with regard to sub-Section (d), which provides that the managers of the school shall provide the schoolhouse free of charge, to leave out "except for the teacher's dwelling house." He moved the Amendment with some misgiving, but as it seemed to be the general opinion of the House that noble Lords should move such Amendments as they thought fit in the Bill, without regard to the question whether they might not directly or indirectly touch matters outside the control of their Lordships, he was emboldened to lay his Amendment before the House, and he hoped the Government might see their way to accept it. Perhaps their Lordships would allow him to refer to the mode in which the provision excluding the teacher's residence from the school buildings which were to be at the disposal of the public education authority got into the Bill. It was not in the original Bill. On the contrary, the original Bill provided in the clearest terms that the teacher's residence, if any, should be at the disposal of the public education authority. By the term "school house" in the Act of 1870, the master's residence, if any, was included, and this Bill enacted in one of the later sections that the words in the Bill should have the same meaning as they had in the Act of 1870. Therefore, when the Bill spoke of the school house in the sub-Section on which they were now engaged, it clearly included the master's residence as well as the rooms actually used for the purpose of teaching. In Committee in another place, Sir William Anson, who was then, lie thought, already Secretary of the Hoard of Education, proposed an alteration in the Clause including the words as they now stood. In fact, he proposed the Clause in its present form. In doing so, he stated that it was for the purpose of removing an ambiguity, and he invited the House to consider it more as a verbal Amendment than any thing else. He (Lord Davey) took the liberty of saying there was no ambiguity whatever in the Bill as it then stood, and that the Amendment which was made at the instance of the Government was an Amendment of substance and one of considerable importance. He could not suppose that the skilful and able draughtsmen who assisted the Government in the preparation of their Bills could possibly have been mistaken or not have known the meaning of the words they used in drawing the Bill, nor could he suppose that the very able and well-instructed gentleman who assisted the Government at the Board of Education did not know the meaning of the words in the Acts with which they were so familiar. Therefore, he must assume that the original design when the Bill was placed before Parliament was that the master's residence should go with the rest of the school buildings, and be at the disposal of the local education authority. He objected to this Amendment on several grounds, but his chief ground was that it would be calculated to lead to confusion and great inconvenience and it was wholly at variance with the scheme and inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill, Their Lordships were aware that the master's residence was frequently actually part of the same building as the rooms in which the teaching was conducted. The master's residence and the schoolrooms formed together one building or one house, and were indistinguishable. He believed that in the schools which had recently been erected under the supervision of the Educational Department the master's residence was in a separate building. But in the older schools almost invariably it was part of the same building. He thought it must have been the intention of the Government, when this Bill was submitted, that the whole building should be at the disposal of the local education authority, and to distinguish between one part of the building and another and put two parts of the same building on different footings seemed to him calculated to lead to confusion. He had said that the exclusion of the master's residence was contrary to the theory of the Bill. What was the scheme of this Bill as regarded non-provided schools? Undoubtedly that the non-provided schools should remain the property of the trustees, or managers, or private owners in whom they were at present vested. The Bishop of Manchester had said the previous day that they were leasing their schools at a peppercorn rent. That was not what they were doing. Neither the property, nor the possession, nor the occupation of the school was in any way altered; in other words, the school remained the school of the trustees, managers, or private owners. It was true they had to obey the directions of the Department who provided the funds out of which the school was maintained, but the school remained theirs, and they appointed the master. The schools were generallyheld in trust, the essential part of which was that they should be used as public elementary schools in which religious instruction should be given in accordance with the principles of the Church of England, and the whole of the school buildings were held under that trust. The master's residence was held in trust to be used as a residence for the teacher in that school, and the trustees were not at liberty to alter the trust. Of course, Parliament might sanction anything, but they were not at liberty, apart from the sanction of Parliament, to use the building which was held in trust to be used as a master's residence for any other purpose. He was indeed surprised to read, in the course of the debates in another place, that the Attorney General had expressed the opinion that the trustees might let the master's residence and use the rent they received for another purpose. He did not think that was an opinion which the Attorney General, acting officially, would be prepared to support. It was, in his opinion, beyond question that they could not use the master's residence, apart from Parliamentary sanction, for any purpose other than that of their master's residence. The master was the master of the managers and the trustees; he was not the master of the local authority. The managers and trustees appointed him and dismissed him, and he conducted the teaching in the school which they maintained under the trust deed. If at any time it were necessary for the master to sue for his salary, he would, of course, sue the managers who appointed him and not the local authority, although the local authority furnished the managers with the funds out of which they paid his salary. Therefore, if the master's residence was retained as a residence for the master, it was but a fulfilment of and in accordance with the trust upon which they held their school buildings. It was in effect and in truth an endowment held for that purpose. An endowment of Consols producing £20 a year in aid of the master's salary could under the Clause relating to endowments go to the local authority in aid of their sources of income. Why, when the endowment was in the form of a house applicable solely for use as a master's residence, should not the benefit equally go to the local authority? Why should they be charged a rent for it? To his mind this was contrary to the theory and to the scope of the Bill. He would have been very glad if the school buildings had been transferred to the local authority as the right rev. Prelate suggested they had been. In his opinion that would get rid of a great many of the difficulties they were now faced with in the Bill. If the Bill had been constructed on the principle of the school during school hours being transferred, or, during a stated time in the day, being leased to the local authority, reserving to the managers the use of the school during the rest of the day, he thought they would have got rid of a great many of the difficulties which arose in the Bill. But that was not the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill was that the school buildings remained the property of the trustees or managers, and the latter continued to hold them and to use them exclusively upon the trusts ordained by the trust deeds. He hoped the Government would consider the point he had raised.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 15, to leave out 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house.'"—(Lord Davey.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said there was one remark in the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken on which he would like to have the opinion of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said, as he understood, that the schools were not let at a peppercorn rent. The schools were so let now, and under the Bill it was to be enacted that the managers of the school should provide the school house free of any charge. Did that mean that the peppercorn rent ceased?

LORD DAVEY

said he was dealing only with schools which were held in trust and not leased or let in any way—schools held upon a trust which provided that the buildings were to be used for the purpose of public elementary schools in which religion should be taught in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England. But there was another class of school, viz., schools provided by landowners for the inhabitants of the parishes in which their property was situated. Those schools were usually in private ownership, and not subject to any trust, and the private owner was at liberty to do what he liked with his school.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

pointed out that if a building were occupied for twelve years without rent being paid, the ownership, according to the existing law, lapsed. Was it, then, a fact that if the managers were to pay no rent for these schoolhouses the schoolhouses would cease to belong to the landlord at the end of twelve years and would become the property of the managers or the local authority?

THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON

said it might seem rather hard upon a poor locality that a rich man should have demanded rent for a school, but it was a wise course in view of the Statute of Limitations. Moreover, the landlord in such cases often increased his subscription by the amount of this rent. He had asked a number of private owners if they understood what would be their position under the Bill, and they said that they did not. Some persons, he remarked, were not particularly anxious to sign the trust deeds which were being prepared for them, and would prefer to take some steps by which they would not lose their control over the schools which they at present possessed. Such schools were often situated in very poor localities. The matter was, therefore, an important one, and he thought a clear explanation ought to be made by the Government.

*EARL SPENCER

I rise on a point of order. I do not for a moment doubt the importance of the matter which the noble Marquess and the noble Duke opposite have referred to, but I venture to think it raises a very much wider question than the question which is actually before the House, and which is merely an Amendment with regard to school teachers' houses. I appeal to the noble Earl in the Chair to say whether it would not be better to discuss the subject of the trust deeds at a later time. I entirely agree with the arguments of my noble and learned friend behind me. The teacher's house, in many cases, is attached to the school building, and, in my opinion, it ought to be included in the question of the transfer of the school house, and not made a separate charge on the funds of the local authority.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

As your Lordships are aware, I have no power to give any ruling; but as the noble Earl has appealed to me for my opinion, I may say that it seems to me the question raised by the Duke of Northumberland and the Marquess of Northampton is beyond the limits of the Amendment now before the House.

LORD HERRIES

said that as far as he could see, the Amendment would be an absolute confiscation of the rights of proprietors. He happened to have two schools, each the only school in the parish. In one case the master's house was attached to the school. Was ho to be told that because the house in which one of the masters resided was attached to the school the local authority were to have power over that house without paying any rent? He gave the house as part of the salary of the teacher, and he was now told that because that house was attached to the school it was to become the property of the local authority. He trusted that the Amendment would be rejected.

LORD DAVEY

said the noble Lord was mistaken. He expressly stated that the property remained exactly where it was. The only question raised by the Amendment was whether the local authority ought to pay rent for the use by the master of the non-provided school of the residence set apart for him. He had omitted to mention the case where the school and the master's residence were in private ownership. Where there was a residence attached to the schoolrooms he thought it not unfair, as a condition of providing for the maintenance of the school, that the master should have the use of the residence; but, of course, where the school was in private ownership the owner of the school was in a position to make his own bargain.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

said the school house was entirely independent and separate in many cases. Therefore, he quite agreed that this exception should be taken.

LORD BURGHCLERE

wished to say a few words on behalf of the already overburdened ratepayer in this connection.

It seemed that if the Clause as in the Bill came into being they would either have to increase the cost of the schoolmaster to the local authority or to diminish his salary. He would put a concrete case. At the present moment a schoolmaster was paid, say, £100 a year, and had a dwelling house to live in. By this Bill the local authority would have to pay out of the rates rent for the house, say, £20 a year. Therefore, in future, the cost of the schoolmaster to the rates would be £120 a year, or his income would have to be reduced to £80.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

said the result of the Amendment would be to ask the owners to make a present of £20 a year in respect of the teacher's house to the local authority.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

There can lie no doubt that the questions raised by the noble Duke behind me and the noble Marquess opposite arc not strictly connected with the Amendment before the House. They have raised a question which may be of very considerable importance; but I think that those who have charge of the Bill have some reason to complain if questions of this importance, difficulty, and intricacy are not raised in the shape of concrete Amendments. I shall devote my observations entirely to the Amendment now before the House. The noble and learned Lord entered into an argument on trust deeds which, I am sorry to say, I did not distinctly follow, owing to the difficulty of hearing. But I conceive it is quite possible that there might be trust deeds under which it would be impossible for the managers to demand rent for the dwelling house. The Clause, as I road it, does not enable the managers to make any charge for the teacher's dwelling-house under circumstances in which the trust deed renders such a charge illegal. What the Clause does say is that they shall provide the schoolhouse, free of any charge, in the building in which the school is held. They are not bound, where a house does not exist, to make any provision for a teacher's residence. I think I agree with the statement of the case put by Lord Burghclere. The provision of a dwelling-house is a part of the teacher's salary, which, under the Bill, the local authority has to provide. If the managers provide the teacher with a house, then the local authority has to pay the teacher a smaller salary; if the house is not provided, they will have to pay a larger salary. I do not know why the charge imposed on the local authority is to vary according to whether a dwelling-house is, or is not, connected with the school. The whole charge for the teacher's salary under the Bill falls on the, local authority and the charge for the rent of a house must enter into the consideration of that charge. The Bill enables the managers, if they have a dwelling house under their control, to ask a rent for it, but, of course, I assume they would not be able to exact that rent if there are any provisions in the trust deed under which the house is hold which would make the exaction of such a rent illegal.

EARL SPENCER

Will the noble Duke put in words to express quite clearly the admission he has just made that in some cases the house cannot be charged for?

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

ventured to hope the noble Duke would not give any hasty promise in answer to the noble Earl. Time should be taken to consider this delicate and difficult point.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

moved to provide that the managers should receive rent from the local authority for the school furniture. He was afraid that if the Clause stood as at present they would have a divided ownership of the furniture, which would be inconvenient, because the managers had paid for the furniture and owned it, but the local authority would have to keep it up. He happened to be manager of a school, and as soon as the Bill passed he intended to advise his brother managers to sell the school furniture, by which means they would get a nice little sum of money for the benefit of the school, and they would sell it to some person who would undertake to let it again to them for eighteen months or two years till the Bill came into full operation. Then the local authority would come into possession minus any furniture at all, which would have to be supplied out of the rates. Although that was a very good position for the manager of a school to take up, because he had first of all to consider the interests of the school, he the noble Duke) did not think it was a proper state of affairs so far as the ratepayers were concerned. It seemed to him that it would be much easier if the furniture were left in the hands of the managers. If the Government would consent to this Amendment, all that would be needed would be a consequential Amendment in the Schedule, and the situation would then be made very much easier.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 10, after 'any' to insert and for the school furniture.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

The noble Duke, as I understand, suggests that the furniture is to remain the property of the managers, who may charge a rent for it. That seems to me to be an extremely inconvenient arrangement. If it is not desired that the furniture, as the Bill proposes in the Schedule, should be handed over to the local authority, it seems to me much better that the local authority should be empowered to take over the furniture at a valuation. I think it would be extremely inconvenient that the local authority should be required to pay rent for the furniture.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

asked the noble Duke whether he would accept words that would imply that the local authority was in future to take over the furniture at a valuation. His object was to make the ownership of the furniture perfectly clear.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said the adoption of the Amendment would lead to perpetual friction between the managers and the local authority.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

asked the noble Marquess whether he was to take it that, in his opinion, joint ownership caused less friction than single ownership.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in order to raise the point to which he had already called the attention of the House, moved the omission of the words "out of funds provided by them" from the sub-Section, which enacted that the managers of the school should provide the schoolhouse free of any charge except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any, to the local education authority, for use as a public elementary school, and should, "out of funds provided by them," keep the schoolhouse in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings as might be reasonably required by the local education authority. He wanted to know out of what funds, if any, the rent was to be paid for the school, and who was to pay it.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 17, after 'shall,' to omit the words 'out of funds provided by them.'"— (The Duke of Northumberland.)

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

No rent will be paid for the school.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Then if no rent is to be paid for my school, which I have allowed the local authority to use, will that school at the end of twelve years be mine or the local authority's?

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

If the noble Duke is entitled to any rent that is a question between him and the managers of the school. The managers must provide the rent which they have to pay to him. The rent is not in any circumstances to be paid by the local authority.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

asked who would claim the ownership of the schools at the end of twelve years.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

The question is in respect of whom the rent is paid. If the rent is paid, no matter by whom, the hypothesis which has been suggested does not arise. I quite agree that the Statute of Limitations makes the payment of rent the test, but it is not the question that there is not to be any rent paid. The school is not to have rent paid for it by the local authority, but it is not provided that no rent is to be paid for the school.

LORD DAVEY

A noble Lord who owns a school and manages it by managers is himself in occupation, and therefore the Statute of Limitations could not apply.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

moved as an Amendment to the sub-Section providing that the managers "shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house in good repair" to substitute the word "structural" for the word "good." The managers were the landlords of the school-house, and therefore bound to keep it in structural repair; they let the school to the local education authority, who became the tenants, and who should presumably be responsible for tenants' repairs. The Bill, however, provided that the managers should be liable for both classes of repair. In many remote parts of the country the schoolhouses, owing to the great difficulties under which they had laboured, and especially owing to the unwholesome rivalry with the board schools, had fallen into very great disrepair. If now the managers were bound not only to put the buildings in structural repair, but to carry out the tenants' repairs as well, the burden would be too heavy for them to bear, and in a large number of cases would lead to the closing of the schools, thereby compelling the local education authority to build new schools, which would necessitate a much larger expenditure than the payment of tenants' repairs.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 18, to leave out, ' good 'and insert 'structural.'"—(The Lord Archbishop o York.)

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

pointed out that the word structural would not legally bear the interpretation which the right rev. Prelate had put upon it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said he was perfectly ready to adopt any word which would convey his meaning.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said it was surely right and proper that one party should bear the cost of landlord's repairs and the other that of tenant's repairs.

LORD DAVEY

was of opinion that the most rev. Prelate had misconceived the situation altogether. The school was, and remained, the property and in the occupation and possession of the managers, and the local authority were not the tenants in any sense whatever. The relation was not that of landlord and tenant at all, but rather that of a person carrying on a school for the maintenance of which a benevolent friend provided the funds.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

reminded the noble Lord opposite that the managers were to provide the school, and argued that, having provide it, they were no longer tenants of the school except as agents for the local authority.

*VISCOUNT GALWAY

asked out of what funds the managers were to pay for these repairs. There was a very great difference between the managers and the local education authority, because the former had not the power to raise rates for this purpose. He would certainly support the right rev. Prelate. Supposing the windows or doors were broken, would their repair have to be paid for by the local education authority out of the rates, or by the managers? Should it not be part of the expenses of keeping up the school?

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, speaking from the point of view of the County Councils, expressed the hope that the Clause as it was at present would be adhered to by the Government. It would be exceedingly inconvenient and troublesome to County Councils if they were expected to provide for the smaller repairs of the schools.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

desired to have it made quite clear that if the Amendment were accepted they would not be in any way compromising their position as owners. If the interpretation of the right rev. Prelate was correct the local education authority would be tenants. He understood that the owners had the right of getting rid of the local education authority. If the latter subscribed towards the tenant's repairs, it seemed to him a question of grievance as to their being summarily dismissed from their position as tenants. Lord Davey had assured those who owned schools that they would really be in occupation, and that the Statute of Limitations would not apply. It was necessary that they should take a logical position, and also assume from that that they had to maintain all the repairs.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

thought they were taking a rather too technical and legal view of the whole question. He was not prepared to contend against the argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite. Legally, the noble and learned Lord might be right, but, as a matter of ordinary everyday business, was it not the fact that the managers would have to find a school somehow or other, if they did not wish to have a, provided school, and that the local authority would provide the money for maintaining that school? If the local authority were to provide the money for keeping up the school, then, surely, the whole duty of keeping it up should be placed on the local authority. What the Bill wanted to do, as it seemed to him, was to place the duty of providing the school upon the managers, and the duty of running it in most particulars upon the local authority. There were certain repairs which would be placed on the managers, and which, as far as practical work went, might logically be placed on the one or the other; but it would be far better carried out by the local authority than by the managers themselves. He was sorry to differ from Lord Northbrook, whose position on the County Councils' Association made his words of great weight with their Lordships. But at the same time, as Chairman of a County Council, he failed to see the excessive difficulty of County Councils checking exorbitant demands upon them for repairs. All that would be required would be from time to time, where they had some reason to suppose that the managers were making an exorbitant or frivolous demand, to send down the county surveyor. Whatever trouble that might cause to the County Council was a mere flea-bite compared to the weight it would have on the managers.

*EARL SPENCER

I quite agree with my noble friend the Earl of Northbrook that, if the Amendment is accepted, the County Councils will have a most cumbersome and difficult duty cast upon them. I can hardly conceive that the managers of these schools should fall so low as to ask that these small sums should be paid out of the local rates. It is, in my opinion, below the dignity of those who have the care and management of these schools to make this demand. I understand that the managers will have a sum which will be more than sufficient to deal with these repairs. It has been calculated that they will have something like £300,000 a year which may be devoted to this purpose, and, as far as I know, they will actually make a profit on the transaction. I hope, therefore, the Government will not give way to this very petty demand.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

was quite certain that the tremendous importance of this question was not sufficiently realised. He had before him the statistics of five schools, which showed the following facts in each case respectively:—Voluntary subscriptions £335, repairs £385; subscriptions £286, repairs £278; subscriptions £124, repairs £153; subscriptions £130, repairs £166; subscriptions £131, repairs £379. The sum named by him as representing the cost of denominational teaching was not at all the same as the cost of repairs, thought it had been so represented in the other House. The repairs came to a much larger sum. The Clause as it stood would hit the best schools most, for they would have the largest buildings to maintain, while the great would go to the local authority. The resolution on this subject passed by Convocation was strictly confined to extensions and landlord's repairs. It would be a terrible thing if, after all this trouble, many of these schools were to sink merely owing to the burden of repairs.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

supported the Amendment, and said he endorsed everything that had fallen from the most rev. Prelate. He was always ready to admit that it was impossible for them to have their cake and eat it. He did not deny that the principle that a certain amount should be paid by the managers towards the repair and upkeep of their school was a just one in return for the compensating advantages given them under the Bill, but it was a question of degree. It was certain, now that the rates were to be used for the support of voluntary school's, that in the rural districts, at any rate, the voluntary subscriptions would be few and far between. In those circumstances, he was afraid that if the managers were to be responsible for repairs the burden would be greater than they could bear. It was a fair and reasonable compromise to limit their liability to the structural repairs. He hoped the most rev. Prelate would press his Amendment, and if a division were taken he should certainly support him.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said that the Bishop of London having pleaded for the large schools, he wished to say a word for those schools which were classed under the heading of necessitous schools. It was, no doubt, true that legally there was no such connection as that of landlord and tenant between the two parties to the agreement under the Bill, but one party was to provide the school and the other to use it, and it seemed a very fair and equitable division that the landlord's repairs should be paid for by the owners of the school and the tenants' repairs by the persons who were occupying it, particularly as in this case the landlord received no rent for the building. A point which had not yet been touched upon was that the local authority, after the passing of the Bill, would be in possession of funds which the managers of the denominational schools up to this stage had had in their hands. And which were applicable to the ordinary repairs of the school. One of the sources of revenue of the denominational schools in former years were the fees that were paid, but in 1891 Parliament commuted these fees for a grant. The fees were applicable to repairs, and the grant which was given in lieu of them would, under the Bill, pass into the hands of the local education authority. The latter body wished to get rid of the burden of repairs, but yet they took the grant. In addition, there was a further sum given in 1897, on account of their poverty, to the necessitous schools, which considerably lightened the burden of repairs. But that grant would also be transferred under the Bill to the local education authority. He thought that in those circumstances these schools had some claim on the local education authority for the payment of the cost of repairs.

*EARL SPENCER

I wish to raise a very important point with regard to this Amendment. I am distinctly of opinion that this is a question of privilege, as the Amendment involves an addition to the rates. Sub-Section 3 contains the words that— The question shall be determined by the Board of Education, and compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant. The carrying out of repairs is one of the conditions on which the Parliamentary grant is to be made. I shall, therefore, oppose the Amendment not only on its merits, but as a distinct breach of privilege.

THE EARL, OF CAMPERDOWN

said that the noble Earl, if he were of that opinion, ought to move that the Amendment be not put. He took exception to these points of order being addressed to His Majesty's Government, who had no power to determine such matters. The House of Commons was surety able to protect itself without the assistance of the noble Earl. Some noble Lords seemed to be much more anxious about the rights and privileges of the other House than of those of their own House.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I do not for a moment impute any bad faith to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London. I am perfectly aware that the Resolution to which the Joint Committee of Convocation agreed, pledged that body only to structural repairs, and that they carefully guarded themselves against offering to undertake, on behalf of the managers of voluntary schools, any liability for internal repairs. At the same time, I must point out that it was no doubt the general intention of the Bill, as introduced by the Government, that the managers should undertake to do everything which was necessary, not only in providing the buildings, but for keeping them in a suitable condition for the work of the schools. The question was raised in the course of the discussions in the House of Commons, and this view of the Government was sustained by a very large majority—a majority far larger than the ordinary Party majority of the Government. I quite admit that since that decision was come to in the House of Commons, our attention has been called to cases of considerable hardship, such as had been referred to by the right rev. Prelate, which would arise in some of the large towns where the burden of repairs may be extremely heavy. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that we view this Amendment with a considerable amount of sympathy, even if we are not able to give it our support and approval. I fear that any attempt to meet these cases of exceptional hardship would go very far beyond those cases, and would disturb to a very serious extent the general arrangements which are contemplated by the Bill. The noble Earl opposite has referred to the question of privilege. I do not feel called upon to express any opinion on that point. Every one of your Lordships is as competent as we on this Bench can be to form an opinion as to the views which are likely to be taken in the other House of such an Amendment as that which is proposed. I think, however, that it is worth while to consider, having regard to the very large majority by which the present form of the Bill was sustained in the other House, whether an Amendment of this character would not be one which would be extremely likely, at all events, to raise difficulties with the other House. It is impossible, I think, that we should look at this question entirely by itself. It is closely connected with others we have been discussing, and which we shall probably have still further to discuss. What we have attempted to do in this Bill is to make certain arrangements as between the managers of the voluntary schools and the local education authority in regard to their pecuniary relations, and those arrangements cannot be looked upon individually, but must be taken as a whole. What we have proposed is that the managers shall make themselves responsible, not only for the structural, but also for the internal repairs of the school; that is to say, they must put the building in that state in which the local education authority will be able to use it for the purposes of the school. We further require the managers to give to the local authority the use of the school-house three nights a week for other purposes free of any charge and (this is a point we have just been discussing) we require the managers also to give to the local authority the use of the existing furniture without any charge. On the other hand, we have never suggested that this Bill would enable voluntary subscriptions to be entirely dispensed with. My noble friend Lord Galway asked from what sources these repairs were to be provided for. No doubt voluntary subscriptions will have to be continued for the purpose of keeping up these structural and internal repairs, and probably for some other purposes also. But, as has been pointed out, we have gone some way in relieving the necessity for very large voluntary subscriptions in the future. We propose to provide that the managers shall continue to receive a certain portion of the existing endowments, and that where fees are maintained a certain proportion of those fees shall be devoted to the charges which fall upon the managers. We have also just decided to enable the managers to charge a rent for the teacher's house. In my opinion, your Lordships must look at all these provisions as part of an arrangement which is the best we have been able to suggest in regard to the financial relations between the local authority and the managers. I therefore deprecate as strongly as I can any proposal materially to modify that arrangement in favour of one party or the other. It is for that reason that we declined just now to depart from the arrangement arrived at in regard to a rent for the teacher's house, and it is in the same spirit that we ask your Lordships to adhere to this arrangement. Your Lordships must not forget that this Bill has never professed to relieve those who are interested in denominational schools from the necessity of finding some portion of the expenditure which will be required to maintain them. I trust that it may not be beyond the power of a body like the Church to provide, by means of general subscriptions, extending over large and wealthy areas, for the cases of hardship and necessity which undoubtedly will occur in the case of the voluntary schools such as those referred to by the right rev. Prelate; and I have very little I doubt that the zeal which has up to now been shown by the Church in supporting, under far more difficult circumstances, voluntary schools all over the country, will enable them to find some mode of meeting these difficulties, which I trust will be to a great extent exceptional.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

said they all admitted that the Church must be ready to give some return for the privilege accorded to her of providing and maintaining religious instruction in the schools. But the Church had given to the State the use of these school buildings, not only during the school hours but also three nights a week. Estimating the rent of these buildings at ¾ per cent, of their cost, the rental amounted to £715,000 a year. The Church was giving that up, and was also willing to provide for the improvement and alteration of the buildings, and for other repairs that were not due to wear and tear. The Church was willing to repair all damage to the buildings except that caused by the wear and tear of the children under the control of the local authority, and that would come to about half of what the whole of the repairs would be. The average cost of repairs in the board schools was 2s. l0d. per head. On that basis the repairs in the Church schools would amount to £700,000 a year. Therefore, the Church was asked to contribute £1,400,000, not for the privilege of controlling the whole of their schools, but for being allowed to give religious instruction according to their belief. That was a splendid bargain for the State; it was too good a bargain. The State ought not to extort from the Church this enormous sum; they ought to share with the Church the cost of repairs. But for the labours of the voluntary schools in many overcrowded districts the destitute population would be allowed to become pagans. He mentioned that in an area in Manchester containing a population of 100,000 people there was not a single resident Nonconformist minister, and the whole pastoral care of the people was left to the clergy of the Church, and, he might add, of the priests of the Church of Rome. It was said, "Why don't you go to the great millowners?" But the millowners were for the most part converted—he did not mean religiously—into limited liability companies, and it was about as easy to get subscriptions out of these corporations as it was to get water out of a stone. It was because he saw the grave issues involved that he urged that it was only fair and honest that the State should take one-half of the expenses of the repairs. It was, in fact, a very good bargain for the State.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH

said it would be convenient to know whether the House was discussing the Archbishop of York's Amendment or the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Bishop of Manchester. He respectfully appealed to His Grace not to press his Amendment to a division. He could hardly think that the parishes which the Bishop of London had given the House statistics of were typical of all the parishes throughout the country, and he thought this was a case where the richer parishes must be prepared to come forward and support the poorer. Much as he would like to see the Amendment accepted by the Government, he feared that from the resolutions passed at Convocation, it might be supposed that the Church was acting with something like a bad grace.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

No, no.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH

said that was his personal opinion. He should not like to see the Church left open to the charge of being grasping in its demands He, therefore, could not support the Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that standing on the Paper in the name of the Bishop of Manchester. Not only did both Amendments cover the same ground, but the Amendment of his right rev. brother had the advantage of being supported by a powerful speech.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

said he should move his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 20, after 'authority,' to insert 'provided that all damage due to wear and tear shall be made good by the local authority.'" —(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I only wish to interpose a very few words with regard to the Amendment now before the House, if I am quite sure what it is. The Bishop of St. Asaph, who has been so long in this House, seemed to be a little perplexed as to the particular Amendment we are discussing. We are apparently browsing about among Amendments, and are not confined to any one. I think, however, that the speech of the Bishop of Manchester will produce a very great effect in the country, and an effect which was anticipated by his right rev. successor in debate. I confess that when I listened to it I could hardly believe my ears, and when he wound up by saying that this was an excellent bargain for the State, I could not help feeling that the State in future would not be very anxious for bargains with the Church if that was the Church's notion of a bad bargain for itself. To listen to the right rev. Prelate, one would think that before the evil interposition of this arbitrary measure, which is almost to break the backs of the Church, the structures of these schools were maintained by some invisible fund which could no longer be available, and that this burden was a completely new one for the Church.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

said what the Church complained of was, first, that a portion of the fees was withdrawn, and, second, that there were withdrawn from the schools charges which they were accustomed to make for internal repairs, which were allowed by the Board of Education.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

But, at any rate, there is no pretence, I imagine, that these sources of revenue, however considerable they may have been, were sufficient to meet the cost of the structural maintenance of the schools.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

I think they were.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

That is altogether new light to me, and I bow to the statement of the right rev. Prelate. But, on the other hand, the right rev. Prelate altogether omitted to state that there are any counter-balancing advantages for the very cruel disadvantages which he represented the Church to labour under in this matter. Are we really to understand, as the right rev. Prelate would have us believe, that this is a perfectly one-sided bargain, in which the Church gives everything and gains nothing? I think, if he will allow me to say so, that the right rev. Prelate endeavoured to prove a little too much. You must take your cake one way or the other, and when he stated his budget to the House it varied with the course of his argument. Sometimes he spoke of the structures of the school as structures of enormous value which the Church was surrendering to the State for no consideration at all except for the right of giving religious instruction, and sometimes they were ruinous and costly to repair, and according to the changes in his argument so were the changes in the structures.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

said he did not say anything about

their being ruinous. He said they were old buildings, and that, as old schools, they were more likely to need repairs than new schools.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I a pologise if I misrepresented the right rev. Prelate. I condensed a sentence into an adjective; it shows the danger or condensation. But taking his speech with that of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, who read out some rather striking figures from his parochial budget, I am inclined to think that the epithet "ruinous," from the structural point of view, is not altogether an unworthy one. After all, I think it will go forth to the world, and even to Australia, of which the right rev. Prelate must have some reminiscences, as a matter of some astonishment that at this stage of the Bill a Bishop of the Established Church of England should rise and state that the measure placed upon the Church a most intolerable burden, and that it was to the State an excellent bargain.

On Question, that the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS.
York, L. Abp.	Manvers, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.
	Mayo, E.	London, L Bp.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Mount Edgeumbe, E.	Manchester, L. Bp.
[Teller]	Nelson, E.	Newcastle, L. Bp.
Newcastle, D.	Romney, E.	Norwich, L. Bp.
Northumberland, D.	Saint Germans, E.	Rochester, L. Bp.
Rutland, D.	Shaftesbury, E.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.
Somerset, D.	Shrewsbury, E.	Salisbury, L. Bp.
	Shrewsbury, E.	Salisbury, L. Bp.
Ailesbury, M.	Stanhope, E.	Southwell, L. Bp.
Bristol, M.	Strafford, E.	Truro, L. Bp.
Hertford, M.	Verulam, E.
Winehester, M.	Whatnecliffe, E.	Addington, L.
	Yarborough, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Abingdon, E.		Ashcombe, L.
Bathurst, E.	Cross, V.	Basing, L.
Bradford, E.	Falkland, V.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Coventry, E.	Falmauth, V.	Boston, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Goschen, V.	Braybrooke, L.
Derby, E.	Halifax, V.	Brougham and Vaux, L
Doneaster, E.(D. Becelcuch and Queensberry.)	Hardinge, V.	Chelmsford, L.
	Hutchinson, V.(E. Donough-more.)	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Egerton, E.		Colchester, L.
Eldon, E.	Knut-ford, V.	Cottesloe, L.
Feversham, E.	Llandaff, V.	De Frevne, L.
Harewood, E.		Dormer, L.
Hchester, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Lichfield, E.	Chester, L. Bp. [Telaer.]	Dunmore, L.(E. Dunmore.)
Londesborough, E.	Chichester, L. Bp.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Lucan, E.	Durham, L. Bp.	Forester, L.
Lytton, E.	Ely, L. Bp.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Malmesbury, E.	Lichfield, L. Bp.	Glenesk, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston)	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)	Sherborne, L.
	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Hatherton, L.	Mostyn, L.	Stanmore, L.
Herries, L.	North, L.	Suffield, L.
Howard of Glossop, L.	O' Brien, L.	Teynham, L.
Macnaghten, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.	Torphichen, L.
Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)	Penrhyn, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
	Pirbright, L.	wrottesley, L.
Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)	Robertson, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Middleton, L.	Rowton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Farrer, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Glanusk, L.
Hillingdon, L.
Bedford, D.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Hindlip, L.
Portland, D.	Colville of Culross, V.	Hothfield, L.
Wellington, D.	Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Hylton, L.
	Hampden, V.	James, L.
Camden, M.	Ridley, V.	Kenyon, L.
Lansdowne, M.		Kinnaird, L.
Northampton, M.	Allerton, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Zetland, M.	Ashbourne, L.	Lawrence, L.
	Avebury, L.	Lindley. L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)	Balfour, L.	Ludlow, L.
	Barrymore, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Beauchamp, E.	Belper, L.	Monkswell, L.
Belmore, E.	Brassey, L.	Muncaster, L.
Carrington, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Reay, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Burghclere, L.	Redesdale, L.
Denbigh, E.	Burton, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Ducie, E.	Carew, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Lathom, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Rosmead, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Coleridge, L.	Saltoun, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Congleton, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Morley, E.	Crawshaw, L.	Seaton, L.
Northbrook, E.	Davey, L.	Shand, L.
Onslow, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Portsmouth, E.	De Mauley, L.	Tredegar, L.
Radnor, E.	Denman, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Sandwich, E.	Ellenborough, L.	Wenlock, L.
Selborne, E.	Elphinstone, L.	Windsor, L.
Spencer, E.	Erskine, L.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to provide that no charge should be made for the teacher's dwelling-House where it was vested in trustees for the purposes of the school. He hoped, in view of the statement of the Duke of Devonshire in the debate on the Amendment of Lord Davey, that the Government would accept this. It was merely intended to safeguard the case of schools under trust deeds.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 20, after 'authority' to insert 'but no charge shall be made for the teacher's dwelling-house where the same is vested in trustees in trust for the purposes of the school." '—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD DAVEY

supported the Amendment, although he thought it might require a little alteration exactly to express what he understood the noble Duke to say in the discussion on a previous Amendment—namely, that where the trust deed provided that the residence should be held as a residence for the master, and for no other purpose, no rent should be charged.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said that if the local authority did not provide the teacher with a dwelling-house they would have to give him its equivalent in salary, and naturally those who had built a house for the benefit of the teacher had a right to demand rent for it. It would be the height of injustice to those who had been generous enough to build a house in connection with the school that they should not have the benefit of it when the local authority took over the school.

LORD DAVEY

said the noble Marquess had evidently mistaken what the Amendment meant. It was not a question of the owner of the school having generously provided a schoolhouse as well. The house in the cases contemplated by the Amendment did not belong to the managers. It was vested in them as trustees on trust, to be used for the purposes of the school. They had no power under the trust to be either generous or the reverse, and all that the Amendment demanded was that they should continue to fulfil their trust by allowing the schoolhouse to be used for the purposes of the school.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

moved to insert a new sub-Section in regard to non-provided schools. He said he put the Amendment on the Paper because he found nothing in the Bill to say that any of these schools should open with daily prayer and religious worship. By inadvertence he omitted to move a similar Amendment in regard to provided schools, but he would be glad to secure a provision that in all elementary schools Biblical instruction should be given daily under the Cowper - Temple Clause, by which he meant without any formularies distinctive of one denomination or another. In his opinion the Cowper-Temple Clause had hardly been fairly treated. It had been very unfortunately misunderstood to mean that when the managers of a school were about to appoint a teacher they should not inquire as to the religious denomination to which he belonged, or as to his character in that denomination as a religious man. For his part he would entirely decline to appoint a man to the responsible office of teaching young children the Gospel in any elementary school without inquiring as far as he could whether that man was an honest and religious member of his denomination, whatever it might be. He believed that in the country the Amendment would be generally acceptable, in all their country schools, at any rate, and that it would make for peace.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 36, after 'sub-Section (2.)' to insert '(3.) The managers of the school shall provide that: (1.) The school shall open and close daily with religious worship; (2.) Religious instruction, based upon the reading of the Bible, shall form part of the regular instruction of the school for all children whose parents do not object under the Conscience Clause; (3.) The foundation managers may claim that the duly appointed clergyman or minister of the denomination that owns the school buildings shall have free access to the school at reasonable times to superintend or to give religious instruction in accordance with the doctrines of the denomination to those children whose parents belong to it.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

This large Amendment might reasonably claim a prominent place in an Education Bill framed by the right rev. Prelate, but it can have no possible place in the Bill of the Government. The Amendment does not state whether it applies to provided or maintained schools, or to both, but in any case our objection to it is insuperable. If passed it would dislocate the Bill, the scheme of which is to leave the question of religious instruction exactly where it is now, both in provided and in maintained schools.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

Would the attitude of the Government be the same if the sub-Sections were moved separately?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Exactly.

On question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

moved an Amendment to provide that in maintained schools all teachers might be appointed without reference to religious creed and denomination, instead of only assistant teachers and pupil teachers. His Amendment was not compulsory; he wished simply to give the managers the option in this important matter. He saw no reason why the managers should not be free to appoint a good Wesleyan mistress as head mistress of the infant school if they saw fit. Under the Clause as it stood, however, they would not be able to do so. In page 4, line 44, to leave out 'assistant' and to insert 'all.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY

pointed out that in many cases it was provided by the trust deed that the teachers should be appointed with reference to religious creed. He thought that the head teacher should undoubtedly be of the particular denomination to which the school belonged.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

said he asked that, notwithstanding any trust deed, this liberty should be given. He desired the liberty of managers to be extended so as to include all teachers.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

The Clause overrides the provisions of the trust deeds to a certain extent—to the extent of enabling them, in spite of anything which may be contained in the trust deeds, to appoint assistant teachers and pupil teachers without reference to their religious views; but the right rev. Prelate proposes still further to override them. We believe that such a power as that proposed, if possessed by the managers, would cause a great deal of alarm among Church managers, and that this alarm would be produced for really no practical purpose whatever. We think we have gone quite as far as, in the circumstances of the case, it is desirable to go, and we are unable to accept the Amendment.

*EARL SPENCER

It does not follow, because the head teacher is included in this Clause, that he should be a Nonconformist. What I always feel about these matters is that the Church has not confidence in itself. The adoption of this proposal would tend to remove the felling on the part of Nonconformists that they labour under a very onerous disability, knowing as they do that in something like 8,000 schools Nonconformists will almost certainly be excluded from the position of head teacher. I earnestly hope the Government will agree to the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

said that one of the objects of a denominational school was to teach the religion of that denomination, and the proposition that the head teacher need not believe the religion for the teaching of which the school was founded seemed to him not only inadmissible, but absolutely contrary to common sense.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said that, while he had the greatest sympathy with the line taken by the Bishop of Hereford, he feared he could not support the Amendment, because it seemed to him it would take away the very character which they felt must belong to denominational schools, and which it was the very object and purpose of this legislation to maintain.

THE EARL OF COMPERDOWN

said that, as he read the Amendment, it applied to all public elementary schools which were maintained but not provided by the local education authority. Apparently that would include schools which were under trust deeds. The Amendment would, therefore, enable managers who were governed by trust deeds to defeat the expressed conditions of those deeds. To that extent he could not agree with the Amendment but if the right rev. Prelate would limit his proposal to those schools which were not bound by trust deeds he should be ready to support it.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

The Amendment would then be unnecessary. That can be done now.

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

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Portland, D.	Camden, M.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Rutland, D.	Cholmondeley, M.
	Somerset, D.	Hertford, M.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Wellington, D.	Lansdowne, M.
Bedford, D.	Winchester, M.
Newcastle, D.	Ailesbury, M.	Zetland, M.
Northumberland, D.	Bristol, M.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)	Llandaff, V.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Abingdon, E.	Ridley, V.	Forester, L.
Bathurst, E.		Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Belmore, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Glenesk, L.
Bradford, E.	Chichester, L. Bp.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Camperdown, E.	Ely, L. Bp.
Coventry, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Hatherton, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Herries, L.
Denbigh, E.	Newcastle, L. Bp.	Hillingdon, L.
Derby, E.	Norwich, L. Bp.	Hothfield, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Rochester, L. Bp.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Hylton, L.
Ducie, E.	Salisbury, L. Bp.	James, L.
Egerton, E.	Southwell, L. Bp.	Kenyon, L.
Eldon, E.	Truro, L. Bp.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Feversham, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Harewood, E.		Lindley, L.
Hchester, E.	Addington, L.	Ludlow, L.
Lathom, E.	Allerton, L.	Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Lauderdale, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Lichfield, E.	Ashcombe, L.	Middleton, L
Londesborough, E.	Balfour, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Lucan, E.	Barrymore, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Basing, L.	Mostyn, L.
Manvers, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Muncaster, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Belper, L.	North, L.
Northbrook, E.	Boston, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Onslow, E.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Penrhyn, L.
Radnor, E.	Braybrooke, L.	Pirbright, L.
Romney, E.	Braye, L.	Redesdale, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	bertson, L.
Selborne, E.	Briugham and Vaux, L.	Rosmead, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Burton, L.	Rothschild, L.
Shrewsbury, E.	Calthorpe, L.	Saltoun, L.
Stamford, E.	Chelmsford, L.	Seaton, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Sherborne, L.
Tankerville, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Colchester, L.	Stalbridge,
Verulam, E.	Congleton, L.	Stanmore, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Cottesloe, L.	Suffield, L.
Wharncliffe, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Teynham, L.
Yarborough, E.	De Freyne, L.	Torphichen, L.
	De Mauley, L.	Tredegar, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Dormer, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Colville of Culross V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Wenlock, L.
Cross, V.	Dunboyne, L.	Wentworth, L.
Falkland, V.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Wimborne, L.
Falmouth, V.	Ellenborough, L.	Windsor, L.
Goschen, V.	Elphinstone, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Halifax, V.	Erskine, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Knutsford, V.	Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northampton, M.	Hampden, V.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
	Hereford, L. Bp.	Monkswell, L.
Beauchamp, E.		Reay, L.
Carrington, E.	Brassey, L.	Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]	Burghclere, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Portsmouth, E.	Coleridge, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Sandwich, E.	Davey, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Spencer, E.	Denman, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
	Farrer, L.	Wandsworth, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Kinnaird, L.	Welby, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD COLCHESTER

moved that in public elementary schools maintained, but not provided, by the local education authority assistant teachers and pupil teachers "not belonging to the denomination with which the school is connected" might be appointed, "if thought to be required by the circumstances of the school." At present the words in the Clause were, "if it is thought fit, without reference to religious creed and denomination." His Amendment was intended to avoid the impression being given that the question of religions creed and denomination was to be altogether disregarded, and to meet the case of schools where, there being many children of other denominations than that of the school, it might be desirable to appoint assistant teachers more or less in sympathy with them, not "without regard to," but because of their denomination. It seemed to be the view of a portion of the teaching profession that the school existed for the sake of the teacher; he contended that the interests of the school should take precedence of those of the teacher.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 44, after the second 'teachers,' to insert 'not belonging to the denomination with which the school is connected'; and in page 5, line 1, to leave out from 'appointed' to the second 'and' in line 2, and to insert 'if thought to be required by the circumstances of the school.'"—(lord Colchester.)

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I cannot help thinking that this is practically an Amendment of a verbal character. Whatever you may introduce in the way of indicating the intention of Parliament, I do not imagine that the words would have the slightest different signification from those in the Bill. I think it would be regrettable that Parliament should give an indication that there are only a particular set of schools in which this greater freedom should be exercised by the managers. I think the intention of the Clause is that, if the managers should think that a teacher of a denomination other than that with which the school is connected is the best male or female teacher, they should have the liberty to appoint him or her to that position, and I do not think the indication which the noble Lord desires to give to the managers, that this right should only be exercised in the case of certain schools in which there are a certain number of undenominational children, should be inserted. In these circumstances, and as, in my opinion, the alteration would not produce the slightest difference in the legal effect of the Clause, it had better remain as it is.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

rose to move the first of a series of Amendments on sub-Section 5, which is as follows— Religious instruction shall be given in a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority in accordance with the tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto, and shall be under the control of the managers.

He said: My Lords, as your Lordships will no doubt observe, the first two Amendments are of a purely drafting character—to omit the words "shall be" before the word "given" and to insert the words "shall, as regards its character, be" after the word "authority." I have undertaken, on the part of the Government, to redraft and remodel that which has been known in another place as the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and it is for your Lordships to decide whether you will discuss the whole question of that Amendment on those drafting Amendments or wait until the alteration of substance which I shall propose comes up.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 7, to leave out 'shall be.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)

*EARL SPENCER

With regard to the first Amendment, which is merely of a drafting character, I shall offer no opposition, but I am not prepared to say that I agree with the subsequent Amendments. I prefer another form, and I reserve my judgment.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

I need not refer in detail to the doubts existing as to the meaning of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, but it is generally agreed that there is no very confident opinion in the mind of anyone of the meaning of the sub-Section. There have been several definitions of it. There was the celebrated definition given by a high authority at the Albert Hall; definitions have been given in the House of Commons by the Attorney General and others, but not one has agreed with the other. Therefore I think it would be well to make the intention clear. There are two courses open to your Lordships—either to strike out the sub-Section and frame a new one, or to retain the old sub-Section and work upon it. I have taken the first course, and my Amendmen is on the Paper. Lord Davey also proposes to substitute a new sub-Section for the old one. The Government, however, through my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, have placed Amendments on the Paper which will have the effect, not of striking out the sub-Section, but of amending it. As to the matter of form, the Government have a right to deal with their own Bill, and if the Bill goes back to the other House substantially amended in respect of this sub-Section, the Government will have to take charge of it. It has already in its present form passed the ordeal of the House of Commons. If an entirely new sub-Section is substituted, that new sub-Section will have to be discussed word for word in the other House, and I can well under stand the desire of the Government tohave the old sub-Section retained and amended in order to save time. As to substance, the Amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend substantially produce the same results as my own Amendment, and, indeed, are more favourable to my own view than the Amendment which I have myself placed upon the Paper. I therefore think it is better to proceed with the Lord Chancellor's Amendments than to begin de nouo.

*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

I would point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that his first Amendment is not entirely a drafting Amendment, and that it is open to this inference—that the managers, if they choose, may not give religious instruction at all. [The LORD CHANCELLOR dissented.] If this was a matter of law I should bow to the opinion of my noble friend, but it is a matter of common-sense, which anybody can decide as well as a lawyer. The sub-Section, as it is proposed to amend it, would read— Religious instruction given in a public elementary school, not provided by the local education authority, shall, as regards its character, be iu accordance," and so on. I can well understand managers, in order to avoid wrangling and disputes, saving,—"To cut this matter short we will give no religious instruction at all in our school." I am sure that was not what my noble and learned friend intended.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I cannot I help regretting that my noble friend, after his own distinguished career at the Bar, should draw a marked distinction I between common-sense and law. With regard to the particular point he has raised, I think the noble and learned Lord has not displayed his usual astuteness. It is true that the words "religious instruction shall be given" are struck out, but the whole theory of the Clause is that there is a trust deed by which those responsible for the management of the school are bound to give religious instruction. That is the only reason why the words are unnecessary. The operation of the Clause would be exactly the same whether these words are there or not. If the managers were to abstain from giving religious instruction, and there was an instruction in the trust deed that religious instruction should be given, they would be guilty of a breach of trust, and the mode in which they could be forced to do their duty in that case would be exactly the same, whether these words were in or not. If, on the other hand, there are no directions in the trust deed that religious instruction should be given what right have you to put those directions in the Clause? If you did so, you would be enacting something which was not in the trust deed, and you have no right to do that. This Bill does not contemplate that where religious instruction is not given under a trust deed the Legislature should interfere.

*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

The Clause, as I read it, exempts from the control of the managers one provision in the trust deed—namely, the provision giving an appeal to the bishop as to the character of the religious instruction bestowed. As to everything else, the control of the managers overrides the clergyman. Every part of the trust deed except the part reserved, and only one part is reserved, is under the control of the managers. Therefore, the answer of the managers to such a suit as the Lord Chancellor suggested, would be that in the exercise of their discretion they had determined to give no religious instruction in the school.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

asked what the effect of the sub-Section would be on schools which had no trust deed.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

No effect at all.

*THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE

moved to insert in sub-Section (5) words providing that religious instruction shall be given in the non-provided schools in accordance with "the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs," and (at the end of the Clause) that they should have the right of appeal in case of differences arising as to the character of the religious instruction. He said the meaning of the Clause on this important point was not clear as it stood, and he wished to secure that the religious teaching given up to the present time should be continued in the future. He always believed that was the vital principle of the Bill, but it was not stated in this sub-Section. The sub-Section only referred to schools with trust deeds, and did not say what was to become of all the other denominational schools which had not trust deeds, the greater number of which were Church of England schools. He supposed there was hardly a Roman Catholic or Nonconformist school in the country that had not a trust deed. In fact, it was difficult to understand how such a school could well come into existence without one, but the schools of the Church of England were in a totally different position. They had grown up from small beginnings during the past 100 years—at any rate, long before 1870—as part and parcel of the parochial system which was intimately wrapped up with the Established Church of this country. They had held that position and taught the doctrines of the Church of England rather by a kind of prescriptive right than by virtue of any legal instrument of which they felt no need. He imagined that the Government wished that teaching to be continued, but, if so, it ought to be clearly stated in the Bill. He desired to ensure in connection with all schools, not merely those possessing trust deeds, the right of appeal to the constituted authority in case of any difference as to the religious teaching, which right was given in a modified form by the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. It was only Church of England schools that were affected. The schools of all other denominations, he believed, had this right of appeal to their own ecclesiastical authority. If they had not, it was because they had tied down their managers so tightly that no appeal was required. The Government had declared, through the lips of their law officers in another place, that they had considered this right of appeal to the Bishop as the essential and only safeguard against wrangling, deadlock, or litigation. He could hardly understand how they could now abandon a large number of Church of England schools to these ruinous alternatives. They would be told, no doubt, that schools could obtain trust deeds if they wished. That was a point upon which he hoped to have some definite information from the Government. It might be easy for schools without a trust deed to obtain one, but was it easy or inexpensive for a school which had a trust deed which did not give this important safeguard to have it so modified as to give it? There was another point. If deeds were to be obtained they must be obtained before the Act came into operation, and therefore by the existing managers. It was quite possible that in some schools in which the Bishop's arbitration was most specially needed there might be circumstances which would induce either the clergyman or the managers to feel a disinclination to have a trust deed, and in such a case, owing to some temporary circumstances, that school would be excluded permanently from getting this important safeguard. There were certain causes which made this right of appeal more necessary now than in past times. It was impossible to deny that there were a few of the clergy who, to use a very mild expression, were inclined, and he might say determined, to take a line of their own in religious instruction, and especially in the religious education of children. Although no doubt Nonconformists who had to send their children to Church schools when there was only one school in the district did not as a rule object to their children being taught in accordance with the formularies of the Church of England, and although some of the violence which had been displayed in the opposition to the Bill had been stirred up by those militant political Dissenters whose extinction Lord Rosebery so bitterly deplored, but who seemed to have been in exceeding good fettle during the last few months. Still, he was certain that, in the minds of a great many of the more moderate and thoughtful Nonconformists, there was a feeling of bitterness and of suspicion, which was due to their dread that extreme men might teach in the schools doctrines and practices which they could not find in the formularies of the Church of England, and which they regarded as poisonous to the faith of their children. He knew that feeling was also shared by a large number of lay members of the Church of England. In considering the special need for this appeal they had to take into account the elected managers. Of course, those managers would not have, under ordinary circumstances, any direct control over the religious teaching in the school as they were in a minority, but they would certainly watch that teaching closely, not necessarily in a hostile, but certainly in a critical, spirit, and they were likely enough to stir up questions which might otherwise remain quiet, either for good or for evil. Both for the clergy's and the managers' sakes he considered this safeguard was entirely needed, and he believed it would be welcomed by a great many Nonconformists as well as by Church of England people. The feeling of distrust to which he had referred, avowedly produced its Kenyon-Slaney Clause. It had inflicted an irrevocable slight upon the clergy, which fell on the great majority in consequence of the insubordination of a few. He was sure the feelings expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury were fully shared by his right reverend brethren. He feared that any attempt on the part of the Bishops to change this feature of the Clause, such as was to be attempted by the Bishop of London, could hardly end in anything but a demonstration. He felt any such change would have no chance in the House of Commons. Surely the right reverend Bench would be acting more practically if they endeavoured to protect their clergy, and the children under their care, by asking the Government to recognise the rights of the Church as a body to be the arbiter, as the ecclesiastical authorities in other denominations were the arbiters, in their schools. Among all the Churches and denominations the Church of England stood alone in this respect. It had a right to expect consideration, not merely because it was the Church of England, established by law, not merely because of what it had done for religion and education, but because it was the only Church bound down by Acts of Parliament and legal fetters in a way no other Church or denomination was bound. It was bound and to a great extent crippled in its self-government and discipline, and above all in its power of self-improvement and reform. It had a right, therefore, to special consideration at the hands of Parliament, not in order to give it an advantage over any other Church or denomination, but in order to see that because of its special position it was not placed at a grievous disadvantage in comparison with other Churches and denominations. This would be the case unless Parliament assisted in giving the Church of England this recognition of its ecclesiastical authority. If the Bishops realised, as they must, the ruinous effect upon the position and work of the Church which came from the uncertainty and unrecognised character of episcopal authority, he thought they would press upon the Government every chance of having that authority openly and publicly vindicated by Parliament. It was an opportunity which if now lost might never recur. The Government were conscious of the importance of this right of appeal, and he asked them to have the courage of their opinion, to leave the shelter-trench of trust deeds and come out into the open and boldly assert that the Church of England should have the same right of appeal as all other Churches. Let them cut off the red tape from this Clause and make it clear and practical instead of patchy and uncertain in character. The Amendment was not inconsistent with the principle of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and if the Government proceeded with the matter in the way he proposed they would earn the thanks of a large number of laymen of the Church of England and of the most thoughtful Nonconformists.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 9, after 'with,' insert 'the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs, and with.'"—(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

said that those whose religious convictions were the same as his own would support Amendments which appeared to modify this sub-Section, but he did not believe that any proposals could be carried by which their objection to the sub-Section itself would be removed, because they regarded it as involving a principle which it was wholly impossible for them to support. The present Amendment admittedly did not affect the principle of the sub-Section; it was, however, a slight improvement on the provision as it stood, and he should be disposed to accept it. They would probably be beaten in dividing against the sub-Section as a whole; therefore it would be wise to do their best to secure the accceptance of Amendments which, in their opinion, tended to its improvement. He approached the subject from two points of view, which, to some extent, were analogous. In the first place, they, as Roman Catholics, felt the strongest obligation in their own minds not to support a Bill containing the principle involved in this Clause without doing their utmost to make it perfectly clear that it was only in spite of their strenuous opposition that the principle remained. The principle involved was that the religious upbringing of the children was to be committed to a body of six managers. The trust deed would undoubtedly bring in many safeguards, but that was the principle. It was not a necessary part of the enactment that there should be any trust deeds at all. According to their religious law it was part of the sacred duty and responsibility of the Bishop to take charge of and watch over the religious education of the children, and they could not accept a principle which took from the Bishop that charge and responsibility, and vested it in this body of managers. The Amendment before the House suggested a means of bringing in the Bishops, or those holding similar positions in other denominations, and giving them a power of interference in certain parts of the religious instruction, but where there were no trust deeds the principle would remain unchecked in any degree. Roman Catholics maintained that it was not upon the priest or laymen, or any one but the Bishop, that the responsibility rested, and although he might, and probably would, look upon the priest of the parish or mission as the individual to carry out his directions and work out what he believed to be right, still it was upon the Bishop the responsibility rested, and from that responsibility they could do nothing to relieve him. Then looking at the question on general grounds, if the religious education of the children was so important that special steps were to be taken for the preservation of the denominational schools in order that the children might be brought up in the religion of their parents, it seemed to be a most unhappy and unfortunate scheme to throw that religious education on a table to be wrangled over by these six managers. It would probably work out that four of the managers would be of the denomination to which the school belonged, but it was specially enacted that two should be elected; there was no guarantee that those two would be of the same denomination, and they probably would not be. Therefore, this question, as to the necessity of which being carried out in a peaceful manner they had heard so many exhortations, was to be made a bone of contention among the very body of managers that were to carry it out. It had been argued that the two elected managers would not interfere in the matter. No doubt there were men of discretion who would feel that in the interests of the work to be done it would be better not to interfere, but there were a great many others who would say, "What are we here for at all? We are here for the distinct purpose of preventing the denominational schools being too denominational; we are here to represent the broader thoughts from outside, and to permeate the deliberations of the four managers by other views; our whole business is to interfere as much as possible with the religious control of the school." The position would be absurd. It had been said that the reason for this extraordinary scheme was that in many parishes in England the clergyman asserted an independent spirit, would not be guided by the counsel of his Bishop, paid no heed to the wishes of his parishioners as to the religious instruction they desired to be given to their children, and that some control was necessary to prevent the vagaries and eccentricities of such clergymen in the interest of the religion they professed and of the well-being of the children under their charge. But this was surely a most complicated and extraordinarily ponderous machinery to bring to bear upon an evil of that kind. Could not the Bishops have been obliged to receive, duly consider, and adjudicate upon complaints made by the parishioners, or by the managers, or by the managers as representative of the parishioners? It seemed to be a very elaborate system for curing an evil which might be dealt with by a much simpler process. Instead of effecting something by which action might be brought to bear in the particular localities, the Bill would set up in every parish this grotesque council of amateur theologians. He ventured to think it would bring discredit on the denominational system and seriously interfere with the harmonious working of the scheme. There were many noble Lords whom nothing would distress more than that the sphere of religion should be made a battle-ground, and their ideal of religious education was that it should be as vague as possible, and that dogmas and anything of a definite nature should be eliminated. He could conceive of no machinery more likely to bring about that result than the scheme of this Bill. But those who held that view had plenty of schools in which to carry it out. There were a large number of supplied schools in which "Cowper-Ternpleism" was supreme, and these theories were carried out to the full. Those of other views had established denominational schools which had been fostered by the State, and by this Bill were placed upon a statutory footing in order that they might remain denominational schools, and yet these very schools, established to give denominational teaching, and supplied at the cost of those desiring that teaching to be given, were to be handed over to this unhomogeneous body. It was an infringement of the whole idea of the Bill. He and his co-religionists looked upon this sub-Section as being so objectionable that they would be obliged strenuously to oppose it, and they would record their strong opinions as to the character of the principle involved by dividing the House upon it.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I cannot help thinking that a great many of the observations to which we have listened in this debate are absolutely irrelevant to the question before your Lordships. The Amendment assumes the existence of the managers and the state of the law under which these schools will work if this Bill passes. With reference to many of the observations of my noble friend I can only say that they have my hearty concurrence, and I would do a great deal, if I could, to aid him in what he desires. But the noble Earl, I think, must have forgotten how his Amendment differs from that which I should move hereafter. He wants the religious instruction to be in accordance with— the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs, and he points out that my Amendment deals only with schools in connection with which there is a trust deed. That is quite true, and I observed that at the end of his speech he suggested that the Government should come out into the open, and not shelter themselves behind trust deeds—phrases the value of which I am afraid my noble friend did not himself quite appreciate. Unless there is a trust deed how does a school belong to the Church of England? What sort of proprietorship is there? That there are schools in this country that are administered by and in a loose general sense belong to the Church of England, and yet have no trust deed, I quite agree: but if you deal with those schools as private schools, whether Roman Catholic, Weslcyan, or Church of England, an owner may change his religion tomorrow, and with it change the whole character of his school. You are legislating here only for those schools which are confined by trust deeds to teaching specific doctrines; therefore, it seems to me that my noble friend is entirely in error in supposing that we could do this if we wished. In what way are the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs to be construed? What court of law is to determine that it belongs to this or that denomination unless there is something by which in law it is vested in that denomination? Under these circumstances we cannot possibly accept an Amendment which would be as inoperative as in some respects it would be absolutely unjust, because if it had any effect it would operate as a confiscation of private property with which this House, in the present Bill, has nothing to do. As I have, said, with a great many of the noble Earl's observations I entirely agree, and I think they will be carried out by my Amendment, but it is absolutely impossible to accept the present proposal. The noble Duke will forgive me for saying that a great part of his speech might very properly have been delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill or upon the Clause itself, but that so far as the Amendment before your Lordships is concerned I am wholly unable to see the relevancy of it.

THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE

said he had used the word "belong" because it had been stated in another place that it was the proper word to use. It was intended to refer to those, schools which had trust deeds, and at the end of his second Amendment he had inserted words of a somewhat tentative character describing what "belonging to a particular denomination" might mean. With regard to private property, he felt very strongly that if they had been fighting for schools that were private property they had been fighting all along on false pretences in saying they were fighting for the Church of England.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

pointed out to the Lord Chancellor that there were many schools, the bequests in regard to which simply stated that they were conveyed to the vicar and churchwardens of the parish for the education of the young. Those schools belonged to the Church of England, but there was no direction in the trust deeds as to the kind of teaching that should be given. It was to the case of schools like that, which were a great deal more numerous than was generally known, that they wished the Amendment to apply.

*THE EART, OF HALSBUKY

That would be a trust deed, in my view.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

I am quite aware of that, my Lord.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY, in moving to omit the words, "the tenour of," said: This, again, in one sense, is an Amendment of form, though I think that in some respects it would be considered to affect the substance very much. The object of the Amendment is to make clear what before was indefinite. A great many people took the view that the words "the tenour of" conveyed no definite meaning to the ordinary mind, and I am not quite certain that among the lawyers there was not considerable difference of opinion as to their meaning. I have endeavoured in the substance of the Clause, by an Amendment I shall move hereafter, to expound in the clearest terms possible what they do mean, and therefore, in order to arrive at that, I propose to omit these words which have been justly condemned as having no definite meaning at all.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 9, to leave out 'the tenour of.'"—(The Lord Chaucellor.)

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

moved to omit the words" the provisions (if any) of," so that, in conjunction with the Amendment already made, the Clause would read— Religion instruction should be given in accordance with the trust deed relating

to the school. It was not a point of much consequence, and if the Lord Chancellor thought the words should remain he would not press the Amendment.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the words "the provisions of," are required by the rest of the sub-Section.

Amendment, by leave, of the House withdrawn.

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved to provide that the Clause should apply to trust deeds which were in existence on 1st January, 1902. Having to act under a great many trust deeds, he was anxious to know who would be the authority to decide on the trust deeds, and how far under the new Act any competent authority would examine these trust deeds. From various statements that had been made, it seemed that a great many new trust deeds were being prepared, and old ones re-formed according to new models, so as to be ready for the passing of this Bill. It was possible that in many cases the objects of the old founders would be completely changed, and properties intended for public purposes and secondary education devoted to other purposes. Unless some such proviso as he suggested were passed, therefore, serious difficulties and injustices might arise.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 9, after 'deed' insert 'as existing on 1st January, 1902.'" —(Lord Kinnaird.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

said he had placed on the Paper an Amendment similar in spirit to that now proposed, but somewhat more merciful to intending trustees, inasmuch as it would allow trust deeds dating from 1st March, 1902, instead of from 1st January, 1902. As he understood it, after the passing of the Bill, if such an appeal existed under the trusts, there would be an appeal to an ecclesiastical authority, who would probably be the Bishop in cases connected with the Anglican Church, in the event of dispute among the parishioners as to the religious teaching in the schools. But there were a large number of schools in connection with which trust deeds did not exist, and it had been said that many such schools were now rushing to obtain trust deeds. While that was a somewhat objectionable course, it was not his principal reason for supporting the Amendment. If carried, the Amendment would undoubtedly limit the appeal to the ecclesiastical authorities in many schools, a result he was in favour of for reasons he had some delicacy in stating in the presence of the Episcopal Bench. He had the greatest possible reverence and respect for the right rev. Prelates, and should he refer to a bishop in whom he had not such trust, it would be a purely hypothetical bishop, and, as the Bill would pass for all time, he hoped a highly improbable bishop of the future. There were undoubted differences in the Church of England in regard to ritual and other matters. Reference had been made to them by the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe and the Duke of Norfolk, but he might quote an even higher authority, who, in reference to matters of discipline in the Church of England, wrote— There is not one single tenet, with perhaps the exception of the Bishop of Rome, round which reformers and anti-reformers fought so fiercely in the 16th century, which is not equally the subject of contention now inside the Church of England. The author of those words was the late Duke of Argyll, whose name would be received with great respect by noble Lords opposite, and especially by the noble Duke, the Leader of the House. While he would welcome an appeal to the Bishops in such matters in the Church, and believed it would be most useful if they could enforce discipline—though he was aware that it was in many cases a most expensive process—when they came to the question of religious education they stood on somewhat different ground. If practices were carried on in a Church with which the parishioners did not agree, and if, on appeal, the Bishop was of the same way of thinking as the incumbent and confirmed the practices, the parishioners had a certain, though lamentable, remedy, and one he would deeply regret to see used; they need not attend the church, or send their children. But that was not the case with regard to the schools, If the education was conducted in a religious atmosphere with which the parents disagreed, and of which they conscientiously disapproved, how were they treated by the State? The State insisted on the children being sent to the school, so that, if the Bishop agreed with the practices carried on in the school, not only would the parents be compelled to continue sending their children, but actually to pay for the process. That being the case, he thought the appeal should be somewhat limited, and therefore supported the Amendment.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURV

I give the noble Lord credit for desiring to do as he says, but I am unable to see in what manner the Amendment would effect his object.

LORD BURGHCLERE

It limits the appeal to the Bishop.

*THE EARL OK HALSBURY

No, what this Amendment does is to prevent you making trust deeds which did not exist before January of the present year. why should not these schools be allowed to make trust deeds? If you recognise the fact that there are schools which in one sense are attached to the Church of England, without trust deeds regulating them, why should they not be allowed to make trust deeds? Are you going to prohibit people dedicating their own property to that which is a pious use? What evil is being contemplated that would be prevented by this Amendment? It seems to me that the suggestion is the most tyrannical I have heard for a long time. It would not apply only to the Church of England, but all denominations would be under a ban and precluded from having trust deeds unless they were made before January, 1902. I am a little surprised at such an Amendment being suggested, and more at it being supported and argued.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

thought the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented his noble friend. There was no desire to interfere with the pious intentions of the founders. The idea of the Amendment was simply to prevent trust deeds being entered into with the intention of checking or evading the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. The important element in the consideration of the Amendment was the extent to which it would achieve that object.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Their Lordships adjourned at eight o'clock, and resumed at nine.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an Amendment providing that the religious instruction should be under the control of the "foundation" managers, said his proposal occupied little space on the Paper, but was, nevertheless, one of considerable importance, inasmuch as it affected all the denominational schools throughout the country. The principle of the Sub-Section was that the control of the religious teaching in denominational schools should be in the hands of the managers. That principle had been adopted by a large majority in the House of Commons, and probably coincided with the view of the majority of their Lordships and of the people of the country, but the Amendment, though he greatly disliked the principle, did not aim at disturbing it in any way. What it sought to do was to limit the control of the religious teaching to the foundation managers, who would probably be of the denomination to which the school belonged. What would those Members of the House who had served in the Army think of a measure under which the commanding officer of a regiment was compelled to hand over the control of all questions at issue, whether as regarded discipline or the daily issuing of regimental orders, to a Board consisting of the colonel, three other officers of the regiment, and two officers appointed by a totally different regiment, and, possibly, of another branch of the service? Or, to bring the matter nearer home, what would be said of a proposal that the Leader of either House of Parliament should refer all matters of parliamentary procedure or policy, not only to their own Party Whips, but to the Opposition Whips also? Such proposals would not be supported for a moment, and yet, under this Bill, it would be perfectly possible for the two outside managers to be of a totally different denomination from that to which the school belonged, or even to profess no religious belief at all. Such a position of affairs was neither reasonable not logical. He hoped their Lordships would accept his Amendment, by which such a condition would be rendered impossible, and which would tend to preserve the peace they all desired to see in regard to questions of religious education.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 10, after the second 'the' to insert 'foundation.'" —(The Eart of Shaftesbury.)

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that His Majesty's Government are wholly unable to accept such an Amendment. It is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Bill. It cuts out the two managers, although complaint has been made that the others are already in too large a majority. It is impossible to support such an Amendment.

THE EARLOF SHAFTESBURY

thought the remarks of the Lord Chancellor did not in any way get over his point. While it was true the Amendment would cut out the two outside managers, the fact remained that those two managers might be of a denomination to which the school did not belong. Under these circumstances, he hoped he would receive support for his Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

thought their Lordships failed to realise what would be the result of the Board of Managers as proposed by the Government. The whole of the religious teaching was to be under the control of six managers. In many trusts the managers were specified to be the incumbent and the churchwardens. It frequently happened that one of the churchwardens was a member of the Church while the other was a Nonconformist. In such cases, assuming the two managers appointed by the local authority did not belong to the Church, instead of two-thirds of the Board belonging to the denomination, the managers would be equally divided, three belonging to the Church and three to bodies outside the Church. The Bill professed to save the denominational rights of the Church of England and of the Roman body, but how was it possible to save those rights if the body which had the control of the religious education was equally divided? The thing was impossible. The appointment of the teacher rested entirely with the Board of Managers, it being expressly taken out of the appeal to the Bishop. The managers would make the syllabus of religious instruction. Was it tolerable,

on any Church principle, that, say, two Unitarians should have a voice in deciding the religious syllabus for a Church school? If he stood alone, he would protest against any such proposal. The position would not be made much more tolerable by limiting the power to the foundation managers, but it would be an improvement if the Church were not exposed to the dishonour of having it said that this House proposed to place the teaching in her schools wholly under the control of persons who did not belong to her. He should support the Amendment, and hoped the noble Earl would press it to a division.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

confessed that he found it difficult to sit still when the Lord Chancellor treated an Amendment of this kind in so cavalier a manner. The Government were naturally unwilling to accept Amendments, because the fewer they accepted the better for them, but this Amendment was the natural outcome of the principles on which the Bill was based. The measure professed to say that so far as religious education of a particular character was taught in the denominational schools the schools should be free, but that so far as the secular education was concerned the local authority, Which supplied the funds, should have a voice in the management. But here, in a sub-Section referring exclusively to religious education, two managers were put in who had nothing whatever to do with the religious education of the school. He failed to see why the Government, as a matter of course, should refuse to accept, or even consider, such an Amendment. The proposal would not remove his objection to the Clause as a whole, but it would be an improvement; it would make the Bill logical, which at present it was not. He would have pleasure in supporting the noble Earl if he pressed the Amendment to a division.

On Question, "That the word 'foundation' be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-contents,87.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Derby, E.	Crose, V.
[Teller.]	Malmesbury, E.	Halifax, V.
Northumberland, D.	Nelson, E.	Llandaff, V.
		Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]
Adingdon, E.		Ely, L. Bp.
Lincoln, L.Bp.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Oranmore and Browone, E.
Norwich, L. BP.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Stanmore, L.
		Teynham, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Londoun.)	Herries, L.	Torphichen, L.
Braye, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Dormer, L.	North, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Coleridge, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Somerset, D	Wharneliffe, E.	De Mauley, L.
Wellington, D.		Denman, L.
	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Ailesbury, M.	Falkland, V.	Dunmore, L. (E. Danmore.)
Lansdowne, M.	Falmouth, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Northampton, M.	Gordon, V. (E. Aderdeen.)	Elphinstone, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Enskine, L.
Clarendon,E.(L. Chamberlain.)		Farrer, L.
Carrington, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Forester, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Chester, L. Bp.	Ganusk, L.
Denbigh, E.	Chichester, L. Bp.	Hatherton, L.
Doncaster.(D. Buccleuch and Queenberry.)	Durham, L. Bp.	Hylton, L.
	London, L. Bp.	Kenyon, L.
Ducie, E.	Manuchester, L. Bp.	Lindley, L.
Lathom, E.	Newcastle, L. Bp.	Ludlow, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Ripon, L. Bp.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Londesborough, E.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Monekton, L. (V. Galaray.)
Lucan, E.	Southwell, L. Bp.	Monkswell, L.
Lytton, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Morley, E.		Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.	Beay, L.
Porsmouth, E.	Asdhourne, L.	Redesdale, L.
Radnor, E.	Balfour, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Romney. E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Seaton, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cokand Orrery.)	Sherborne, L.
Sandwich, E.	Braybrooke, L.	Suffield, L.
Spencer, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Stamford, E.	Burghelere, L.	Winborne, L.
Stanhope, E.	Burton, L.	Zouche of Haryngoworth, L.

*VISCOUNT HALIFAX, in moving "to leave out from 'deed' to the end of sub-Section, and insert 'Provided always that, in school belonging to the Church of England, any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final,'" said: In view of much that has been said during this debate in regard to the character of the Bill as amended in the House of Commons, the first point I desire to press upon your Lordships is the debt that this country owes to the clergy for their exertions in the cause of education. In the past they strove for education when almost everybody else was indifferent to it and many opposed it, and in the present they have, by the greatest self-denial and self-sacrifice, maintained their schools. I must say that the way in which they are being treated in regard to this matter shows very little gratitude for what they have done in the past. This Bill, as it now stands, is not the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Commons. The Bill has been amended—or, I would venture to say, disfigured—by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. There are some interesting questions which might be raised as to when and how that Clause was introduced, but I shall not enter upon that subject. The Prime Minister has told us that the purport of this Clause was always intended by him, and he asked us why we were surprised at the Clause being introduced. He says that the Bill has meant what the Clause enacts all the time. If this be the case, if it be the case that the Bill from the beginning was intended to enact what the beginning was intended to enact what the Kenyon-Slaney Clause enacts, I ask why was it not introduced into the Bill in the first place? Why was this Clause, which is of a revolutinary character—because it really upsets the arrangements for the religious teaching in nearly all the Church schools in England—left to a private Member to introduce in the House of Commons? It is not true that those who supported this Bill in the first instance ever understood that such a provision as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause enacts was included in the Bill. When they heard of the control of the managers, they supposed that it meant the control of the managers as against the local authority in regard to the religious instruction given in the denominational schools, and the feeling that was aroused throughout the country when it was made clear that this Clause was going to be accepted by the Government is the best proof that Churchmen, lay and clerical, did not in the least understand that a Clause of this sort was contemplated when the Bill was introduced.

In regard to this Clause there are certain things which have to be said which I would rather not say, but it is impossible to deal with the matter without saying them. I shall, however, say as little as I can. The Church is a teaching body, and the clergyman in each parish is the representative of the Church to give the teaching of the Church, subject to the authority of the Bishop. The clergyman, who has the cure of souls, because he is the representative of the Church, and, whether the trust deeds specify it or not, is the parson, the persona, the person responsible for the religious teaching in the parish, and one of the chief objects of a Church school is the religious education of those belonging to the Church in that parish. It is not necessary for the clergyman himself always to give the instruction, but it is of the very essence of the principles of the Church that he should, as long as he has the sanction of the Bishop, and as long as he is acting under the authority of the Bishop, be responsible for the Church teaching given in the Church school. By this Bill you deny what I maintain is a fundamental principle of the Church in this respect. You disestablish the clergyman in the Church school, and you transfer the authority of controlling the religious teaching in the Church school from the clergyman to a body of lay managers, two of whom need not belong to the denomination to which the school belongs. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the power of these managers will be. They are to have the entire control of the religious instruction given in the school. I suppose that the Amendment to be moved by the Lord Chancellor will be carried, and that the right of appeal to the Bishop will be made clear, but however much you may grant the appeal to the Bishop, that does not meet the principle in the matter, which is the primary authority of the clergyman in the parish to be responsible under the Bishop for the teaching of the Church to Church children in Church schools. These managers are to have the control of the religious teaching. I want your Lordships to remember that the appointment of the teachers rests with the managers, and that an appeal to the Bishop in regard to the appointment of a teacher is expressly excluded by the Bill. The managers will have the settlement of the syllabus of religious instruction given in the Church schools. They will set the questions; in fact, the whole control of the religious instruction is taken from the clergyman and put into their hands, and they will have the power, if they desire so to do, to exclude the clergyman from teaching, in the Church school, those who have been entrusted to him, by his institution, "to the cure of souls, "the religion he is bound to teach. In regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite it is quite possible that you might have amongthese managers two Unitarians. I ask your Lordships, is it tolerable that Churchmen should vote for a Clause which in principle admits that two Unitarians may have a voice in determining the syllabus of instruction in a Church school? The noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board said last night that I was incorrect in what I had said about the teaching given under the London School Board. I will ask the noble Lord whether it is not true that not long ago, in the syllabus determined by the London School Board for their schools, the Gospel of St. John was expressly excluded. I admit that it has been altered since, but it was at first excluded. Moreover, there were in the syllabus of religious instruction questions as to the prophecies in the Old Testament such as, "He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," but teachers were expressly forbidden to associate those prophecies with any person. Suppose there is any personal quarrel with the clergyman, quite irrespective of doctrinal or ritualistic questions, and under a Bill the object of which is to protect and defend the denominational rights of the Church of England and the Roman Church in England religious teaching may be left—left to the discretion of persons who care nothing whatever for the teaching of the Church, and you may have a syllabus such as I have described as having been determined by the London School Board. I say that is not tolerable. It is not just, and I cannot conceive how anyone who cares anything about the Church of England can vote for such a Clause.

I would ask your Lordships to believe that I am not speaking in the least in the interests of any one section of the clergy of the Church of England. It is very probable that the clergy of whom Earl Carrington spoke in this debate will be the clergy least affected by this Clause. But if they were the clergy most affected by the clause it would not make me a bit more anxious than I am to obtain an Amendment of the proposal. I care about this Clause, not at all in the interests of a section of the clergy, but in the interests of the whole of the clergy of England, and still more for the sake of the honour of the Church of England to which we belong. It is said that there are cranks among the clergy. Are there no cranks among the laity? Granted that there may be some cranks among the clergy; granted that there may be vagaries the result of action of clergymen here and there—and let me say I know much too well how these stories are got up and used for political purposes to attach much credence to them—but granted all that, look at the irony of the situation. Because two or three clergymen have been unfaithful to their vows, if it be so, and because the Bishops have not kept them in order, your Lordships are going to endorse a principle which is in fundamental contradiction to the principles of the Church to which you profess to belong. If you play fast and loose with first principles in this way, you will inevitably rue the consequence of such conduct when it is too late. It was said in the lower House, and it has been said by some noble Lords in this House, that if this Clause were rejected it would bring the question of disestablishment within the range of practical politics. I can assure you that disestablishment has no terrors for me. In regard to a Clause of this sort, much as I dislike every speech I have heard on this side of the House, unfair and unjust as I think they have been to the Church, I would almost prefer to be disestablished wholesale than to be disestablished piecemeal by my friends. I entreat His Majesty's Government not to do this thing. It is a matter which touches the whole of the clergy; the Government make a great mistake if they suppose that only a section of the clergy are affected. Your Lordships will have read an admirable letter published in The Times some days ago, signed by Mr. Dibdin, the Chancellor of Durham. Mr. Dibdin is an old friend of mine, but his religious opinions are not in the least like mine. But Mr. Dibdin says exactly what I do in regard to how this Clause touches the clergy throughout the whole length and breadth of the land.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer than I can help; therefore I will ask your attention to only one further point. In The Timesof last Wednesday or Thursday a letter was published from the Prime Minister, in which he took exception to the criticisms of this Bill made by Dr. Clifford, and he explained what the object of the Bill was. At the end of the letter occur these words—this is the Prime Minister's account of the measure which we are now discussing; it is his explanation of it as against Dr. Clifford's version—he says— A measure which requires that the control of the clergy over secular education shall be withdrawn, and that their control —I ask your Lordships to mark the words, it is the same word "control" in each case— their control over secular education shall be withdrawn, and their control over religious education he justified.

These words are directly and categorically a contradiction of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I ask the Prime Minister to justify himself, and to consent to such an Amendment of this Clause as shall preserve the rights of the clergy. Let him make the appeal to the Bishops as stringent as he will, and I shall vote for it with pleasure, but let him justify himself, and consent to an Amendment which will preserve the rights of the clergy, which will save them from this grave injustice, and which, more important still, will save the Church of England from being exposed to the dishonour of seeing this gross infraction of her first principles voted for by your Lordships' House.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 9, leave out from 'deed' to the end of the sub-section and insert 'Provided always that in schools belonging to the Church of England, any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final.'"—(Viscount Halifax.)

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

The noble Lord's Amendment is open to an observation which I have already made— namely, that where he uses the words "belonging to the Church of England," he either means belonging to the Church of England by reason of some trust deed, or belonging in such a sense as may be intelligible popularly, but in a sense with which your Lordships cannot deal. If he means "belonging to the Church of England" according to the trust deeds, it appears to me that the Amendment that I am about to move deals with what the noble Lord desires, namely— That nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or other denominational authority, so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. If that is what the noble Lord means then that is sufficiently provided for in the Amendment I am about to move. But if I am to understand that that is not what the noble Lord means, then I would say that there is no such thing as a school belonging to the Church of England, except it has a trust deed. If there is a trust deed the Bill provides for the preservation of that trust and of the rights thereunder, of which the noble Lord desires to get rid. The trust deed is that which I should have thought the noble Lord would have considered ought to be preserved and kept. But if it is outside the provisions of the trust deed, and there is no such provision, I do not understand why the noble Lord confines the right of appeal which he proposes to one or more of the foundation managers. Does he desire by the authors of the Bill should work in harmony, you should divide the responsibility; that one set of managers should have a right of appeal to the Bishop, and that the other set should not? It appears to me that the noble Lord has not contemplated the whole consequences of his own Amendment. First of all, he wants to over ride the trust deed—which I assume to be what he means by the words "belonging to the Church of England" —and when he has done that he further desires that the managers, who are by the whole theory of the Bill to act together, should be divided, and that some should have the right of appeal and others should not. It is impossible to suppose that the Bill could stand with such a conflict of jurisdiction, and His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD HALIFAX

I may just point out that the trust deeds of the National Society provide that the education of the schools shall be under the control of the clergyman. Under the Clause of this Bill, that part of the trust deed is absolutely torn up by the roots.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Certainly, but that has already been disposed of, and the House has not to deal with that.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

There is one point in the Amendment on which I should like to say a few words, in comparison with the Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor. The noble Viscount proposes that any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the Diocese. I shall not touch at all upon the point to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred, of confining the appeal to one side of the management, because on that point I do not agree with the noble Viscount. The point to which I wish to direct attention are the words "in regard to the religious instruction which is given in such school." In the Amendment to be proposed by the Lord Chancellor we have the words— That so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. I think I am right—if I am not I am sure I shall be corrected by the noble and learned Lord—that in practice, in a Church of England school, that would be the equivalent of deciding whether the religious instruction is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England. I would desire to point out the very different effect of those two provisions. I cannot but feel that in the future the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor may produce a situation of a very difficult, entangled, and disagreeable kind. What I suppose those who are interested in the welfare of the Church of England would desire, and what I think probably the great majority of your Lordships will desire, is that when in a Church of England school some question arises about which there is local division touching religions instruction, that question should be referred to the Bishop of the Diocese for decision, and however little confidence, in spite of the compliment the noble Lord was good enough to pay us, there may be sometimes in the episcopal decisions, yet I believe your Lordships would probably think that was the best solution of the difficulty. But it is very important to consider what question the Bishop would, under such circumstances, have to decide. If he is to decide that such and such doctrines are or are not within the limits of the Church of England, he may be deciding a question of a most vital and far-reaching character, and precipitating issues which, while touching one particular school, will actually affect the whole condition and prospects and welfare of the Church of England. In fact, the Bishop would be deciding pro tanto the questions which would come before the Supreme Courts and so on, and even if he followed the decision of the Privy Council he might have to pronounce that such and such doctrine was within the limits of the Church of England, though at the time he so pronounced he would be perfectly convinced that the particular way in which that doctrine had been taught at the particular school was contrary to the welfare of the Church of England in that place, contrary to the interests of peace and harmony, and contrary to the good of the children who were being taught. If we take the language of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, we do not find that such words occur. There is to be an appeal. The noble and learned Lord may say that what in my judgment is the strength of those words is also their weakness; in other words that it is because they are vague that they escape the danger which I have ventured to point out in his words. But, however, that may be, that very perilous issue seems to me to be avoided. You would then go to the Bishop—I use the words somewhat hastily, but I hope they are sufficiently correct—you would go to the Bishopas the supreme administrator of the diocese; you would get from him a decision which ought, I think, to be well with in his pastoral responsibility to give as to whether such and such teaching was or was not rightly, prudently and charitably given in the school, and he would not have to decide as to whether such and such a doctrine was within the limits of the Church of England. There is a good deal else that I feel anxious to say a word or two about on this question of appeal to the Bishop, but it I may be pardoned for rising again later on, I would like now to leave the point I have raised for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord.

*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

I am afraid I cannot quite appreciate the full argument of the right rev. Prelate, but I think we had better make clear the points we are about to discuss when we come to give a final decision on this matter. The Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite seeks to give an appeal to the Bishop "if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school." There are some of us who think that no such appeal should be given to the Bishop. Those words cover questions of administration. If any question arises as to the time during which religious instruction may be given, or as to the circumstances under which, or the day on which, it should be given, there would be an appeal to the Bishop, because that would be a question "arising in regard to the religious instruction." That would make the Bishop paramount in that school. If any manager objected to the religious instruction being only half-an-hour instead of an hour, it would be a question arising in regard to the religious instruction; and there would be an appeal to the Bishop, 'whose decision would be final. Therefore the Bishop would be able to say whether the instruction should be for an hour or only for ten minutes, and he would be able to decide that you should use certain books. That, I think, makes the Bishop paramount in the school. That is not the intention of those who framed this Clause. All that refers to administration must go to the managers. They are to be paramount in regard to that. I would, if I could, avoid entering into the broad discussion upon this question, but there was a view expressed by the noble Viscount which, if it should prevail, would render this Bill unworkable. He claimed that the Church of England was represented by its clergy, and by its clergy only. That position does not represent the strength of the Church of England. It shuts out the laity, and if you shut out the laity from carrying on its educational course, the Church of England, instead of being strengthened by the legislation of the noble Viscount, will be weakened to its very foundation, and instead of this being a Bill for strengthening the Church it will be the worst weapon that could be employed against it. 1 hope we need not venture into these general considerations; I think we had better deal with the question practically. I would ask your Lordships to look at the Amendment of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor. He passes away from all questions of administration. Between the Amendment of the noble Viscount and that of my noble friend a great gulf is fixed. According to the Amendment shortly to be moved there is to be no appeal to the Bishop on questions of administration, but there will be an appeal to him upon certain questions.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for a moment. I am afraid he is playing on the word that 1 have been emphasising—the word "administration. "I should like to explain that I have no desire whatever to bring the whole of the matters to which he is now referring under the control of the Bishop. I was keeping in view the religious teaching only, and pointing out that it ought not to be impossible to find words enabling the Bishop to give a final decision on questions affecting the teaching, without having to say whether or not that teaching was within the extreme limits of the Church of England.

*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

I quite appreciate the words of the right rev. Prelate, but I am dealing with the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The words of that Amendment do leave the whole administration open to appeal to the Bishop, whose decision would be final. The Amendment of the Lord Chancellor gives an appeal to the Bishop wherever such an appeal is given by the trust deed — that is, by those who founded the school. This appeal is to go to the Bishop, not to the full extent to which there may be an appeal under the trust deed, but only so far as regards the character of the religious teaching. I suggest that that is the proper measure of appeal that should be given. In one sense I could wish for popular control in these schools. The noble Viscount has spoken of the breaking of the sanctity of trust deeds. The trust deed has already been broken; but it has been broken by those who opened the door of these schools—I will not say they sent the rate collector forth, but at any rate they have beckoned him in, and taken as much money from him as they could. It is they who have asked for a readjustment of the trust deed, and whenever popular control is given you must draw a clear line between what shall be the popular control and what shall be governed by the terms of the trust deed. From an abstract point of view I would give no appeal at all, but looking at the question practically, I say that where a trust deed has defined the doctrine that is to be taught you cannot make that a subject of debate between six managers; it must be determined by a more judicial tribunal. It is not a question to be discussed or voted upon; a question of doctrine must be decided by some better tribunal. But where can you find that tribunal? I know of none that can be suggested, except, perhaps, the Board of Education. But that is a political Department. I know of no other but that representative of the Church to which the school under consideration belongs. Although the members of the Episcopal Bench have drawn us more closely to them during the debates on this Bill, there are some of us who have no inherent devotion to the Episcopal Bench as a court of appeal, but still the Bishop represents in each diocese the head of the Church, and I must confess that upon points of doctrine I know of no better tribunal in regard to the Church of England than the Bishop of the diocese. The Amendment that I had intended to move dealing with this point is exactly similar to that of my noble friend. The Lord Chancellor's Amendment, however, has one point of superiority over that of the noble Viscount. We all admire the noble Viscount's chivalrous devotion to the clergy of the Church of England, but it must be pointed out that his Amendment deals with the Church of England only. For legislation that is not sufficient. There are other denominations which have their schools, and they want an appeal too. You have no right to deal with the Church of England and not with the Church of Rome or with the Noncomformist denominations. The Wesleyans are a powerful denomination, and have a right to ask that their trust deeds shall be carried out, and that an appeal shall go to their Pastoral Conference. This is a matter to be considered as a matter of common-sense, and I hope your Lordships will now enter upon the consideration of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment and deal with it according to its merits.

THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

There are apparently two questions which might be made the ground of appeal to the Bishop. First, who shall give the religious instruction? and secondly, what shall be the nature of the instruction given? As an individual I should very much have preferred that an appeal should lie on both these points, but I recognise very clearly that in the present state of affairs it may be exceedingly difficult for the Government to grant an appeal upon the first of those questions. We are in this position in respect of this Amendment, that we must either take what the House of Commons have passed and be satisfied with it, or we must agree to receive the concession which has been made on the part of the Government in the Amendment to be proposed by the Lord Chancellor. If we reject what is offered by the Lord Chancellor, the Bill will go back to another place, and it will be said that we have not received this concession. What will be the consequence? The House of Commons will most certainly revert to its original Resolution, and the Clause will remain unaltered. I look upon this practical necessity as determining, at any rate, my vote in respect to the matter. I know we all have to suffer for the faults of our brethren, and I know that in this case I am going to suffer for the faults of some of my brethern. They have produced so widespread a feeling of disgust and distrust amongst many of the laity that I must bow my head in sorrowful acquiescence to the behest of the Government. I do not like it, but it is a practical necessity, and so, as the Government have granted to us this very important power of an appeal on questions of doctrine, I gratefully accept it. If the Government had not granted that, it would have been impossible for me to stand up here to-night and speak on behalf of the proposal of the Government—totally impossible—because I agree with the noble Viscount to this extent, that it would be not merely unseemly, but impossible, to submit to half-a-dozen very good, but unlearned, men in a village council, the determination of what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England. It would be unseemly to submit even the question introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, namely—Do the particular words which we have taken down as being used by the clergyman comply with the conditions required in a person teaching the doctrines of the Church of England? I say it would be utterly unseemly. Further than that, it would have been contrary to the whole precedent of English law. In another place a person of very great wisdom and high political position pointed to the fact that in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, laymen were entrusted with the determination of such a question as that referred to in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I have two remarks to make upon that. To compare any six good men appointed to be managers of a voluntary school with the men of high erudition, of great legal practice, and skilled in judicial matters who form the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is trifling with the matter. Moreover, no matter goes to the Judicial Committee unless it has first gone to the Bishop of the diocese. It may be appealed from the Bishop to the Archbishop's Court, and then, perhaps, to the Judicial Committee. No man who is charged with heresy in the Church of England can be prosecuted on that charge except under the Church Discipline Act, and that Act makes an appeal lie to the Bishop. The Prayer Book of the Church of England is—if we can speak of so venerable and distinguished a document in such a manner—a Schedule to the Act of Uniformity. Parliament has approved of all the rubrics in that book and of the words in it. If a question arises about doctrine, what is the direction of the Book of Common Prayer which Parliament has approved? It is that if people differ in the interpretation of the words of the book, the question shall be submitted to the Bishop, and if the Bishop is in doubt, he shall pass the matter on to the Archbishop—as was, in fact, recently done. The precedents of English law, therefore, if the question be whether certain words agree with the standards of the Church, require an appeal to lie to the Bishop. The Government have complied with that requirement, therefore they have given us a most important concession, and I do not want to risk the loss of it by rejecting it now, for we shall never get it offered again. I am persuaded, consequently, that the wisest course that can be adopted by the members of this Bench, and by those of your Lordships who agree with us, is to bow, as I have said, with melancholy acquiescence to the decree of the Government. They will not allow the question as to who shall teach to be submitted to the Bishop, but they will grant an appeal to us on what is infinitely more important,—namely, whether the teaching of a particular clergyman is or is not in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. I am in favour, therefore, of heartily supporting the proposal submitted to us by the Lord Chancellor, and of rejecting the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

*LORD ROBERTSON

I am afraid the speech of the right rev. Prelate, however convincing, does not cover the real subject at issue in this debate. I speak as a convinced supporter of the Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government, and I will say in a word what I took the principle to be. It was to discriminate between secular education and religious education; the State was to avail itself of the secular education afforded in denominational schools, to have that governed by the representatives of the ratepayers, and to leave the religious instruction aside, apart from that altogether. I hold that to be a perfectly sound principle, and one of easy application. Until the introduction of this unfortunate Amendment that principle was well carried out. It is, of course, difficult to draw a clear and, sharp dividing line all through the system of instruction between what is secular and what is religious. But, fortunately, the Code has done that for us already, and, accordingly, there is no difficulty in distinguishing between what belongs to the secular region of education and what to the religious. Up to the time when this Amendment was introduced, the principle adopted has been that the State should take the denominational schools, so far as religion is concerned, as they stand, and not meddle with them. What has been done by the Kenyon - Slaney Clause, and what is proposed to be continued by the Amendment of the Government, is that the trust deeds shall be ripped up and reconsidered, and that religious instruction shall be given, not by the person directed in the trust deed, but by a new and lay body. I do not venture to follow in those high paths which are trod with so much confidence by the noble Viscount opposite. I take a much more mundane and, I think, a much more perceptible ground—I take the trust deed in its ordinary form. I say that the Government in the present instance have taken the trust deed and subverted it altogether. What does the trust deed say on this subject? I am taking the ordinary form of trust deed as printed in the Blue-book in the Library. On this particular question it says— The principal officiating minister of the parish shall have the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction of all the scholars. That is a clear and definite statement as to who is to have the superintendence of the religious instruction. In contrast to that, the trust deed then says—" but in all other respects the control and management of such school and premises, and of the funds and so on," shall be vested in and exercised by a Committee consisting of "so and so." Therefore your Lordships will see that this very distinction upon which my noble friend Lord James has bestowed so much emphasis is clearly recognised in the trust deed already, because it has given the control and management—using those very words—in lay matters to the Committee, while it has given the superintendence of the religious instruction to another person altogether. I ask the Committee this: Is it possible to say that the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, which has been adopted by the Government, does not enact that the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction shall not be with the minister, but with this new-fangled body? What is the result of that? You have a new body of managers, unaccustomed to their duties, and they are told that they are to superintend the religious and moral instruction of these young people, and the Government come forward with an air of triumph and say, "We have solved the question, because we have given an appeal to the Bishop." But the odd thing is that they give an appeal, not from the minister in charge, as is the case under the trust deed, but from this new body of laymen, who are to experiment in knocking up some popular religion which will suit the susceptibilities of the ratepayers. That is the plain English of it. Let me press that home still further. What is the reason of the introduction of this Clause at all? How does it fit in with this hybrid tribunal? The avowed object of the author of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, who is an old Parliamentary comrade of mine, was to aim a blow at Ritualism being taught in the schools. I have no opinion at all adverse to that suspicion; nay, I go this length, that I think there is a good deal of folly in Ritualism, and a very great deal in anti-Ritualism; but l am ready to suppose that there are excesses in the direction of Ritualism, or of the doctrines associated with Ritualism, which ought to be checked.

But for that check, I, for one, look not to this irregular and hybrid tribunal, but to the constitutional authorities of the Church. I have no licence to teach, much less to lecture, and least of all to lecture my pastors and masters; but I make no doubt of this, that among the signs of the times which will be taken to heart by the Bishops of our Church this is not the least, and I believe it constitutes a strong appeal to them to exercise more firmly than they have done before their powers of superintendence both in schools and in church. But is that a reason why we should do this great wrong? Is it a reason why we should subvert the trust deeds which have created the schools? It seems to me that you are merely making an excursion out of the region of education into that of theology, and trying by a side-wind to correct errors which ought to be faced boldly, if faced at all. May I add one word more? If it is thought well to have a crusade against Ritualism in the wrong place, may I ask whether you have prospered so well in previous crusades against Ritualism? Have you succeeded in cheeking the Ritualism which you are now condemning? Is it likely that in this roundabout way you will succeed in achieving that which you have failed to do by open measures? Standing here, not as a Churchman—because this is not a Church question at all—but standing here in defence of the rights created by trust deeds—for that is the ground on which I go—I, as a Tory supporter of the Government, most heartily protest against a measure which is certain to be cited as warranting incursions, inroads, and forays upon trust deeds.

Having ventured to speak with this freedom, may I turn from the Eldons and Sidmouths of the Front Bench to—what shall I say?—the Pyms and Hampdens on the other side of the House. I should like to ask on what principle they are going to support this new establishment. I think it was a sound principle that, if denominational teaching was to be tolerated at all, it was at least to be held apart from secular education, and was not to be mixed up with it. Now, noble Lords opposite are going to vote for setting up a delegation of County Councillors to regulate some sort of Church of England teaching and doctrine. What warrant is there for that? I suppose it will be said that those crying injustices which have driven noble Lords into such extremities of speech warrant irregularities in legislation. I should like to remind them of the broad facts of the case. First of all you have in your board schools education exactly to your liking, and you have your rating. Noble Lords speak as if the whole rates of the country were paid by Nonconformists, but they are rating the whole country for the education which they prefer. Now turn to our Church of England schools. There is a Conscience Clause which absolves yon from the necessity of sending your children to the religious part of the education in Church schools. Those two precautions and safeguards of the Nonconformist conscience have been supplemented by the Church of England in a manner which, I believe, will be remarked upon in history. Not merely by individual Members of Parliament, who represent the opinions prevalent in the Church of England, but also by the Houses of Convocation, this offer has been made: "If in Church of England schools you dislike the teaching, come and take your children and teach them in your own way." That has been formally offered, and it is a standing offer; but it has never been accepted. Of course it is impossible to suspect Nonconformists of being arrogant; but if it had been anybody else but Nonconformists, I should have said that it was the height of arrogance—first to rate us for the schools which suit them in religious doctrine, and then, having a Conscience Clause, to insist upon managing the religious teaching which they do not require their children to receive; and, finally, to reject what I have described as this standing offer, which I say is conclusive as to the fairness and equity of the position of the Church of England. There is much more to be said on this most interesting subject, but I hope I have said enough to justify my intervention in the debate; and the only remaining duty I have to perform—speaking as I do for the first time in this House—is to thank your Lordships for the great indulgence with which I have been heard.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

We have just heard, not for the first time, that the reason why this Kenon-Slaney Amendment was brought forward was to put down Ritualism in the Church. There is surely a great difference between Ritualism in the Church and Ritualism in those schools of ours which are governed by trust deeds. As some of your Lordships may be aware, in my diocese there are altogether 2,300 beneficed clergy more than in any other diocese in England. East Anglia is supposed to be a part of Great Britain which is not particularly under the influence of the Church, and which has always been distinguished for Puritan opinion. I have now been Bishop of the East Anglian diocese for between nine and ten years, and how many complaints do you suppose I have had of mistaken teaching in the Church schools? East Anglians are by no means disinclined to make complaints to the Bishop, and I have had a good many complaints on different grounds. But with regard to this particular point I have had one complaint, and one only, of mistaken or disliked teaching in our Church schools. That complaint was made not by a Nonconformist, but by a representative of the Church. No specific charge was brought against the clergyman in question, but he was unpopular because his Ritualistic opinions had alienated many of his people. He was teaching in his school, a certain number of children had been withdrawn from the religious teaching, and I was appealed to, quite properly, in accordance with the trust deed. I found that the complaint was well grounded. It was quite undesirable that the clergyman should continue teaching in the school. I desired him to desist from teaching, and he desisted, and the matter ended. I do not see why that should not occur in every case. In nine-tenths of our Church schools it is distinctly laid down in the trust deed that an appeal shall lie to the Bishop, whose decision in writing shall be final. Upon that, therefore, there can be no question at all. If the people appealed to the Bishop under the trust deed I believe the matter would be satisfactorily decided, as was done in the instance I have mentioned. I am not aware that any of my Episcopal brethren have ever failed to adjust the matter satisfactorily when they have been appealed to. It seems to me, therefore, that you have a remedy at hand already. Mention has been made of clergy who err by giving Ritualistis teaching. I have no doubt that there are a, few such, but in my diocese I have met only one such case. On the other hand, there is a very large class of clergy with whom, thank God, many of your Lordships are well acquainted, venerable and venerated men, such as your Archdeacons, men of large and high scholarship, perhaps Fellows of their. College, who have been living among their people, loving them, and being beloved, and who, likely enough, have built the schools themselves, or have been instrumental in getting them built, and through whose efforts they have been maintained for several years—these men have taught unquestioned in their schools. But what do you do by this Clause? You tell these venerable and venerated clergy, who may be counted by hundreds, that their position with regard to the young of their flock is to be entirely changed. They are no longer to be allowed to teach in their schools unless they meet with the consent of a body of men, three of whom are their own parishioners—very worthy men, but perhaps quite illiterate—and two imported by an extraneous, if not alien, body. Is that right? Must you not feel that these men will be very deeply wounded at the treatment they are receiving? The clergy feel that they are being treated in this matter in an ungenerous manner. When we consider the zeal of the clergymen of the Church of England on behalf of their schools, and remember that 11,000 schools have been built mainly through their exertions, is it surprising, now that this slur is to be cast upon them, and the right they have hitherto had of teaching the lambs of their flock is to be taken away from them, and they are only to be permitted to discharge that duty, if they are allowed, by two or three of their parishioners, and two or three strangers, that they should feel that they are being treated in an ungrateful and ungenerous manner? I am persuaded that many of our clergy will feel it very sorely; they will be disheartened at being thus slighted, and, human nature being what it is, will lose, in some degree, their interest in the schools. Can that be for the good of the education of the young? It is quite evident to me that there is no real dissatisfaction with the religious teaching given by the clergy in our schools. In ray diocese, thanks be to God, we have nearly 72,900 children being taught in the Church schools. Out of those 72,900, only 329 have been with drawn from some portion of the religious teaching, while those who have been taken by their parents from all the religious teaching number only thirty five, and I am told that the majority of those thirty-five are children either of members of the Roman Church or of Jews. Does not that show beyond all possibility of doubt, that the parents speaking generally, are thoroughly satisfied with the teaching given by the clergy in the schools? Concerning the general well-being of Concerning the general well-being the Church in this matter, your Lordships are aware of the great difficulty which we Bishops find in obtaining clergy to fill the vacant cures and curacies. Are you doing that which would move men to come forward for the sacred ministry? Is it not the desire of the laity that the clergy of the Church of England should in the future, as in the past, be men of learning, high education, scholarship, culture, and gentleman-like manner. Hitherto the clergy have been men of high education and culture, and one reason has been that the status of the English clergyman, though not bringing him in great wealth, has been one of comparative independence. If you thus limit his prerogatives, hinder him in the discharge of his duties, and cramp him by allowing him no longer to discharge what he regards as his duty—namely, to teach the young of his flock, do you not think it likely that men of independent minds will become less and less inclined to enter the ministry of the Church? Surely in this matter the interests of the clergy and of the laity are precisely the same. If you in any way depress the clergy or seem to cast a slight upon them, it must surely end in injury to the Church at large, including the laity. I should just like to point out that, from my point of view the Kenyon-Slaney Amendmentinfringesan essential principle, of the Church. What do we Bishops say when we commission a man to go down into his parish? The solemn words we use to him in the name of the Church are "We commit unto you the cure and government of the souls of the parishioners of the said parish," that is to say, the Church, acting through the Bishop, gives to that individual man jurisdiction or spiritual authority in the parish to which he is going, and in that parish he is recognised, not only by the Church, but I believe by the law of the land, as being the minister of the parish, whose duty it is to minister to all the members of the Church of England within the bounds of his parish. By this Kenyon-Slaney Amendment yon really take away a portion of the parish clergyman's jurisdiction. You withdraw from him the children; you take the lambs from under his charge, and say he shall not teach them unless allowed to do so by the managers. That is surely in some degree an infringement of the principle of the Church. I earnestly hope that something will be done to remedy the evil I have referred to.

*EARL SPENCER

I rise simply for the sake of advancing business. I confess myself that I am in a great state of confusion. We have had a particular Amendment brought forward, and we have had an exceedingly able and interesting speech, which I am sure your Lordships appreciated very much, from a noble and learned lord who comes from Scotland: but he did not even allude to the Amendment, and I am not in the least aware of which way he would vote. We have also had a very interesting speech from the right rev. Prelate, which was perhaps somewhat more to the point. We were, however, discussing an Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, but we have wandered from it. I suggest that it would be better to adhere more closely to the Amendment before the House, instead of making Second Reading speeches.

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

The noble Earl has, to some extent, anticipated what I was about to say. I also found great difficulty in following the course of the debate, as we were not discussing the particular matter before us, but were talking rather at large upon general questions, the applicability of which to the particular Amendment it was sometimes extremely difficult to follow. I would like to associate myself with the noble Earl in congratulating the House upon having, as an addition to its wisdom, such a speech as that just delivered by my noble and learned friend. I am familiar with him as a coadjutor in our judicial proceedings; but I think your Lordships will all agree that if he would favour us

with a little more of his wisdom on other occasions it would be greatly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. Having said that, let me add that I think he did make one point which, although I did not agree with him in it, was applicable to this particular Amendment. That point, which I will endeavour to answer, was that this Clause was an improper interference with the trust deeds. I know that he is a great lawyer, and, as he said, a great Tory (I do not hesitate to associate myself with him in this respect), but there is one point which he will forgive me for saying he entirely omitted to consider. This Bill is not dealing only with trust deeds. If it were, nobody would interfere with them. The question we are dealing with is not only that of trust deeds, but also that of the distribution of public money; and as the distribution of public money is part of the administration under this Bill, which we hope will become an Act of Parliament, it is impossible to suppose that those who have the responsibility of subscribing public money, whether they are called State or Civil Government—I care not what particular form of words is used—should not so far intervene as to say, "Before we are called upon to subscribe public money for the purpose of aiding and assisting schools in which these things are being taught, we will have some voice as to what shall be taught therein." Whether that is right or wrong I am not now stopping to discuss. It is one of the conditions of this Bill, and it is one of the things which caused this Bill to be brought before your Lordships' House. In supposing that that can be answered by the suggestion that you have no right to interfere with trust deeds while he omits to take into consideration the contribution of public money, and the intervention of the ratepayers, my noble friend has, if he will forgive me for saying so, done in his political course what he never does in his judicial course—namely, entirely missed the heart of the Question.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 157; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Portland, D.	Wellington, D.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Somerset, D.
Ailesbury, M.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Dubboyne, L.
Breadalbane, M.	Colville of Culross, V.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Bristol, M.	Cross, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Camden, M.	Falkland, V.	Elphinstone, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Gordon, V. (E. Aberteen.)	Erskine, L.
Hertford, M.	Hardinge. V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgone.)
Winchester, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)	Farrer, L.
Zetland, M.		Forester, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Glanusk, L.
	Rideley, V.	Glenesk, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chaniberlain.)		Hylton, L.
Bathurst, E.	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	lveagh, L.
Camperdown, E.	Chester, L. Bp.	James, L.
Carrington, E.	Durham, L. Bp.	Kenyon, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Ely, L. Bp.	Kinnaird, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Denbigh, E.	London, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Derby, E.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Lindley, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Newcastle, L. Bp.	Ludlow, L.
	Ripon, L. Bp.	Macnaghten, L.
Ducie, E.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Eldon, E.	Southwell, L. Bp.
Hardwicke, E.	Truro, L. Bp.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Harewood, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Middleton, L.
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)		Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
		Monkswell, L.
Ilchester, E.	Addington, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Lathom, E.	Allerton, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Lauderdale, F.	Ashbourne, L.	Mostyn, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Balfour, L.	Newton, L.
Lichfield, E.	Barrymore, L.	North, L.
Londesborough, E.	Basing, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Lucan, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Lytton, E.	Belper, L.	Reay, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Boston, L.	Redesdale, L.
Manvers, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Ribblesdale, L.
Morley, E.	Brassey, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Braybrooke, L.	Rowton, L.
Onslow, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Saltoun, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Radnor, E.	Burghclere, L.	Seaton, L.
Romney, E.	Burton, L.	Sherborne, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Calthorpe, L.	Shute, L. (V Barrington.)
Sandwich, E.	Chelmsford, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Selborne, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Spencer, E.	Colchester, L.	Suffield, L.
Stamford, E.	Coleridge, L.	Torphichen, L.
Stanhope, E.	Congleton, L.	Tredegar, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cottesloe, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Verulam, E.	Davey, L.	Welby, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Wenlock, L.
Wharncliffe, E.	Denman, L.	Wimborne, L.
Yarborough, E.	Dormer, L.	Windsor, L.
	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Arundell of Wardour, L.	Herries, L.
Abingdon, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Shafteshury, E.	De Freyne, L.	Robertson, L.
	De Mauley, L.	Stanmore, L.
Halifax, V. [TelIer]	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Teynham, L. [Teller.]
Llandaff, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Wentworth, L.
Norwich, L. Bp.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

*THE EARL OF HALSBURY

In asking your Lordships' attention to the Amendment I am about to move, I cannot but feel that that attention has had a considerable draft already made upon it by discussions which have more or less anticipated the consideration of this Clause. The most convenient course, I think, would be to state at once that the object of this Amendment is not to make any alteration in the intended meaning of the sub-Section known by the name of Colonel Kenyon-Slaney. My best plan will probably be to read to your Lordships the Amendment, and in doing so, to explain as well as I can what I believe it means, what it is intended to do, and what it is intended not to do. Let me say at once that we are dealing now with denominational schools, schools attached to a denomination by a trust deed, and that the discussion cannot properly wander over questions which do not arise within that circumscribed limit. The Amendment I desire to move is, after the word "managers" to insert—. Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or other superior ecclesiastical authority, And let me pause here to say that I propose with your Lordships' permission to add there" or other denominational authority." It was originally intended that the word "ecclesiastical" might, and it was supposed to, include all other authorities to whatsoever denomination they might belong, but some question has arisen as to whether in the peculiar condition of the Church of England and the legal language applicable to the Church of England, the word "ecclesiastical" might not be considered too narrow, and not to include, for instance, the Wesleyan body. It was certainly not intended by the authors of the Clause to exclude any religious body that might have a trust deed, and in respect to which the power of appeal might be given. The Amendment will consequently read— Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect, any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. For the moment I do not intend to deal with the question of whether or not that is right. What I propose to point out first is what the provision does not do. It does not propose to give any appeal on the question of the administration of the schools. It does not propose to repose in any body but the managers of the schools the control of the religious teaching. It does not propose to make anything but the character of the religious teaching appealable to the Bishop. For the moment I do not say whether that is right or wrong. Rightly or wrongly, the Government have deliberately and intentionally reserved that portion of the religious administration, of the conduct of the schools. I do not care what phrase is used for the decision of the managers of the school, subject only to the question of whether or not the religious teaching is in accordance with the provisions of the trust upon which the school is to be administered. That reservation does not comprehend the details of management, or the mode of management, or the person managing, but simply the question of the religious teaching. To put it in plain terms: If it is a Roman Catholic school, it is the question of whether the teaching is Roman Catholic; if it is a Church of England School, it is the question of whether the teaching is Church of England, and so forth. The mode in which the teaching is to be given, and the person by whom it is to be given, and the rest of the administration of the school, is intended to be left in the hands of the managers of the school.

On the subject of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause generally, I must say that I feel an apology is needed. I do not hesitate to say that some reason ought to have been given why the whole of this Clause, including the provision I am now moving, required to be inserted. I deprecate as strongly as possible the suggestion that the Clause is any reflection upon the clergy of the Church of England. It is not so intended. It is not founded upon any suspicion or distrust of or disbelief in the goodness of the work they have done, or any desire to overlook the incalculable amount of gratitude which this country owes to the Church of England for its services in the cause of education. But, after all, the question is only one of the sort of inconvenience from which we all suffer from time to time, because there are some persons who are not so scrupulous in the performance of their duties as they ought to be. We must make a general law by which they can be reached. Let your Lordships take the administration of any institution you please. Take a railway company. Why is it that whilst travelling on the lines of our railway companies we are worried about our tickets—that officials nick them and snick them, and frequently waken us from our slumbers? Millions of people travel by the railway, but only a small number are mean enough to try to cheat the companies, but we are all obliged to submit to annoyance on their account. The same sort of thing takes place if you travel abroad. Every passenger has to submit to a search because half-a-dozen people will smuggle if they can. So it is here. In dealing with great institutions it is impossible to pick out individuals; you must make a law applicable to everybody. I believe that the object of this proposal will be largely achieved by the fact of its existence and by its administration. Every now and then the fact that there is an appeal to the Bishop will tend to prevent clergymen abusing their position. I have been for fifteen years in a position in which I have had good reason to know the good work done by clergy of the Church of England under circumstances of great privation, sometimes privation which affects them in their dearest and nearest relations, because they will do their duty. I cannot say how much I should feel it if I was supposed to be undervaluing the work which these men have done. If they had been in another class of life they would probably have gained stars and stripes and honours by what they havedone, but they have doneit unknown and unnoticed, because they believed it to be their duty. I thought it right that somebody speaking from this Bench should say that we at all events do not share the suggestion which has been made—viz., that this Clause was introduced because of any general distrust of the clergy of the Church of England. On the other hand, it is impossible to deny that there have been those who have thought proper to avail themselves of their opportunities to do that which is repugnant to the whole general body of the laity of the Church of England. They have sought to get rid of the old traditions of that great Reformation to which the English Church is indissolubly wedded. Everybody knows what is done from time to time by persons whose personal vanity and desire for ribbons, and nonsense of that sort, disgust the whole body of the English Church. The cases of the people who do these things are published in the newspapers, but the cases of those who are working daily and hourly for the benefit of their parishioners, with the hearty support and love of their people, never become known. It is by the aid of these persons that such a Clause as this may he made to work harmoniously and without any friction in the Church. This Clause has been accepted by the Government with a view to making it something that should be used in terrorem against those who are disposed to depart from the true doctrines and practices of the Church of England.

Then, I cannot forbear from saying that with my knowledge and experience of the work of the Church of England, I could not help feeling something like horror when I heard the attitude of the clergy on this subject described as one of grab, and that by a Bishop of the Church. What that means distinctly I admit I do not know, but it was intended to be vituperative, I presume, and to indicate that their attitude is that of selfishness and a desire to obtain that which is not their own. I hold that that is absolutely unjust. They have but one interest, I believe, and that is the interest of teaching the Word of God as they believe it ought to be taught, and in the eternal interest of their parishioners to see that that duty should not be neglected. It would be idle now to say anything of what the clergy of the Church of England have done, and what the Members of the Church of England have done from time to time for the religious instruction of the people; but I believe that no one could gravely get up here or elsewhere and for a moment deny the enormous debt of gratitude which the country owes to them. But there is, I admit, another side to that. You may have persons who are disposed to look to their own interest, irrespective of such supreme considerations. The true line to take on this question is that, where you are dealing with the administration of these schools, you should, on the one hand, have due regard to the religious character of the institution for which you are providing, and, on the other hand, that you should have associated, at all events presumably, though, I admit, not necessarily, with the clergyman some laymen. May I be permitted to say. with the utmost respect for some observations which I have heard from the Episcopal Bench, that the Church does not mean the clergy alone? In early life I had as an undergraduate of the University of Oxford, to give my allegiance, to the Articles of the Church of England, and those Articles did not speak only of the clergy, but of the congregation of faithful men, I do not myself understand why it should be thought inappropriate that in such a provision as this some of the laity should be associated with the clergy in continuing and administering the religious instruction of the parish. My own belief is that, properly administered and properly understood, this Clause will be a great assistance to the clergy, and will fortify them in what they have to do. If it operates, as I believe it will operate, in spite of the elements of discord that seem to have been scattered around a little recklessly, I entertain very little doubt that the Clause itself need never be brought into action at all. A great many laws are operative by the mere fact of their existence, and not by the irvindication, and in the same way, if this Clause is accepted in the sense and in the spirit in which it is enacted, and with the precautions by which it is surrounded, so far from its being an impediment to the Church and to the administration of the clergymen of the parish, my belief is that it will be a great assistance The only clergymen who are likely to be excluded from participation in the teaching of their parishes will be such as have entirely lost the confidence of their parishioners by the fact of their disloyalty to the Church to which they profess to belong. If that is the only operation of the Clause, I for one shall regard it as a very wholesome operation.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 10, after 'managers,' to insert ' Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. '"—(The Lord Chancellor.)

*EARL SPENCER

It will perhaps tend to expedite the business of your Lordships' House if I state at once the course my friends and I intend to take with regard to this proviso. I wish there had been some one else to speak after the very able speech to which we have just listened with such deep interest. I desire to say at once that I am in favour of this Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord in not placing any general distrust in theclergy of the Church, and I agree with him in a great deal that he had said with regard to the devotion and the work of the clergy in the past and in the present, and in the hope that they will continue that work in the future. I know that in the old days they were among the first to help to spread education in this country, and though I fear I now differ from them in many points, I differ from them without wishing to attach or to place any distrust in the general body of the Church.

I entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor said as to why it is necessary very often to introduce penal legislation. It was not on account of the general conduct of the body, but rather on account of the misconduct of a few. I should put it in exactly the manner in which the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Manchester put it, who said he had to accept this, and regretted it. Why did he accept it? Because he felt he was obliged to on account of the misconduct—I do not know whether I am using the exact word—of some of his reverend brethren. I regret that this should be so, but it is on account of these clergy who go beyond what many of us think are the true doctrines and ritual of the Church of England, and who may be the persons who wish to excite the same atmosphere in the schools, that we consider some check must be put upon them, and some power given to those who directly represent the parents of the children.

We have heard a good deal about the parents of the children, but I cannot for a moment say that too much has been said on this subject. The parents have distinct views on all these points, and it is because I believe that in some cases, I hope not in many, there are parents who have just cause to complain of the teaching and religious influences brought to bear on the school, that I think some Clause like this is absolutely necessary. I confess I should prefer the Kenyon-Slaney Clause as proposed in the other House, and as very properly corrected and improved by the Amendments we have already carried. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord where in this proviso the words "or other denominational authority" will come.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

They will come after "superior ecclesiastical," and the proviso will then read— …any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority.

*EARL SPENCER

I prefer the simpler and plainer form of the Clause, which expressed exactly the meaning of its mover and supporters in another place. I shall, therefore, when the proposal is put say "Not Content."

THE EARL OF FEVEHSHAM, Who had given notice of his intention to move the insertion, after "manager" in line 10, of the words, "who shall recognise the duty of the clergyman or minister of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs to give such instruction," said: We have to express our gratitude and thanks to the Clergy of this country for the hard work they have done and the many sacrifices they have made for the maintenance of the voluntary schools, It has been acknowledged that the reason for this Clause is that a few clergymen have exceeded their province, have allowed their zeal to outrun their discretion, and have been guilty of certain practices contrary to the principles of the Church of England. By this Clause, therefore, you are punishing the whole body of the clergy for the shortcomings of the few. Indiscriminate censure is eminently unjust. That is the main reason for our strong opposition to the Clause. I do not think we can speak too highly of the work of the clergy, and I was anxious by my Amendment to secure to them their right of giving religious instruction to the children in the schools. I did not intend to interfere with the Clause as it stood, but to add certain words to effect my object. As the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor has been carried, my Amendment would not now fit in, but if the Duke of Northumberland proceeds with his proposal mine will be unnecessary. I do desire, however, to add my voice to the protest against there being added to the Bill a Clause which may lead to great difficulty and dissension hereafter, but which I hope the proviso of the noble and learned Lord will in some respects mitigate.

THE DUKE OFNORTHUMBERLAND, in moving the insertion of a proviso that any person having under the trust deed duties in respect of the religious instruction should not be prevented from discharging those duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belonged, said: Your Lordships heard, no doubt, with great satisfaction the words which fell from the Lord Chancellor in praise of the clergy, but I cannot help agreeing with part, at least, of what fell from my noble friends Viscount Halifax and Lord Robertson when they declared that the position of the clergy of the Established Church had been lowered by this Bill. I could not help being reminded, while the Lord Chancellor was speaking, of the well-worn adage—"You may have been right to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" What the noble Viscount said with regard to the position of the country clergyman—that he is the personer of the parish, that he occupies a position in teaching and in general authority which is unique in a certain sense—is true, and it is also true that by this Bill you have lowered that position. By this measure you have made this curious assertion, that while such a clergyman is lit to administer the sacraments, to preach to the congregation, to comfort the sick and the dying, he is unfit to educate your children unless he is supervised by a body of managers, with or without an appeal. I cannot help regarding this Clause as one of the most serious steps towards the disestablishment of the Church which has been taken for many years. I do not understand the attitude of the Church of England in this matter. I could have understood it if the Church had been prepared to stand by her position, which, I assume, she believes to be a just one, and refused for any advantage she may get from the rates or other sources to sacrifice the station she has so long occupied in connection with this country. But she has not done so. It is not for me to attempt to unravel the mystery. The fact remains that this is a serious stigma on the clergy, which I trust, in moving this Amendment, I shall do something to remove. I confess I have not gone very far but I have done what I could to secure that the person entrusted by the trust deed with, the duty of giving the religious instruction should not be displaced from that position except by the proper ecclesiastical authority, and not merely by the direct or indirect intervention of any other people or class whatsoever. I entirely endorse what has been said with regard to the impossibility of confining the direction to any party denomination. I do not know whether that confession is not an admission that the Church of England no longer occupies the position in connection with the State which formerly she did. It used not to be impossible to legislate for the Church of England, as an established and State Church, upon a totally different footing from any other denomination; but it that day is past, and past by the general acquiescence of all sides, I accept the situation. bring forward this Motion, not by any means as a heroic measure, but merely as a small instalment of justice. I cannot imagine what possible objection there can be to it on the part of the Government, and I trust your Lordships will support it.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 10, after 'managers' insert 'provided always that any persons having under the trust deeds duties in respect of the religious instruction, shall not be prevented from discharging such duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belongs.'"(The Duke of Northumberland.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I rise to second the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, and in doing so I should like to explain on, behalf of myself, and I think of many of my right rev. brethren, why we did not support the other Amendments which have been moved. In the first place, having ourselves in Convocation invited two extra men to be put on, it seemed inconsistent not to allow them to be on in any way at all. We, therefore, could not support the Amendment touching that matter. In regard to the Amendment giving the right of appeal to the foundation managers only, that again seemed unjust, and it is a positive relief to reach an Amendment which I can support with all my heart. I shall speak for only a few minutes, but I do want your Lordships to listen to the most earnest plea I can possibly make. You have no conception of how the clergy themselves feel in regard to this matter. I have received hundreds of letters from all parts of the country on the subject. If you had been with me yesterday as I went with a clergyman to his schools in one of the poorest parishes of London, you would have seen what the right of superintendence and entry into those schools meant to him. As was said by Viscount Goschen at an earlier stage of our proceedings, it was the one bright spot in the clergyman's parish. In the first place, the right of superintendence, subject to appeal, is given by the trust deed; in the second place, it is right and natural that he should have it; and, in the third place, I venture to think that the influence of the kindly, educated man moving about among the children has been the soul of the school for years. That influence has been an untold benefit to hundreds of thousands of children in England; and yet this superintendence and right of entry are being taken away by this Bill. The clergy of the diocese of Manchester have made an appeal in a sense different from that in which the right rev. Prelate spoke; they say that a Church Discipline Bill ought not to come in the guise of an Education Bill; and the communications I have had from different parts of the country lead me to suppose that the feeling is equally strong throughout the kingdom. It should be noticed that the noble Duke, in this Amendment, does not propose to do away with the Kenyon-Slanoy Clause; he simply desires to safeguard that which the clergy value most. Speeches have been made as though it were only on questions of ritual that the right of superintendence on the part of the clergy was in danger. I was speaking to one of the most popular clergy in London the other day, a man almost adored by the laity, and he said that down in his country parish he would certainly be excluded from his school because of the unpopularity of his teetotal principles. Let me turn for a moment to the objections which may be urged against this Amendment. It in no way contradicts the proviso already passed by the House. It might be said that we were restoring the one-man management. To allow the right of entry and superintendence, subject to appeal, is a totally different thing from allowing the clergyman to manage the whole thing himself. None of us on this Bench desire to have one-man management restored. Then it may be said that we allow members of the Government and others to make speeches in which the effect of this Clause was implied, and made no protest. All I can say is that when I heard or read those speeches it never passed my mind that it went so far as to exclude the clergyman from his school. When it is urged that in our Houses of Convocation we ourselves asked that two managers should come in, as the mover of the motion I can say that it never occurred to me that those two managers should have any voice in turning the clergyman out of the school of his parish. Then it has been urged that we desire to allow the clergyman to ride roughshod over the feelings of the people in matters of ritual. That has already been safeguarded, and on behalf of the members of the Episcopal Bench I may say that if any complaint on that matter is made to us there is no sort of doubt as to the verdict we should give. I want your Lordships to look at this question without prejudice, not from a Party point of view, but from the point of view of right. We desire to preserve to the clergyman the one thing he most loves in the whole of his work. I have worked in the slums of London for years, and I speak with knowledge of what it is to the poor clergyman to have this priceless privilege to his hand. I urge most earnestly your Lordships to pass the Amendment, assuring you that by so doing, while it may not satisfy all, you would take away the bitterness of spirit which, although we should urge the clergy to make the best of the Bill, would go far towards spoiling the work of the measure.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I have listened with great attention to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, but I missed from it the one declaration which might have induced your Lordships seriously to consider the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke. It has been said on both sides of the House that this sub-Section and the acceptance it had received had been inspired by no distrust of the clergy as a whole. If it has been inspired by any feeling of distrust, I am afraid I must say it is inspired by distrust, not of the willingness, but of the power, of the Episcopal Bench to restrain certain of their clergy from excesses which we all deplore. If it had been in the power of the right rev. Prelate to assure your Lordships that the Bishops were prepared to undertake that their consent and that of the recognised authorities of the Church would not be given to any clergyman who gave instruction of a character distasteful to, and contrary to the opinions and feelings of, the large body of their parishioners, there might have been a reason for recommending your Lordships to accept this Amendment. But the right rev. Prelate carefully abstained from giving any such undertaking on the part either of himself or of his rev. brethren. When we do not believe that in a great many cases the Bishop of the diocese would be able to exercise that restraint over the proceedings of some of his clergy whom this Clause is intended to restrain, I think your Lordships and the other House would feel it extremely to accept an Amendment which so materially alters the Clause. It has been said over and over again that, while we are perfectly willing and desire that the appeal to the Bishops should remain for the purpose of defining what is or what is not contrary to the doctrines of the Church, the intention of the Clause has been openly and avowedly to transfer from the clergyman alone to the managers, amongst whom he ought to exercise a predominant influence, the control and administration of religious teaching. I do not think it would be in consonance with the pledges which have been given on this part of the subject, to accept this modification.

THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

I am anxious to associate myself with the appeal which has been made in favour of the Amendment. The course of the discussion has in many respects been instructive on the all-important point of lay opinion as it is represented in this House. I am sure the clergy are not likely to forget the lesson that has been taught us as regards the anxiety with which the vast majority of the laity look upon disturbances and eccentricities in our Orders. Above all, I think it is manifest that it was widely felt to be unfair to use the parochial schools for the inculcation of doctrines in reference to which there are acute differences within the Church of England itself. In spite of this, I cannot in silence allow the claim of the vast majority of the parochial clergy as I know them to lie thus dealt with—that they should be left, without appeal, to be excluded by a vote of their own parishioners from their own schools. I do not mean by that that laymen should not be consulted on questions of Christian doctrine, but I doubt whether a board of laymen so constituted are competent, without appeal, to decide upon the pastor's proper place in relation to his school.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

I think the noble Duke in charge of the Bill gave, on the whole, a very sympathetic reply to the principle which underlies the proposition of the Bishop of London, and I believe the right rev. Prelate and the noble Duke are not far apart. The noble Duke asked for a declaration on the part of the Episcopal Bench that they intended to carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, and that if appeals were made to them they would decide them in the practical sense the noble Duke desired. I believe I am right in saying that the language of the Episcopal Bench throughout the course of these deliberations points to the conclusion that they are with the great majority of the House and of the country in desiring to put down those excesses which, if they were a cause of regret before, will be a cause of yet deeper regret to all Churchmen after the passing of this Bill, looking to the fact that to them is due what I must call the disestablishment of the parochial clergy, and as the instructors in religious education in their schools. We may rely upon the Bishops that they will do their utmost, in the interests of the Church as well as in the interests of education and of peace, to decide these appeals entirely in the sense indicated by the House in the adoption of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. If that is so, I might almost claim the support of the Government for the proposal which has been made. I will not dilate upon the subject at this late hour; I desire only to put what is perhaps a new view of the case before your Lordships. It is admitted, I believe, that there are cranks amongst laymen as well as amongst clergymen, and it is perfectly possible that in a certain number of cases—perhaps not less numerous than the cases of the excesses against which we hear so much—the lay managers will take what would generally be considered an inequitable view of the religious education in the school. The clergyman will appeal to the Bishop, and the Bishop may decide in favor of the clergyman, who will then go back to the managers, and say, "Here is the decision of the Bishop in my favour." But we must remember that the managers are to have the entire control of everything except the decision on points of doctrine, including the question of by whom the religious education is to be given. Consequently, if the clergyman goes back to the managers with the Bishop's decision in his favour, the managers will still be able to carry out their view by deciding that the clergyman, although in the view of the Bishop he has been teaching proper doctrine, is no longer to conduct the religious education in the school. In other words, unless you adopt some such Amendment as that now proposed, I do not see that there is much value in the appeal to the bishop, so far as it is any protection to the clergyman. The managers will practically have the power of appointing whatever teacher they like for religious as well as for secular education. Their control is so absolute that unless you safeguard the appeal as I suggest, and as is proposed by the Amendment, it appears to me that the appeal itself is in danger in the sense that it may not be equitably accepted by the managers. I will venture to put one further consideration only before your Lordships. We have been assured on high authority that the first duly of a Liberal Government will be to change the management and to give more effective popular control. In that case, this protection, if the Amendment were adopted, would still exist, and would be invaluable. I admit that I do not think the Church has much chance of maintaining a majority amongst managers beyond the next General Election, but there would possibly be a security, which even noble Lords opposite would not care to attack. If in the case of a clergyman who was in the right according to the doctrines of the Church of England the trust deed was not to be over-ridden, but would still remain in force, giving the clergyman who teaches the doctrine of the Church of England, and is not guilty of excesses, the right contained in that trust deed, under which the school has been founded, endowed, and carried on up to the present. I trust the Government will consider this Amendment in a sympathetic spirit. It contains, I believe, the minimum of controversial matter, because I am sure most noble Lords would wish that if an appeal has been made and decided in favour of the clergyman, it should not be used as an engine by which the clergyman might be dispossessed of the right and the duty he has hitherto enjoyed.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I should not have intervened in this debate, least of all when the hands of the clock point to the hour of midnight, but for the remark made by the noble Duke as to the absence of a declaration on the part of the Bishops, which might have induced the Government favourably to consider the Amendment. I have no hesitation in answering that appeal. The noble Duck may rely upon it—I suppose he would not expect a formal dsocument—that if legitimate opposition were made in a parish to a clergyman because of his real unfitness, for whatever reason, to carry on the work of teaching in the schools, the Bishops would support the managers. I hope that declaration which is exactly what we understand him to desiderate, may cause the noble Duck favourably to consider the Amendment. I believe that such appeals would be few indeed. it is an utter misrepresentation of our attitude to say that we distrust the laity, and expect such things to happen everyday. We expect nothing of the kind. We believe there may be exceptional cases here and there, that incalculable hardship may be inflicted in those cases, and that the clergy ought to be safeguarded against it. We have no fear of natural and legitimate opposition to the action of the clergy in carrying on, as heretofore, their labour of love in the teaching of religion in Church schools; the cases are exceedingly rare in which such opposition would be probable or would have the slightest chance of receiving popular approval in the parish.

But, my Lords, we have something to fear now from an unexpected source. The position has somewhat changed within the last few days. The Nonconformists of England have received encouragement to endeavour to make this Bill unworkable, and the encouragement has come from high quarters. Is it inconceivable that men will be found to take seats on the board of management in order to carry out the task which has been laid upon them by such high political authority? I welcome the presence of Noncomformists on our managing bodies. I believe they will do us good in a score of ways; but I ask that they should come thither with an honest intention of endeavouring to make the Bill work well, and not of endeavouring to make it work ill. We have been told that it is now too late to suggest this Amendment, and that we ought to have spoken last summer if we were to speak at all. It is true that the whole question of the appeal which exists under our trust deeds was simply overlooked, but we are all—celrgy and laity, members of the Government and of the Opposition, Members of Parliament and members of the Episcopal Bench—in the same boat. When this subject was discussed in the summer, no single person on either side alluded to the question of the exclusion of the clergyman from the school as likely to come up under this Bill. No doubt we Bishops were to blame—and I, for one, accept a full share of blame—for not seeing that this peril lay behind. But if it be true that a mistake was made so many months ago in that matter, is that any reason why it should not be set right by the acceptance of the Amendment before the House?

The LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

As the Bishop of a Diocese I entirely associate myself with the Bishop of Winchester in this matter, and I believe the Bishop of London gave utterance to the same sentiment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I can give the same assurance.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

Would the noble Duck say whether these declarations have had any effect on his decision?

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I cannot say that the declarations that have been made from the Episcopal Bench are sufficiently explicit to enable me to accept the Amendment. I do not doubt that many, probably most, of the members of the right rev. Bench, greatly deplore the excesses which are said to exist in some of the schools. The doubt that we entertain is as to the power of the right rev. Bench to exercise a proper control and restraint over these clergymen, some of whose proceedings they may deplore. If they have this power, why has it not been exercised before? These cases which we have in our minds have taken place in schools under trust deeds securing a right of appeal to the Bishop, but have any of your Lordships ever heard of the proceedings of an indiscreet clergyman in the school being restrained by the Episcopal authorities? No doubt they deplored the practices, but it is easy to see that a Bishop must find his relations with a considerable body of his clergy greatly strained if he attempted to exercise the authority required in such cases. I cannot understand why it should be found more easy for the right rev. Bench in future to exercise the necessary control over their clergy in this respect than it has been in the past, and therefore, in the absence of more explicit assurances than the Government have yet received, I feel it impossible to accept the Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY

May I ask whether the noble Duke has considered the last words of the Amendment— "should not be prevented from discharging such duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belongs?" At present, we Bishops have no power to turn a schoolmaster out of his school, but the managers, with our consent, will be able to do so under this Amendment. In the case of an extremely foolish, mismanaging clergyman, such as has been supposed, the managers would demand his dismissal, and we should consent to it. Therefore, we have not the power now which we should have under this Clause.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

I venture to say that the urgency of this matter is such that, even at this hour, we must plead for a further word of reply from the noble Duke. He has pointed to the conduct of the Bishops in the past as justifying in some degree the rejection of this Amendment. I wish to point out how entirely different this case is from some, at any rate, of the cases to which the noble Duke was probably referring. With regard to the schools, would it not be necessary to find a case in which an appeal had been made against the conduct of a clergyman in a school, and had been either neglected or dismissed by the Bishop? I will not say that no such case exists; a universal negative is exceedingly difficult; but even if one or two could be found, I do not conceive that the noble Duke would desire to found on them a policy against which could be brought opinions so weighty and reasons so serious as have been voiced tonight. I imagine that the scope of his objection is really wider than that. He is probably thinking of the general attitude of the Episcopate towards certain developments or eccentricities in the Church. I do not want to go into that large subject; I think that possibly some of the criticisms upon the laxity of the Episcopate must themselves be more open to criticism than is sometimes assumed. The policy of restraint is not quite so easy as some people imagine. But I want to point out the very clear difference that exists between the case of the schools and cases of a more purely ecclesiastical kind. In ordinary Church matters, the Bishop, if he takes action, has to take action touching thequestion—and can there be any question from any point of view more difficult?—of the religious limits of the Church of England and its law. In the matter under discussion you have a much narrower question to decide. You have to decide—or, in my judgment, it is what you ought to have to decide—whether, in a school consisting of young children, perhaps in many cases the only public school in the district, and which, therefore, is sure to contain the children of Churchmen of all shades of opinion, and also children of Nonconformists, doctrines or practices of an accentuated, extreme, or peculiar kind are to be allowed. I should have thought that that was a question on which a Bishop, without any great or excessive measure of administrative sagacity or wisdom, might easily give a decision in which he would be backed up by general consent. In the other case, besides the difficulty of the question to be decided upon, there is the extreme difficulty of the procedure by which ecclesiastical law can be enforced. Is there any parallel to that in the case of the schools? Surely not. Your lay managers, vested by this Bill with full control of the school, go to the Bishop and ask for his practical decision on this practical question; they get that decision, which in this case would restrain the clergyman, and they have in their own hands the simplest possible power of enforcing it. I venture to put it to the noble Duke whether, under these circumstances, considering by whom among the lay Peers that opinion has been backed up, there is not the plainest evidence that this is not asked for merely in the interest of any small or extreme party of the Church of England, and that it is not intended to be used in any spirit of hostility to the body of the laity or to Nonconformists at large. I fully acknowledge what has been done in the Bill to acknowledge the principles of the Church. I do not forgot that the clergyman is a manager, and, where the trust deed requires it, ex-officio chairman of the managers. I do not think any of us regret that the clergyman's monarchy in his school is to be an extremely constitutional monarchy. We regard with gratitude the justice the Government have done to denominationalists; I do not regret that they have asked us to give the representative of the public authority, not necessarily, but very likely, a Nonconformist, an opportunity to sit with us, to see what we do, to hear how we intend to deal with religious instruction, giving his views on the matter, criticising our proposals, and so forth; but I do regret that His Majesty's Government, not, I believe, at the dictates of their own judgment, but in consequence of the pressure of certain currents of opinion in

the House of Commons, has been induced to insert such a Clause as that to which we object. I ask whether it is not possible, even now, to recognise that the particular modification for which we ask in this Amendment is a reasonable modification? The Government started out to do justice to the claims of denominationalists, not of the Church of England only, though very largely hers; we recognise that in the main they have succeeded in their task. Is it not piteous that the result of their labour should be thus marred, and that while their opponents still adhere to their attitude of bitter antagonism towards the Bill, they should insist on spoiling the allegiance and gratitude of those whose grievances they had undertaken to meet, simply to enter upon a side issue, and comply with a passing current of temporary opinions?

* THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON

I think there is one aspect of the question which has not yet been considered. By the vote of your Lordships' House, a great responsibility has been put into the hands of the Bishops. If an appeal is made to us, we have to decide on important questions of doctrine. Suppose our decision is given, is it not almost necessary that you should give us some power by which that opinion can be enforced? It seems to me that the Amendment of the Duke of North-umberland is precisely calculated to supplement the appeal which has been given. I ask whether you are putting the Episcopal Bench in quite a fair position when you throw a responsibility upon them on the one hand, and scarcely give them the power of carrying out the responsibility on the other?

On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)	Yarborough, E.	Lichfield, L. Bp.
Northumberland, D. [Teller.]		Lincoln, L. Bp.
	Falkland, V.	London, L. Bp.
Hertford, M.	Goschen, V.	Newcastle, L. Bp.
	Halifax, V.	Norwich, L. Bp.
Abingdon, E.	Knutsford, V.	Ripon, L. Bp.
Feversham, E.	Llandaff, V.	Rochester, L. Bp.
Leven and Melville, E.	Ridley, V.	St. Asaph, L. Bp.
Mount Edgeumbe, E. [Teller.]		Salisbury, L. Bp.
Nelson, E	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Southwell, L. Bp.
Romney, E.	Chester, L. Bp.	Truro, L. BP.
Sandwich,E.	Chichester, L. Bp.	Winchester, L. Bp.
Shaftesbury, E.	Durham,L. Bp.
Stamford, E.	Ely, L. Bp.	Addington, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Penrhyu, L.
Braybrooke, L.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Robertson, L.
Braye, L.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Rowton,L.
Burton, L.		Saltoun, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Hatherton, L.	Stanmore, L.
Colchester, L.	Herries, L.	Teynham, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Torphichen, L.
De Freyne, L.	Meldurm, L. (M. Huntly.)	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Wentworth, L.
Dunboyne, L.	O'Brien, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Selborne, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Spencer, E.	Farrer, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Forester, L.
Portland, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Glanusk, L.
Wellington, D.	Verulam, E.	Glenesk, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Hylton, L.
Bristol, M.	Wharncliffe, E.	Iveagh, L.
Camden, M.		Kenyon, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]	kinnaird, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Colville of Culross, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Winchester, M.	Cross, V.	Lawrence, L.
Zetland, M.	Hardinge, V.	Ludlow, L.
		Macnaghten, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)	Manchester, L. Bp.	Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Bathurst, E.
Camperdown, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Carrington, E.	Balfour, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway)
Chesterfield, E.	Barrymore, L.	Monkswell, L.
Denbigh, E.	Basing, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Derby, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Muncaster, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Belper, L.	Reay, L.
	Boston, L.	Redesdale, L.
Eldon, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Ribblesdale, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Brassey, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)	Burghclere,L.	Seaton, L.
	Calthorpe, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Ilchester, E.	Chelmsford, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Lathom, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Suffield, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Coleridge, L.	Tredegar, L.
Lichfield, E.	Congleton, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Lucan, E.	Davey, L.	Welby, L.
Lvtton, E.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Wenlock, L.
Mayo, E.	Denman, L.	Wimborne, L.
Morley, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Windsor, L.
Onslow, E.	Ellenborough, L.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

As the hour is so late I will formally move that sub-Section 5 of Clause 7 be omitted from the Bill.

Amendment moved—

"To omit sub-Section 5."—(The Duck of Norfolk.)

THE EARL OF MORLEY

It is some what irregular to put a sub-Section separately; it is usual to put the Clause as a whole; but the present condition of

things is rather remarkable, and I propose, with the assent of the Houses, to put the sub-Section as amended.

THE DUCK OF NORFOLK

I am merely moving that which is in my name on the paper, and which, I presume, is in order.

On Question, "That sub-Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Wellington, D.	Camden, M.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)		Cholmondeley, M.
	Ailesbury, M.	Hertford, M.
Portland, D.	Bristol, M.	Lansdowne, M.
Winchester, M.	Knutsford, V.	Elphinstone, L.
Zetland, M.	Ridley, V.	Farrer, L.
	Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	Forester, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)	Chichester, L. Bp.	Glanusk, L.
	Durham, L.Bp.	Glenesk, L.
Bathurst, E.	Ely, L.Bp.	Hatherton, L.
Camperdown, E.	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Hylton,L.
Carrington, E.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Iveagh, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Newcastle, L. Bp.	Kenyon, L.
Derby, E.	Ripon, L.Bp.	Kinnaird, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Southwell, L. Bp.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
	Winchester, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Hardwicke, E.		Ludlow, L.
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)	Addington, L.	Macnaghten,L.
	Ashbourne, L.	Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Lathom, E.	Balfour, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Barrymore, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Lichfield, E.	Basing, L.	Monkswell, L.
Londesborough, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Mayo, E.	Belper, L.	Muncaster, L.
Morely, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Penrhyn, L.
Mount, Edgcumbe, E.	Brassey, L.	Reay, L.
Onslow, E.	Braye,L.	Redesdale, L.
Romney, E.	Burghclere, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Selborne, E.	Burton, L.	Rowton, L.
Spencer, E.	Calthorpe, L.	Saltoun, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Colchester, L.	Seaton, L.
Verulam, E.	Congleton, L.	Sudleey, L. (E. Arran.)
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Cottesloe, L.	Suffield, L.
Yarborough, E.	Davey, L.	Tredegar, L.
	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Tweedmouth, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.]	Denman,L.	Welby, L.
Colville of Curlross, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Wenlock, L.
Cross, V.	Dunboyne, L.	Wimborne, L.
Falkland, V.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Windsor, L.
Hardinge, V.	Ellenborough, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth
NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) [Teller.]	Llandaff, V.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
	London, L. Bp.
Northumberland, D.	Norwich, L. Bp.	Herries, L.
	Rochester, L. Bp.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Abingdon, E.		Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Feversham, E.	Botreaux, (E. Loudoun.)	O'Brien, L.
Nelson, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Robertson, L.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]	De Freyne, L.	Stanmore, L.
	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Teynham, L.
Halifax, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

In moving that this Committee be adjourned, I may say that we propose that the House should meet tomorrow at three o'clock to continue the discussion on the Education Bill, with an adjournment between eight and nine o'clock if necessary. I am afraid it will be necessary for me to ask the House to meet on Saturday at twelve o'clock for the Report stage of the Bill, as the Report stage could hardly be of any value without an interval of one day for the consideration of the Amendments. On Friday we shall take Second Reading of London Water Bill, and Third Reading of the Education Bill on Monday.

EARL SPENCER

As far as we on this side are concerned, we are ready to agree to the arrangement for a Saturday sitting.

Resumed; and to be again in Commiteee Tomorrow.