Sitting of 25 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
COMIISSION.

  MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
  The House went; and, being re.. turned,
  Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—
  (1.) Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1902.
  (2.) Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1902.

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Birkenhead, and Battersea; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alterations: from Battersea, and Birkenhead; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Parr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petition from Battersea, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Return [presented 16th October] to be printed. (No. 381.)
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (DUTCH BRINED VEGETABLE INDUSTRY).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Dutch Brined Vegetable Industry [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Fever in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the prevalence of typhus and other fevers in he Island of Lewis, and the sanitary Conditions of many of the townships, will he say whether arrangements can be made for the medical officer of the Local Government Board for Scotland to visit the Island at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr, A. Graham Murray.) The facts are that six cases of typhus lave been reported, four of which are now Convalescent. There does not, therefore, seem any necessity for a special inspection such as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  Transfer of British Trawlers to Foreign Flags.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that eight

  375
  trawlers owned by the Grimsby and North Sea Steam Trawling Company, and six trawlers owned by the Metropolitan Steam Fishing Company, have been transferred to the Norwegian Flag and registered at Brevig under the name of the Zodiac Steam Fishing Company, so that as foreign trawlers they can now fish in the Moray Firth, will he state the result of the action which the Norwegian Government has taken with a view to test the bona fides of these transfers.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The result of the action by the Norwegian Government entitled the vessels in question to registration as Norwegian vessels.

  Accident at Waverley Station, Edinburgh —Shunting Operations.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred on the North British Railway at Waverley Station, on the 23rd April last, whereby a shunter named Sinclair Thomson was injured; and, in view of the recommendation the Board's sub-inspector that stringent instructions should be giver against the practice of detaching screw coupled vehicles when in motion, will he state whether the North British Railway Company have yet arranged to give effect to this recommendation.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Yes; the railway company informed the Board of Trade on the 12th September last that instructions had been given forbidding the practice of detaching screw-coupled vehicles while in motion at Waverley Station.

  Cruelty to Animals—Case of James Younger of Nottingham.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has. been drawn to a case in which James Younger, of 44, Bathley Street. Nottingham, was accused of cruelty to a hired horse on 23rd September, 1900; whether he is aware that the case resulted in each side having to pay its own costs, although
  376
  the defendant was fined 40s.; whether a petition and other representations have been made to the Home Office on behalf of the accused, making allegations against the character of the evidence; and whether he will cause further inquiry into this matter to be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This case came before my predecessor on James Younger's own application in September 1901, and inquiry was made with b regard to it. It appeared that the defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and had appealed to Quarter Sessions, where the conviction was confirmed, but a fine of 40s. was substituted for the sentence of imprisonment. No grounds were found for intervention on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Again, in August last, attention was drawn to the case by a petition on the defendant's behalf, and I carefully examined all the representations. But I saw no reason to differ from the opinion of my predecessor that the Secretary of State could not interfere; and I do not think that there is any further inquiry that could usefully be made.

  Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the accounts of Metropolitan Common Poor Fund are audited; and, if so, by whom; and whether he would give instructions for a copy of such accounts to be sent (after audit) annually to all the [Metropolitan unions, parishes, or places contributing to the fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Statements showing in great detail the expenditure repayable out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund are submitted by the several Boards of Guardians to the district auditor and are corrected and certified by him. These statements are then forwarded to the Local Government Board, and are carefully examined and checked by the receiver and his assistants. Printed summaries are sent every half-year to Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis

  377
  showing under thirteen different headings the expenses incurred by each of them which are repayable from the fund, and also as regards each union the rateable value. the amount of the contribution assessed, the expenditure repayable, and the net amount contributed or received. These summaries are subsequently published in the Annual Reports of the Local Government Board. It does not at present appear to me that anything further is necessary in the direction indicated by my hon. friend.

  South African War—Rewards for the Electrical Engineers.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that five companies of electrical engineers in South Africa, nearly all highly skilled professional men, who gave up lucrative appointments for the service of their country, received ordinary soldiers' rate of pay; that they furnished upwards of eighty working parties, and successfully carried out all kinds of electrical installations for light, power, and communication in connection with hospitals, bridges, camps, and blockhouses over an extensive territory; and whether any Volunteer officer or man in this recently returned battalion has received any distinction or reward; and, if not, whether it is contemplated to recognise their service in any way.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The electrical engineers received the ordinary rates of pay like the other Volunteers serving in South Africa. The valuableandexcellent work performed by them was fully appreciated by Lord Kitchener. Three officers were mentioned in despatches, and the sergeant-major received a distinguished conduct medal. In view of the scale on which rewards were available, it was not found possible in justice to others to grant further rewards.

  Militia and Yeomanry Bill.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, and if he will ensure that a reasonable time be given for its discussion.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  Local Government Board and Board of Trade Officials.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say why the upper division officials in the Departments of the Local Government Board and Board of Trade are placed on an inferior scale of salary to those in Departments presided over by Secretaries of State; and whether he has any official information showing that the system secures officers for the former Departments of merit equal to those in the latter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Scales of salary are fixed in each Departm en tin view of the nature of the work to be done in it. The salaries in the two Departments mentioned in the Question were fixed after a full and comparatively recent inquiry, and attract officers in all respects competent to discharge the duties entrusted to them.

  Education Bill-Teachers in Voluntary Schools.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether teachers are included under the term officers in Schedule 3 (14); and if so, whether he will provide that teachers in voluntary schools shall be placed on the same footing as teachers in board schools for the purpose of compensation under Clauses 15 and 16.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The term "officers" in Schedule 2 (14) includes teachers. The provisions of Schedule 2 (15) and (16) are not made applicable to teachers in voluntary schools, because those schools are not transferred by the Bill from one public authority to another.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Soldiers. Families.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the hardship of the continued separation from their wives and children of the non - commissioned officers and men

  379
  married with leave of those regiments which by being kept in South Africa have lost upwards of three years of their home term of service; whether he will state how long this condition is to continue; and whether, in the event of these regiments not being shortly ordered home, their wives and children will be sent to South Africa.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO TIIE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I am well aware of the hardships inflicted on the families of the men referred to, but I fear that still greater hardships would be inflicted on these families by allowing them to proceed to a country where great difficulty will be for some time experienced in providing sufficient accommodation for them. The inconvenience they undergo is unfortunately incident to active service and the present calls on the Army, and it is not possible to say how soon we may be able to alter the conditions, which we are most anxious to do.

  Army Corps.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the effective strength of the First, Second, and Third Army Corps respectively, with proper cavalry divisions and admixture of reservists, that are ready at any moment to be sent abroad.
  LORD STANLEY: As my right hon. friend has already explained to the House, returns of this character cannot be obtained without calling for detailed information from the Districts, an extra labour which he does not feel justified in throwing upon the officers concerned. When my right hon. friend introduces the Estimates next year he will make a full statement of our position.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the noble Lord give us no information at all?
  LORD STANLEY: I have said that my right hon. friend will give the information when he introduces his Estimates next year.

  Practice Ammunition for the Navy.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he
  380
  can state if it is the case that the amount of ammunition for heavy guns allowed for practice is now the same as it was in the days of muzzle-loading guns, or what alteration, if any, has been made.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The amount of practice ammunition allowed for heavy guns is less than was formerly sanctioned in the case of muzzle-loading guns, but owing to the introduction of aiming rifles attached to the guns a great amount of target practice is obtained without the expenditure of the ordinary charges and projectiles. In one important respect, however, a change has been made in the direction of increasing the allowance of ammunition. The number of rounds expended during prize firing is now only limited by the time assigned to the practice, whereas formerly in eases.; where the number of rounds exceeded the quarterly allowance, the amount was deducted from the issue for the succeeding quarter. This change has been introduced with the object of encouraging accuracy and rapid firing.

  Indian Native Army-Promotions of Colonels.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state why the old system of promotion of Colonels of the Native Army to Generals was stopped before the new system was introduced, and what were the special difficulties; and why for a period of three years Officers of the Indian Army were superseded by Colonels promoted Major-Generals in England under the new system.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): (1) The old system of promotion to the rank of Major-General was stopped by the Royal Warrant which fixed the date for the introduction of the new system as 1st January, 1901. The last promotion under the old system was made in October, 1900 (2) The number of appointments for Major-General and Lieutenant-General under the new system being too few to maintain a flow of promotion, it was proposed, in the interests of the Indian Army, to increase

  381
  them, and correspondence has for some time been in progress with the War Office and the Government of India for that purpose. As the result of an interdepartmental Conference, certain proposals have already been accepted in principle, which will increase the number of these appointments, and, as I stated in my reply of the 13th inst., the final report of the Conference is expected shortly. In the meantime it is impossible to give effect to the new system: (3) Without accepting as correct the hon. and gallant Member's use of the word "supersession," I may point out that the first promotion of a Colonel in England under the new system took place, not three years, but less than one year ago. The new system will be applied to the Indian Army as soon is possible.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will it act retrospectively? This hits a large number of very distinguished soldiers.
  EARL PERCY: I must ask for Notice of that Question.

  Increased Pay of British Soldiers in India.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table the correspondence with the War Office relating to the proposed increase of pay of the British soldier in India.
  EARL PERCY: The Treasury have agreed to refer to the arbitration of the Lord Chief Justice the question as to the distribution of the charge in respect of the increased pay of the British soldier in India. Until the case has been laid before him and his decision upon it received, I cannot undertake to lay on the. Table any portion of the correspondence on the subject.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the noble Lord say when the Lord Chief Justice will give his award?
  EARL PERCY: No, Sir.

  Shanghai-Withdrawal of International Troops.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any date has been fixed for the
  382
  evacuation of Shanghai by the troops of foreign nationalities; if so, when such; evacuation is to be accomplished.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): As the result of communications which have recently passed between the Powers concerned, the International troops will be withdrawn from Shanghai at as early a date and as nearly simultaneously as possible; the precise dates of their departure must depend upon the dates at which sea transport can be procured for the different contingents.

  Income Tax Collection.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state under what authority revenue officers demand from public companies any further information than the names and residences of persons in their employment liable to be assessed for Income Tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. RITCHIE,): Information as to salaries paid by public companies to their employees is requested (not demanded) in accordance with standing instructions from the Board of Inland Revenue. The practice is of very long standing, and is considered to be in the interest of all parties concerned. But, as was stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Quest ion (18th November), the information is not pressed for, if any objection to giving it is raised

  London County Council —Travelling Expenses of Committee.
  SIR JOHN DICKSON - POYNDER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that personal travelling expenses incurred by the members of the London County Council, in connection with committee visits to institutions administered by the Council, and within the County of London, are defrayed out of public funds; and whether he can explain the powers under which the Local Government auditor acts in passing such items without question.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have communicated with the auditor on this subject, and he informs me that the County Council do not pay any expenses for members attending meetings of the Council or committee meetings within the county, but that in some cases where personal inspection is required the cost of the conveyance of the members making the inspection is defrayed by the Council. The auditor states that he has allowed these expenses, feeling that they were incurred in the performance of extraordinary or special duties. I am advised that although the travelling expenses of members of a local authority engaged in their ordinary duties within their district cannot be legally charged on the rates, reasonable expenses of this kind can be so charged when incurred in connection with extraordinary services. Whether any particular service is of an extraordinary character is a question to be determined in the first instance by the auditor when the expenditure is before him, but any person aggrieved may appeal to the Local Government Board against his decision.

  Llangollen National Schools.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the children at the National Schools, Llangollen, were on the 7th instant, and during school hours, subjected to inquiries as to the religious beliefs of their parents, and that the children of Nonconformists were told to stand upon the forms upon that occasion; if he will state whether such a differentiation of the children was made by the direction of the managers, and what was the object of the course taken; and whether such a proceeding is in accordance with the rules of the Board of Education.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I have no information on the matter. If any complaint should be addressed to the Board of Education, inquiry will be made.

  Sligo and Bundoran Railway.
  MR TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the
  384
  Board of Works have received any communications as to the construction of a line of railway from Sligo to Bundoran; will he say to what extent are the Treasury prepared to help the undertaking; and in what stage do the negotiations now stand.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES-FISHER,): No communications have been received by the Board of Works on this subject; and it is clearly impossible at this stage for me to give any undertaking on behalf of the Treasury.

  Irish County Infirmaries-Surcharge of Illegal Expenditure.
  M R. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board, in view of the decision in the Gloucester Appeal Case in England, have issued instructions to their auditors to surcharge expenditure on county infirmaries for purposes which are prohibited by statute in the case of any of the money being provided out of the poor rate.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No such instructions have been issued. The Board has not seen the decision in the case mentioned, but will endeavour to obtain it.

  Sligo and Leitrim Asylums.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what is the nature of the reports received from the inspector of lunatics as to the overcrowding of Sligo Asylum; and whether it is intended to avail of the offer of the Mohill Board of Guardians to have their workhouse converted into an auxiliary asylum, and thus save capital expenditure to the counties of Sligo and Leitrim.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The substance of the report has been communicated to the Joint Committee of Management of the Asylum and published in the Press. The County Councils of the asylum district are responsible for the provision of sufficient accommodation for the insane poor in the district. No proposal has been made by them in the direction mentioned in the Question. If made, it will receive careful consideration.

  Phoenix Park Constabulary Depôt.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General has received from the North Dublin Union as sanitary authority a resolution complaining of the constantly recurring cases of infectious diseases from the constabulary depot in Phoenix Park, and what steps have been taken to enforce the sanitary laws in this instance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. All possible precautions have been taken by the depot authorities, in consultation with the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board, to eradicate the disease.

  Shannon Development Company.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of the subsidy paid out of the public funds yearly to the Shannon Development Company; whether his attention has been directed to the report of the county surveyor to the last meeting of the Leitrim County Council that the steamer service was not satisfactory; and what steps he proposes to take as to the future payments of the subsidy to this company.
  MR. WYNDHAM: £;1,000 for the year ending May next. The attention of the Commissioners of Works has not been directed to the report in question. It is not proposed to suspend payment of the subsidy payable under the existing agreement with the Company.

  Sandford Estate, Castlerea.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have entered into negotiations for the purchase of the Sandford. Estate at Castlerea; and if he can state the proposed terms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Rules of Procedure.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the House met on 16th January and is still sitting, he will consider the advisability of proposing a return next session to the former Rules of Procedure.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is unfortunately true that the House met early this year and has been sitting late; but a confess that the somewhat protracted experience that we have thus against our will obtained has only convinced me more than ever of the necessity for the new Rules.
  MR. COGHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend at this advanced period of the session, when nearly three-fourths of the Members are going away, to propose that, these new Rules shall be made permanent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure my hon. friend does not seriously make the proposal that the long discussions which we had at the beginning of the session should be absolutely thrown away, and that the whole labour should have to be repeated in a subsequent session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does that statement include the retention of the dinner interval?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, emphatically.

  Ireland and the Education Grant.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately the total amount. that will be voted from the Imperial funds for the purposes of education under the Education Bill; and what is the amount of the equivalent grant to which Ireland would be entitled.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot yet tell what the equivalent grant for Ireland will be, but the lion. Member may rest assured that Ireland will not be unjustly treated. As to the sum given in this Bill for purely English purposes, it is between £;1,300,000 and £;1,400,000.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the business will be on Monday? And can

  387
  he give any estimate of the course of the session, and of the probable termination of our labours?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to next Monday, I think—especially after what my hon. friend below the, gangway has said—that it would be unwise to defer to a later date the Motion to make permanent the Rules of Procedure. On Tuesday I shall propose to take the Third Reading of the Education Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: How many days for the Third Reading?] I suppose that two days will be ample. How long the Bill will remain in another place, of course, it is impossible for me to say. But it is only in my more sanguine moments that I can anticipate our getting away before December 18th.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose next Monday, or any subsequent date, to take up the Order in Debate Rule, or will he leave it in its present fragmentary state?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that that will have to remain a beautiful torso for the present.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When will the London Water Bill be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that that will be taken on Thursday week.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND. AND WALES) BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. SPEAKER: The first Clause, which stands in the name of the hone Member for Dewsbury, is not in order, because it proposes to make it compulsory on the local authority to build—at the desire of any parents —a new school alongside an existing school, which would create a fresh expense, and should therefore have been moved in Committee and. not on the Report stage. The next new Clause stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Elland Division, and it appears to me to be out of order as a new Clause, because
388
it might be moved as an Amendment to sub-Section 1 of Clause 4. It appears to provide for the abolition of religious tests in training colleges. Clause 4, however, already, provides that in such institution no pupil shall be excluded or placed in an inferior position on account of his religious belief. It appears to me an Amendment might be introduced there which would meet the point the hon. Member wishes to raise.
MR. TREVELYAN: May I point out that Clause 4 refers only to such colleges as are maintained or aided by the county. But most of the colleges for the training of teachers are at present assisted out of national funds and not out of local rates. The majority of the colleges would not therefore come under this Section.
MR. SPEAKER: But I think it would be possible to introduce words which would bring those colleges within the operation of the Clause.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he proposed to move the next new Clause which stood in his name, which would provide for really free education in all public elementary schools. The Act of 1891, about which the Party opposite had boasted so much, had not nearly provided for free education throughout England. At present about one-ninth of the children in public elementary schools still paid fees, and the majority of these children were in Church schools. In fact, 621,682 children were at the present moment paying fees, and of these 384,000 were in Church schools, and only 72,000, or barely one-ninth, were in board schools. This showed that the real reason for the maintenance of the fee system was to provide additional support to the voluntary schools. The total amount of fees received was £;231,000. of which £;121,000 came from Church schools. Only £41,000 came from board schools. When the Bill of 1891 was under discussion the hon. Member for Northamptonshire attempted to insert a proviso which would have made all board schools practically free —he in fact proposed that where a fee grant was given, the schools should necessarily be free. The right hon.

389
Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division, who was then at the head of the Education Department, said the immediate result of having free schools everywhere would be the absolute destruction of private schools. No doubt at that time that was a perfectly intelligible policy for those who supported voluntary schools, as, had fees been abolished, many of those schools could not have been continued, or would have had to be handed over to the School Boards. But the situation had been entirely changed by this Bill. The voluntary schools would be maintained out of the rates, except in respect of the fabric. The sum required for the maintenance of the fabric would be enormously less than the present subscriptions; and from ancient endowments and rent from the teachers' houses the managers would, have an additional fund besides the subscriptions to maintain the fabric of the schools. Why was it that, now that all these schools would be on the rates, a certain section of the population who were fee-payers and ratepayers should continue to be fee-payers? Why should not the whole sum required for the maintenance of the schools be paid out of the rates? There was only one possible reason why the fee-paying system should be maintained: it was because part of these fees as the Bill stood might go in lieu of subscriptions in assisting voluntary subscribers to maintain the fabric. Where the voluntary subscribers were too few or too niggardly to provide sufficient money for the maintenance of the fabric, it was hoped that the amount would be made up out of the fees. Was it worth while to keep up the system of fee-paying which alone stood in the way of a complete system of free education throughout England? They were now granting an additional £;1,200,000 in aid of elementary education; surely out of that they might provide for the abolition of the quarter of a million sterling now charged in fees. In America, education was free from top to bottom, and surely it was time that the lower grades of education were made free in this country. Our poorer classes, if they had to strain their slender resources in order to educate their children, ought to be able to devote them to increasing their chances of higher education.
New Clause—
"From the first day of January, Nineteen hundred and four, any school where fees continue to be charged shall cease to be reckoned as a public elementary school."—(Mr. Trevelyan).
Brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said that the question of fees was discussed in Committee at some length a few days ago. What was proposed by the hon. Member was to take away from the local authorities the option left to them in the Bill to allow fees to be charged, side by side with the obligation to provide free places in the area for every one who wanted them. The objection to the new Clause was on account of the restraint it imposed on the local authority in a matter in which the local authority might fairly be left to use its discretion. Take the case of a school which was supported by the contributions of the parents of the children attending the school in the form of fees. It might be desirable, in the view of the local authority, that this school should continue to be so maintained; that it should not be chargeable on the local authority, but maintained by the managers with the assistance of fees. The Committee, however, were asked to override the opinion of the local authority and the wishes of the parents, in order to obtain a symmetrical system in which no fees need or could be charged. The hon. Member desired to destroy the voluntary schools.
MR. TREVELYAN: I never said that.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not in so many words; but I do not think I am doing the hon. Member an injustice by thus construing what he did say.
MR. TREVELYAN: My point was that denominational subscriptions could easily be found for denominational purposes.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped he had not said anything to suggest that the hon. Member supposed that voluntary

391
subscriptions would not continue to exist, but the hon. Member certainly held out as his ideal a system under which schools were not only maintained but provided out of public funds; and in order to attain that symmetry he was prepared to set aside the wishes and inclinations of the district and of the people who were willing to pay fees, which they need not do unless they liked. He hoped that the Clause would not be accepted by the House.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid there was a great deal to be said for leaving the question to the local authority; but the main point was, what was to be done with the fees if they were retained? He objected to easing off the situation for the managers of the voluntary schools, and to the provision of certain fees in order that the managers should meet the obligation to keep up the fabric.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I said it would ease the situation generally, not only for the managers, but for the local authority, who might not find it easy to raise sufficient money at once.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he looked on the Government proposal as a distinct breach of an earlier understanding under which the managers were to provide for the upkeep of the fabric. It was not right that parents should be called on to pay fees in order to relieve the managers of the obligations imposed on them. The hon. Member for the Stretford Division, at an earlier stage of the Bill, said the measure cast a heavy burden on the owners of the school, but they were bound to bear it in return for certain advantages which were being conferred on them. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education undertook that the fabric should be repaired and maintained by the owners, and he strongly objected to using fees for the purpose. He did not object to the levying of fees for higher education, but what he did say was that if fees were imposed in the future they should be handed over to the local authorities for the purposes of higher education.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid the hon. Member for the
392
Elland Division had moved a Clause which, if carried, would have the result, in many cases, of so starving the voluntary schools that they would not be able to fulfil their obligations, and would so become chargeable, to the public. He was bound to protest against this attempt to bring about this result which the hon. Member desired, because he represented a very poor constituency which had a great number of voluntary schools to which the people were much attached, and which were only maintained with difficulty, owing to the poverty of the people. In that constituency it was not the case of subscriptions being vastly in excess of the requirements for repairs, it was distinctly the reverse, yet the people were willing, out of their small means, to pay something towards the schools (in which often they had been educated themselves) for the education of their children, rather than send them to the board school next door.
MR. WHITE RIDLEYsaid he did not apprehend that many people would quarrel with the principle that elementary education should be free but there were districts, especially near Manchester, where the Clause proposed by the Member for the Elland Division would inflict real hardship. The hon. Member said there was no reason why people in these towns should pay school fees. There was a very good reason. In many cases these fees actually took the place of subscriptions.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why should not they be represented as subscribers, then?
MR. WHITE RIDLEY: And those fees would go towards the maintenance of the fabric, as it was only right they should. The Resolution, if carried, would result in the absolute destruction of many of the voluntary schools. Near Manchester, the carrying of this Clause in many cases would result in shutting up many of the voluntary schools for want of funds.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he had himself raised this question by a similar Amendment to the Free Education Bill in 1891. Then he had been met by the hard case of many

393
schools with high fees in the North. But now all these schools were to have, not merely the fee grant, but the rates, and the case was already different. Both the previous speakers had dwelt upon the extreme poverty of the districts which they represented, but that only added to his surprise that they should have been so anxious that these people should have been put into an almost compulsory position with regard to the payment of fees. Whatever might be said as to the feeling of the parents, whether these parents voluntarily contributed these fees to keep up this type of school or not, the House knew perfectly well that these schools had been built by persons not in that position of extreme indigence to which the hon. Member had alluded. These schools had been built by clergymen and Churchmen living in these districts and possessing ample incomes. It was absolutely ludicrous to talk of the poverty of the Church people of Lancashire, who could perfectly afford to pay for the repairs. The Roman Catholics were poor, no doubt, and out of their poverty they had maintained their schools with credit. The two hon. Members who had just spoken were among those who, if he remembered aright, a few days ago, had refused to give free representation to the parents of the children attending the schools by way of votes for the election of the managers of the school; and it was monstrous that the parents should be treated as a pawn to be pushed first this way and then that just as it suited the game of hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even if the parents had such a spirit of devotion to the Church that they preferred to pay fees, the Church ought to have the manliness not to levy contributions on these poor people for the purposes of a building fund, which they were quite able to provide.
SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that this was not a question merely of voluntary schools. There were a great many fees paid in board schools, chiefly in the North of England. The policy of the Board of Education had always been to prohibit the opening of fee-paying schools by School Boards, but they bad been unable to carry out that policy because School Boards had demanded such schools
394
in deference to the strong wish of parents Hon. Members could easily conjecture the reasons which influenced parents in that desire. One strong reason was that by paying fees they were able to get a more advanced education for their children. This class of school in the North of England were extremely good schools, and they were greatly valued by those who sent their children to them, and it would be a misfortune if anything were done to interfere with a system which had worked so well. The moral he drew was that it would be much better to leave the question to the local authority, who would understand the needs and wishes of the people, and would not charge fees unless the population served by those schools so desired. Under the law every parent who wished for free education for his children had a right to it, so that no harm would be inflicted on the parents by giving the local authority power to charge fees.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that although this was not entirely, it was, in the main, a volunary school question, as out of £;240,000 charged in fees only £;40,000 was charged in board schools. It was not a question of the freedom of the local authority. As Parliament was now making a large additional grant, the House was entitled to insist on the schools being free. The cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University were not at all applicable. The board schools in which fees were charged were usually called "higher grade," and some parents preferred to send their children to them because they thought a better class of pupils were found there. If the local authority insisted on a quid pro quo in the way of a superior education, something might be said in favour of this freedom being given, but it was simply a question of class distinctions which ought not to be encouraged. Moreover, these schools were the exception. The schools really concerned were those in the poor districts mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge, who had said it was a hardship that these parents should not be allowed to pay fees. Why a hardship on the parents? In the poorer districts the fees were paid out of the food of the children. Where was the hardship of a rich County Council

395
like that of Lancashire, when a large I additional grant was being made, refusing to allow these schools to be subsidised at the expense of the poorest classes of the community? It was no hardship to the parents. To whom was it a hardship? Prior to this Bill, it had been a hardship to voluntary schools, but now the whole cost of maintenance was to fall on the rates. The hon. Member for Stalybridge had thrown considerable light on the whole situation. He had said that in these districts there were no subscribers in the ordinary sense of the word, but that these parents who paid fees were really the subscribers. Then why were they not given the voice in the management of the schools to which subscribers were entitled? They were subscribers merely for the purpose of paying out of their poor pittance, and not for the purpose of any of the privileges of subscribers. In 1891 a large sum of money was given with the object of wiping out fees. Fees were not wiped out. That, to begin with, was a distinct breach of faith with Parliament. The money, according to the hon. Member for Stalybridge, was used as subscriptions to keep the voluntary schools together, and now a further sum of £;1,200,000 was to be drawn upon for the same purpose.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he approached the question from a standpoint of impartiality, because, so far as his co-religionists were concerned, fees were charged in very few schools, and his argument was not at all based on their case. The assumption had been prevalent that by giving this power to the local authorities a new present was in some way being made to the managers of voluntary schools, but this assumption was wholly unfounded. The question really affected only a certain number of Church of England and Wesleyan schools. To some it was not a matter of importance, but to a great proportion it was a serious and burning question. In a large number of cases the schools had been run practically at the cost of the Government grant, plus fees, and if the fees were done away with the managers would still be saddled with the burden of repairs, but would have to find some
396
entirely new source of income to meet it. He instanced schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire which, if fees were abolished, would annually be worse off under this Bill to the extent of £;24, £;19 10s., £;22, £;42 10s., £;30, and £;43, respectively. Formerly it was possible to pay the rent out of the aid grant, but that would now be impossible. The question of enlargements, which would be a serious item in the future, was not taken into consideration at all. The wealth of the Church of England had nothing to do with the question. Of what use was it to a struggling parson in the slums of Manchester to know that a parish in the South of England had large endowments? The individual case had to be considered. Under the Bill many schools would be in a worse position than before, and the only hope of some was that they should be allowed a portion of the fees, which in the past had been freely paid, and in the future would be cheerfully continued by the parents for the sake of the education they desired.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid if there was not a bargain, there was, at any rate, a balance of consideration that if the managers did certain things the State would undertake other things. If they did not call that a bargain, it was fair to at least call it a balance of consideration. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division had given an extraordinary balance sheet about one or two schools in Lancashire. In order to make out the severity of the burden of repairs upon the managers, the hon. Member estimated the cost of repairs at 2s. 6d. per scholar. Upon what authority did he state that the cost came to 2s. 6d. a scholar?
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the cost under the London School Board was 5s. 3d. He had deducted 1s. for repairs to furniture, and a very liberal and ample reduction on account of the increased expenditure in London. If, therefore, he had put it at 3s. instead of 2s. 6d. he would not have been over the mark.
MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the question of how

397
fees are to be dealt with does not arise under this Clause. I perhaps allowed the hon. Member who has just sat down to go a little further than I should have done, but the discussion must not be continued.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he thought that the statement was exaggerated. Respecting the charging of fees by School Boards, so far as the North of England was concerned, fees were charged in higher grade schools. But this Clause would not prevent fees being charged in such schools, because it did not apply to them. It was also said that a parent could secure free places for his child. Very great demands had been made for free places, and refused, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was responsible for the Education Department. He was pretty certain that in one Church of England school in Southport free places were asked for and refused.
SIR JOHN GORST: I can assure the hon. Member that no parent was ever refused a free place when he demanded it during the time I had the honour of being the Vice-President of the Board of Education.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: The right hon. Gentleman always refused to grant free places in a particular school if he thought that accommodation could be had in another school of another religion, and which might be miles away from the residence of the parents.
SIR JOHN GORST: I must correct the hon. Member. The idea was, on the part of some parents, that they had a right to acquire free places in a particular school, but parents have no such right. What they have a right to is this—free places for their children in schools most convenient and available for the purpose.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: What is meant by a convenient school? Is there any regard for distance?
SIR JOHN GORST: Oh yes.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: But convenience does not cover the word "suitability." Surely that is a matter that should enter into the consideration of every parent in regard to education. I remember another place near Hyde.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how this bears on the question.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: At any rate, whatever the law may be, it is the practice of the Education Department to make it practically impossible for parents to secure free places for their children in these schools. There has been a great amount of friction and difficulty, almost insurmountable, for parents to secure free places where they want them. The Clause would only secure the rights of parents to send their children to any school where they wished to send them.
(3.38.) Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 575.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John.

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Atherley-Jones L.

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

Bell, Richard

Duncan, J. Hastings

Kitson, Sir James

Black, Alexander William

Dunn, Sir William

Lambert, George

Brigg, John

Ellis, John Edward

Langley, Batty

Broadhurst, Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fenwick, Charles

Levy, Maurice

Burt, Thomas

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Fuller, J. M. F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cameron, Robert

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Causton, Richard Knight

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Cawley, Frederick

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Markham, Arthur Basil

Channing, Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Craig, Robert Hunter

Holland, Sir William Henry

Newnes, Sir George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wason, Eugene

Paulton, James Mellor

Sloan, Thomas Henry

White, George (Norfolk)

Philipps, John Wynford

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Price, Robert John

Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Rea, Russell

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rigg, Richard

Tennant, Harold John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersfd

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Tomkinson, James

Schwann, Charles E.

Toulmin, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Runciman.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Garfit, William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Pemberton, John S. G.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gore. Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arrol, Sir William

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Plummer, Walter R.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Purvis, Robert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hain, Edward

Rankin, Sir James

Baldwin, Alfred

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Rasch, Major Frederic Came

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Bignold, Arthur

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bond, Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

Robinson, Brooke

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

Horner, Frederick William

Rutherford, John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hoult, Joseph

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A(Glasgow

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Seely, Maj. J.E.B(Isle of Wight

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kemp, George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chapman, Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Knowles, Lees

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lawson, John Grant

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Tully, Jasper

Crossley, Sir Saville

Long,Col.CharlesW. (Evesham

Valentia, Viscount

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Rt. Hon Walter(Bristol, S

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G. Ellison

Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macdona, John Cumming

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Malcolm, Ian

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.).

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Fellowes. Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maxwell, WJ.H (Dumfriesshire

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Meysey-Thompson Sir H. M.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrison, James Archibald

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Younger, William

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flower, Ernest

Myers, William Henry

Sir Alexander Acland-

Forster, Henry William

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

LORD HUGH CECILsaid the Clause he rose to move consisted of two proposals—a proposal to give the right to parents to take their children out of any public elementary school and have them taught their own religion outside — a right which it was only proper to give to parents; and a proposal to give the right to the local authority to allow the parents to procure special religious instruction inside the schools. He wished to emphasise the latter point, because he had seen this Clause referred to as giving what was called the right of entry. Strictly speaking it did not do that. Strictly speaking it gave to the local authority the right to secure the right of entry, but it did not give that right outright in itself. It did not give the right to send a minister of any denomination into the school to give religious instruction. The other portions of the Clause were merely intended to safe-guard the Conscience Clause, and to give to the Board of Education the power of interpreting the meaning of the word "reasonable." What were the arguments used for and against a proposal of this kind? First of all, it was said that such a proposal would be unworkable. He could not conceive why there should be any difficulty whatever in working a proposal to allow children to be taken out of school during the religious hour. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had what he thought was a reasonable Amendment on the Paper which would remove any possible objection by procuring a register of attendance, so as to prevent the Clause being used for juvenile enjoyment, which of course was not intended. He believed that a provision of this kind bad actually been used in certain School Board districts. He understood that Orpington was one of the places where this provision was in operation. The London School Board had been repeatedly asked to adopt such a provision, but they had always refused. He might say that so long as there were medals for attendance, so long would they have a strong and laudable spirit among children to secure the medal for attendance. It was very difficult to work the Conscience Clause if parents were not permitted to take the children out of school, and it was difficult to induce the children to withdraw if they forfeited the merit of good attendance. In a large
402
number of cases the parents were satisfied with the teaching given in the schools. But if a child was withdrawn from the school and sent to a church or other convenient place for religious instruction, the religious hour should count as if the child had been in the school. In respect to the other proposal, to allow special instruction inside the school, he believed the objection that it was unworkable was equally unfounded. The fact was, as everyone knew, that in the great majority of the schools two forms of religion would satisfy the demand that was at all likely to be made by parents. In the case of a small South of England rural parish, if they had the Nonconformist special instruction, or such Bible instruction as met the views of the Nonconformists, given in one class room, and the Church teaching given in the remaining rooms of the school, it would be found that every one in the parish had practically the religious teaching which was desired. There were practically only three religious denominations—the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Nonconformists. In some cases they found Jewish children, but they were already provided with special instruction, for all intents and purposes, by the School Boards where they had to do with Jewish populations. At any rate, the Clause he proposed met the difficulty of unworkability by leaving complete discretion to the local authority They were to have regard to the suitability of the buildings, and they were not obliged to set up separate religious instruction unless they properly could do so. The Clause would not force on the schools any particular system whatever, nor did it force any system on the local authority. It was left open to the local authority to take that course which they believed, having regard to the rights of conscience and the suitability of the schools, was, on the whole, best calculated to meet the exigencies of the occasion. There was a third argument. It was said that no proposal of this kind was wanted. He believed that to be a mistake. Surely it could not be argued that the great system of denominational schools, supported by more than one denomination in the country, had been kept up for years, and yet that there was not in the mind of a large proportion of the population a desire for that great system of denominational instruction. He was sure that hon. Members opposite

403
would be the last to say that there was no desire among Nonconformists for a denominational system of instruction, or a Nonconformist system, in cases where they were obliged to attend Church schools. The House had heard at great length, and with great vigour, the grievances of the Nonconformists in connection with what were called the single - school areas in different parts of the country. He did not in the least believe that there could have been so much stir about religious teaching, if, after all, the agitation was a sham. The theory that the stir was all got up between ministers of religion on one side and another was profoundly untrue to human nature. They could not stir up a community in that way unless there was something behind. Therefore he always had believed that there was reality in the religious difficulty. He believed that such a Clause as this was wanted. Suppose it was used as little as the Conscience Clause itself had been used, it would still be of value. People might be content with a form of religious instruction not exactly to their taste, if they knew that they had the power to remedy this if they chose to exercise it. He remembered that the late John Stuart Mill once said that, if he did not leave London from one year's end to another, he would yet consider it a hardship if he were confined to London by law. In the same way there were a great number of people who might acquiesce in the teaching of the Church schools who would feel it a grievance to be obliged to do it. He thought, therefore, this Clause would be of real value if never used at all. It would be of value in the same sense and degree as the Conscience Clause, which, as was well known, had been used in only a very small number of instances. Another objection to this Clause was that it was said that it would introduce the sectarian spirit among children, and inspire them with feelings of religious animosity which were not suitable to anyone, but particularly to those of very tender age. He thought that that argument did injustice to the Christian teaching whether of Churchmen or Nonconformists. He had read the Church Catechism and the Free Church Catechism, and there was nothing uncharitable or hostile in them to any other denomination. The views of these documents were
404
set out as the truths of religion. What was taught was taught as a positive religious system, not polemically or in any uncharitable spirit. A child was dull indeed if it did not soon become aware that every one in the country was not of the same religious belief. A child could not go along the street without seeing more than one place of religious worship, and if he had any observation he would come to ask why one set of people went to one church, and why another set went to another church. It was hardly possible to walk along the streets of our towns or on the village green without seeing more than one place of religious worship; and any child of observation and intelligence would soon begin to ask why that was so. A child to be religiously brought up must actually undergo that very process of ear-marking which was supposed to make the child a bitter sectarian. It seemed to be thought that that system had a mysterious polemical effect on a child's mind, and that the child for the first time, plunged, with an evil joy, into the theological whirlpool. He was entirely incredulous of that objection. He was persuaded that those who put forward that objection were taking up a position which was in a high degree intolerant and narrow. They were trying to urge on the people of this country the view that they ought to be satisfied with some form of undenominational teaching, and that if they were not so satisfied they were bigoted and narrow-minded persons. That consideration brought him to ask the House to reflect what the alternatives were to adopting a proposal such as that which he put forward. Suppose they left the matter as it stood in the Bill, then they had a system of compensating injustices. No one denied that there was a hardship to Nonconformists where there was only a Church school to go to; and there was also an injustice to Church children if they had to attend a board school. But there was a kind of doctrine that, because Nonconformists suffered in one district and Churchmen in another, that was a sort of compensation, and that A, who was aggrieved as a Churchman, ought to find consolation in the fact that B, a Nonconformist, suffered analogous treatment in the next parish but one. That had always seemed to him a profoundly

405
illogical view. He thought that was the system which, if the Amendment were not carried, would be continued. There would be two sets of schools, each inflicting injustice on a particular set of victims. He could not help thinking that as long as that system were maintained there would be no end to the religious question, which would still continue to be a thorn in the foot of educational progress. If they did not have the existing system, they must have a universal undenominational system which, he thought, they were beginning—some hon. Members opposite included—to understand was a system which worked a great injustice both to Roman Catholics and the Church of England. The main injustice was that the system of religious teaching which was given omitted from its sphere all those matters which Churchmen and Roman Catholics considered not indeed intellectually fundamental, but most essential to the vital practice of religion. These matters were left out altogether or treated as if they were of secondary importance, and by an inevitable tendency the children were led to believe that they were of secondary importance. He had suffered so severely from using metaphors, because they afforded such an opportunity to some critics of representing his meaning differently from what he intended, that he almost trembled at the idea of venturing on another, all the more especially as he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire in his place. Yet he wished to say that to offer people undenominational teaching instead of denominational, was like saying to a person who wanted a particular kind of tree—an oak or a beech—"We cannot give you that; we will give you another kind of tree, but we will strip off the bark and leaves so that you will not know what it is, and you can add the bark and leaves afterwards." The answer would be that, however fundamental the wood of the tree might be, the life of the tree ran through the bark and the leaves. So the life ran through the very heart of the religious system about which denominations differed. There only remained universal secularism, which was repulsive to the religious instincts of the people. It would lead children to believe
406
religion a less important matter, and in many cases the parents who were not specially active would in fact bring up their children without any religion at all. The only other alternative was the plan contained in his Clause—the plan of trying to bring up children, as far as practical considerations would allow, in the beliefs of their parents. This was plain justice. He thought it was also a matter for the peace of the schools and the peace of this House if this principle were once established, and they should have solved, he thought for ever, the religious question. They should be able to point to a principle which everyone would understand and appreciate, and whether to Churchmen or Nonconformists it would be an answer against any complaint or cause of grievance, and they should have founded their educational system, not on an abiding sense of injustice, but on the conviction that the State was treating all religious beliefs fairly and impartially, and having regard only to the natural principle of the rights of parents.
New Clause—
"(1) In all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, any scholar may be withheld from the school by his parent during any time set apart for religious observance or instruction in religious subjects for the purpose of his attending other religious observance or receiving other religious instruction outside the school, and the local education authority shall require that the times set apart in the school for religious observance and instruction shall be arranged so as to facilitate such withholding of scholars.
"(2) In all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, where a reasonable number of parents of scholar attending the school desire that by religious instruction other than that provided the managers should be given to their children, the local education authority may require that the managers shall (whether the religious instruction is regulated by any trust deed scheme or other instrument or not) make such arrangements as may be practicable, having due regard to the suitability of the buildings and the discipline of the school, to allow such other religious instruction to be given in the school.
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive a parent of any right he possesses under Section 7 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.

407
"(4) If any question shall be raised by the local education authority or by the managers of a school as to what is reasonable within the meaning of this section, every such question shall be decided by the Board of Education, and their decision shall be final."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
Brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. BRYCEsaid that he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman desired to know with what feelings they on that side of the House regarded this Amendment. He had tried to ascertain what was the general feeling of his hon. friends near him. Of course it was inevitable that a clause coming from such a quarter should excite a certain amount of suspicion in certain quarters. But he thought that such feelings ought to be put aside, and the proposal be regarded on its merits, and without any reference to any view which those who were most favourable to it had quoted. He thought the speech of the noble Lord had been eminently fair and conciliatory, and had found an echo in every quarter of the House. Everybody respected his sincerity, and those who differed from him felt that in the long run and in the main they desired the same ends, though they did not reach them by the same road. As to the last part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he dwelt on the necessity for denominational education, that was a subject so large that he would pass it by in the fewest possible words. He sympathised with the noble Lord's desire that the children should be brought up to be good Christians, to be good religious men and women, whatever their creed might be. But there were three remarks he wished to make in regard to the noble Lord's speech. The first was that the noble Lord had attributed to the Church of England, as a whole, a theological view and a doctrine with regard to the attributes, powers, and rights of the Church, and the position occupied in the Christian field by a certain few, which was not shared by the Church of England as a whole. That seemed to him to be at the bottom of a great deal which had been said by the noble Lord and his friends. He had read with a great deal of
408
interest a pamphlet by Canon Moberley, in which he tried to get at the bottom of a distinctive Christian theology and the special rights and functions which attributed special powers to the sacerdotal class—theories touching which were not only not held by the Nonconformists of England generally, nor by the Presbyterians of Scotland, but also, as he believed, by the large majority of the Church of England. He admitted that the view of Canon Moberley and the noble Lord had been, during the last forty years, a growing view, but he did not believe that it pervaded the laity generally; and he was inclined to think that the difference between that view and that of the majority of the Church of England was, greater than the difference which separated the laity of the Church of England, as a whole, from the Nonconformists of this country. He must not pursue this fascinating subject, but he desired to enter a caveat against the view the noble Lord took when he talked of the Church teaching in respect to the right of the laity of the Church of England. His second observation was that the noble Lord attributed a far greater power of comprehending abstract propositions to children of tender years than experience had proved to be the case. He might tell the noble Lord that when he was a child in Scotland he was brought up on the Shorter Catechism, which was a more abstract document than the Church of England Catechism. They learned it with the greatest possible care, and verified the questions with Scripture proofs. They were taught to distinguish between a variety of abstract processes, and in that way they learned a good deal of dogmatic theology. But he really had never been able to think that that had produced any substantial difference in their subsequent lives. He thought, however, that when they came to years of discretion they formed their theological opinions for themselves, mainly from the Scriptures, theological reading, and sermons, and what they had read themselves; and that the small acquaintance they were able to make with the forms of theology before the age of fourteen had not had any effect on the future conduct of their lives. The noble Lord seemed to consider that the genuine religion, the test, the true essence of

409
religion, should consist in a desire to be united with God, to love Him, and to revere Him; and in an endeavour to apply the precepts of religion to the conduct of their daily lives, and to live as Christians all their lives. True; but he did not think that that belonged, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, to the points on which different denominations of Christians differed from one another. There again he was touching upon delicate and almost sacred ground; and therefore he would pass on with the sole remark that it was upon the reason and the relations which the Scripture set of belief in the presence of Christ and the existence of the attributes of God, that the conduct of life depended, and not upon the abstract dogmatic propositions of which the noble Lord thought so much. He would pass on to the practical working of the Amendment. His duty was very much simplified by the fact that the third sub-Section would not be moved.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Only in obedience to the ruling of the Chair. I am anxious to point out that I am still in favour of it in my own mind†.
MR. BRYCEsaid he understood that. No doubt the noble Lord regarded the Cowper Temple Clause as anathema maranatha, and desired to have it expugned from the schools; but he understood the noble Lord was only moving the first two and the last two sub-Sections, and he was therefore relieved from the necessity of dealing in any way with the third sub-Section. His objection to that sub-Section would have been even stronger than it was to the other sub-Sections; and he was even prepared to say that for the Government to accept it, and indeed not to oppose it, would have been a distinct departure from what was said by the First Lord of the Treasury in introducing the Bill, when he stated that the Cowper-Temple Clause would not be disturbed. With regard to
†The sub-Section not moved was as follows: "Where a reasonable number of parents as aforesaid desire religious instruction for their children other than that provided by the managers of the school. the local education authority may, if they think fit, make provision for the giving of such other religious instruction, whether inside or outside the school, and if outside the school for such accommodation for the purpose as in the circumstances of the case may appear to be reasonable."
410
the first two sub-Sections, the first objection taken to them was that they would very much disarrange and disturb the working of the schools. He had taken the opinion of those who had a more practical acquaintance with the matter than hon. Members could have—schoolmasters and school inspectors—and they thought that these sub-Sections would disorganise the schools; and that nothing worse could be proposed for the organisation and the daily working of the schools and for discipline than that children should be continually taken out at a time when the schoolmaster would not be able to follow them. How was it to be known whether the children went to these external places; was there to be a register, and was a continual report from the chapel or the church where the instruction was given to be brought to the teacher to be checked? He thought that the noble Lord passed too lightly over that practical difficulty, in which, no doubt, his hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham and his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell would be able to throw further light. But there was another difficulty. The proposal of the noble Lord would not only disorganise the working of the school, it would weaken the position of the teacher, and even imply a certain reflection on the teacher, who was the head of the school and at present responsible for all education, denominational and undenominational. The teacher knew the child through every part of his work; but if the child were to be put in charge of a curate or a Nonconformist minister for some part of his work, it would be a reflection on the eacher, by implying that he was not to be trusted to do that part of the work. He was told teachers thought that that would weaken their hold over the children, as the children would ask themselves why they were forbidden to receive this part of their instruction from the teacher, was he removed from or opposed to them, and why had they to go elsewhere to get one kind of instruction, getting another kind of instruction from the teacher? Moreover, the teacher might think that he was debarred, by this provision, from inculcating a moral precept or from giving teaching which in one aspect

411
was moral and in another aspect religious, in the course of the ordinary lessons. Was the teacher to be allowed to point a moral by applying morality to religion, or to assume a knowledge of religious facts in the teaching of history? If the teacher was precluded by a provision of that kind from having anything to do with the whole subject of religion, the teacher might feel that it was a forbidden sphere, and that he must not, in other parts of his work, venture on it.
LORD HUGH CECILasked, what about the Conscience Clause?
MR. BRYCEsaid that the Conscience Clause had worked because the teachers had the good sense to observe it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated that if there were no religious difficulties it was because the teachers had the good faith and the good feeling not to touch them. The reason why the Cowper-Temple Clause had worked was because it was understood by the teachers as preventing them from trespassing on ground it was not desirable for them to enter on. Having regard, therefore, to the importance of the place which the teacher held, they all agreed that he might as far as possible have a free hand, and not feel himself cut off from any particular kind of moral teaching; and that it would be a pity to break through the existing system in that way, by sending children outside or bringing other persons in. As to evils of segregating children, of cutting them into little distinct blocks, and marching them off, at an early age, as the sheep and the goats, such a course could not fail to injure this real religious sense. The noble Lord said that if they went to the Church Catechism they would not find any spirit of hostility or want of charity inculcated in its doctrines. That was perfectly true. They were not to be found in the doctrines themselves; and they all hoped that the Nonconformist minister on the one hand, or the curate on the other, would not teach the children to hate one another. At the same time, the mere fact that the children were drawn asunder, and that it was represented to them that they could not have religious instruction in common at a time,
412
when they were not alive to the reasons, was, he thought, an injury to the children's lives, and an enemy to that sense of common citizenship, which they all wanted to inculcate. It would be a great pity if the children were to learn, any more than could be helped that religious differences went so deep. The noble Lord said the child would see on one side of the street a church, and on the other a Nonconformist chapel. But why emphasise the fact of these differences: why carry the separation of the Sabbath into the days of the week? That was aggravating the evil. If, as the noble Lord admitted, it was an evil, there was no gain at all comparable to the loss which was involved in endeavouring to emphasise in the minds of children the differences which separated their parents. The parents were not separated for purposes of friendship, marriage, and social intercourse, and why should social separation be introduced among the children? The noble Lord said that they, on that side, alleged that the scheme he proposed was no wanted. He listened with particular interest to that part of the noble Lord's speech, because they had felt from the very beginning of the debates that, whereas it seemed to be assumed on the other side that there was a strong demand on the part of the laity of the Church of England for denominational teaching, they on this side never had the smallest evidence as to the existence of such a demand; and he was therefore curious to know what evidence the noble Lord would give. The evidence of the noble Lord was that the voluntary schools had gone on for the past thirty or forty years, and that there must surely be a desire for sectarian education if the voluntary schools had been kept up all these years. There was a very much simpler explanation, which was that there had been on the part of a numerically small but very active and energetic section of the population, an active force working for the keeping up of the voluntary schools—the force of the clergy and the small section of the laity that worked with them. He did not in the least complain of that zeal, as it was accompanied by conscientious motives which he respected; but it was zeal on the part of a small number of persons. The only force of the general body of the laity was vis inertice, the disposition to acquiesce, to let things go on, and

413
not take the trouble to change them. Further, it was common knowledge that the main reason why voluntary schools existed was because people did not want to rate themselves for School Boards. The noble Lord had said that two injustices did not make justice, and he admitted it was an injustice that the Nonconformist child should be compelled to go to a Church school, but he also said that it was an injustice for them to go to a board school. The Nonconformist parent did not want his child to be taught something that he did not approve of, but in the board school the child of the Church of England parent was not taught anything that the parent disapproved of There was thus a great difference between the two cases. A very large number of Nonconformist children were obliged to go to Church of England schools because there was no other school available; but in the board schools there were at least a million children belonging to the Church of England, although by far the larger number of the schools were in populous districts where voluntary schools were equally available. The evidence was overwhelming that the bulk of the Church of England parents were not sensible of any injustice, and there was no evidence whatever of a demand for any alternative to the existing system as far as the board schools were concerned. Why then should they disturb a system which, in the words of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, had worked well and smoothly for so long, and against which there were practically no complaints, in order to introduce a system fraught with very great difficulties?
LORD HUGH CECILsaid if the right hon. Gentleman looked at the next sub-Section he would see that was safeguarded.
Mr. BRYCEsaid it might be so but it ought to be safeguarded here. As the Clause stood, a child could not be withdrawn except for this particular purpose, and, so far as the inside facilities were concerned, the difficulties of that system were well known. It had been tried at Birmingham and had had to be dropped
414
because it did not work. Bringing ministers into the schools would be most embarrassing and disturbing to the daily work of the school. The noble Lord said they had only to provide for two types of religious instruction, but that was not so. In the Church of England itself there were two types which differed fundamentally from one another, and it was just as necessary to protect the parent who belonged to the Evangelical type from the teaching of the Romaninsing type, as the Nonconformist parent from either.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman proposed nothing to protect either one class or the other.
MR. BRYCEsaid, on the contrary, they proposed local popular control. They believed, and they were confirmed by the experience of Scotland, that where they had such control these things would work properly. If they were allowed to try that experiment they would promise that there would be religious peace. He sympathised with the main objects which the noble Lord had in view, but believed that he was taking the wrong road altogether. He thought that if the changes which the noble Lord proposed were introduced it would end in landing them in a purely secular system. He dared say that would happen in any case after a lapse of years, for if they looked abroad they saw that that was the solution at which democratic countries like the United States and the British Colonies had arrived. He did not believe that it was the general desire of the people of this country, but if they emphasised denominational differences, and put religious teaching into the hands of ministers of religion instead of the teachers, he believed it would end in religious teaching being relegated either to the Sunday school or to other times and places.
(4.35.) MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman's opening sentence suggested that his silence after his noble friend sat down was an indication of some perplexity as to the course he ought to follow in regard to the Second Reading of this clause. He did not at all deny that some perplexity existed in

415
his mind, though probably the right hon. Gentleman mistook its character and origin. On the general merits of the scheme proposed by his noble friend, and on the side to which the mere argumentative balance fell, he had very little doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, had a passage which filled him with amazement. He said "Only adopt the Scottish system, and we on this side promise you religious peace." When had they made this interesting discovery as to the methods by which religious peace could be secured? He had read many speeches, pamphlets, and observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially of the Nonconformist element, but he had never seen it suggested that what was desired by the Nonconformists and by hon. Gentlemen opposite was the adoption of a denominational system in public provided schools.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was not advocating the Scottish system at all. He thought that system a great deal better than this Bill, and if it were offered in exchange for this Bill he would take it immediately. What he had said, in answering the noble Lord, was that the difficulties now arising with regard to religious teaching in the schools would not exist under the Scottish system.
MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that he was in some doubt, which was not wholly cleared away by the explanation, as to what it was the right hon. Gentleman wanted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that denominational schools would be satisfactory to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican minority.
MR. BRYCE: I did not say denominational schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At all events, that was the kind of education that was given in a large number of Scottish public elementary schools. He was a great admirer of the Scottish system, but he never heard that it had reconciled Roman Catholics or Anglicans to the Shorter Catechism, and it was absurd to say that that system, with all its great merits, produced universal religious peace; on the face of it could not. He thought
416
there were in it many superiorities over the English system, but neither the English nor the Scottish system produced that universal religious peace which they all desired, although he thought that even the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to secure it. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, made a very unfair attack upon the motives which induced his noble friend to move this Amendment, and on the speech which he made in introducing it. His noble friend's opinions on theological subjects were not shared by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by the great body of Nonconformists, or by a large number of the English Church. But he did not hear a single word fall from his noble friend in the course of his extremely interesting and moderate speech which had the smallest reference, direct or indirect, to the theological and religious views which, as everybody knew, he held. He recommended his Amendment on grounds absolutely independent of any particular religious belief whatever, and his speech might have been made by any member of the Church of England, by any Wesleyan, by any Roman Catholic, and it would have been just as appropriate in their mouths as it was in his mouth. He did not wish to go into that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he touched, in a manner which nobody could object to, on some of the deeper things of religion; but he was astounded when he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman's idea was that religious teaching should be undogmatic. The right hon. Gentleman alluded in specific terms to the central doctrine of the Christian religion, than which nothing in this world was more intimately, inevitably, and necessarily bound up with dogma. He almost, for the moment, believed that the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into the vulgar and too common error of using the word dogmatic only in regard to those religious doctrines with which he happened to differ. He now came to the immediate question of the plan proposed by his noble friend. In principle he thought that plan a good one, and that in theory it was very difficult to find any conclusive argument against it, and he thought so the more after having heard the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. One of

417
his principal arguments was that it was a great injury to the children to segregate them into different religious camps, and that they ought not to teach children that they could not learn religion together. That was a very good sermon against the sin of schism; but let it be remembered that every Nonconformist body in this country, and the Church of England as well, if they liked, owed its separate existence to the fact that adults, at all events, thought they could not worship together. That was the very basis on which Nonconformity rested, and he could not understand how what was an obligation upon a very large number of the adult population should be regarded as highly inexpedient when they were dealing with the younger generation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that Christians were apt to exaggerate their differences. He wished to say nothing offensive, and he was sure he would not be suspected of saying anything offensive, to the great Nonconformist bodies, but his opinion was, and always had been, that many of the causes which brought these separate religious organisations into existence were insufficient causes, and it had been a great national and religious misfortune that the segregation of the population consequent upon these divisions had ever come into being. But they had to take facts as they unhappily found them, and, deeply as he deplored these religious divisions, he did not see that they made things much better by saying—"Let us admit that everybody when they grow up must differ, but so long as they are children let us assume they can agree." He saw no answer to that at all. He was sorry these divisions had come into existence, he believed many of them were wholly unnecessary, but if they existed and were to be maintained, he did not see how they could be maintained only in regard to persons of mature years, and the pretence made that the evils to which they had given birth could not affect those of tender years. He so far agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that he believed his noble friend exaggerated the difficulty of educating, at all events of Protestant children of various denominations, together. Then the right hon. Gentleman appeared to
418
think that he (the First Lord of the Treasury) was bound on behalf of his colleagues to resist this Amendment because it interfered with the Cowper-Temple Clause, and when introducing the Bill he had stated that it did not interfere with that Clause. That was a mode of interpreting Parliamentary pledges which was absolutely new and, if he might say so, utterly absurd. If his introductory speech had been inconsistent with the Bill, no doubt the First Reading would have been secured on insufficient grounds and false pretences. But the idea that because the Bill as originally introduced was not to be modified in any direction contrary to his introductory speech was one which hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to resent if he had used it as an excuse for not adopting some Amendment which they themselves had suggested. No such pledge was made. He would take the House so far into his confidence as to say that he had taken a great deal of trouble to prepare an Amendment, not indeed covering all the ground of his noble friend's proposal, but covering the particular subject of single school areas. That Amendment was taken through all the preliminaries short of being placed on the Paper and brought to discussion. He frankly admitted that he did not proceed with it for two reasons—each of some force separately, but which taken together, were of great practical force. One reason was that he felt perfectly confident that any such Amendment moved by the Government would create an enormous amount of controversy and friction inside and outside the House. It was perfectly true, as his noble friend had said, that there was a great body of opinion—of very highly instructed opinion—in the country which deserved to see some such solution as this of our religious difficulties. That was absolutely true, but he was convinced that when the great body of people whom the Amendment concerned, and whom his Amendment would have concerned—the country clergy and the Nonconformist ministers all over the Kingdom, and the great body of the teaching profession— considered the proposal, they would unite in the strongest opposition to it. They all knew the happy gift of imagination

419
which enabled, or indeed seemed to require, every man who considered how this Bill would affect him to imagine the extremest and worst possible case. What would happen? Every Nonconformist minister would immediately say, "The Church of England will invade the board schools; she is a great and wealthy body, with a vast staff of competent teachers at her command; she is wealthier than we are, and will flood the board schools; we have not the same command of teaching machinery, and a provision which nominally puts us on an equality will really act in favour of our rival." That was the picture the Nonconformist would draw. What picture would the country clergyman draw? He would say, "Kenyon-Slaney may be bad enough, but if the Nonconformist minister, who, unfortunately, is not on good terms with me, is to come into my school, and interfere with the teacher and the teaching, and persuade the children who are perfectly content with my teaching to be content with it no longer, the position will be extremely embarrassing and difficult, and there will be all sorts of quarrels in my parish." Just as the Nonconformist minister regarded the board school, so he would picture the worst possible case for himself. The picture would come before him in the darkest colours and the deepest outline, and he would say, "This may be a very good way of administering theoretical Justice, but I find it extremely inconvenient." And what would the great body of the teaching profession think? He believed that every public elementary teacher in the country would object to it. They would probably follow the example of the Nonconformist minister and the country clergyman and call up the worst possible picture of what might happen? They would say, "We have the task of disciplining our schools, of bringing order out of chaos; we have a very difficult task, and if our position as teachers is to be interfered with by every meddling minister of religion, Conformist or Nonconformist, within two miles of the schools, our position in the schools will be intolerable!" It was very hard to struggle with these great imaginative powers which they always found raised against any proposal of this kind. He had given a great deal of
420
most anxious thought to the Clause. It had, in fact, given him as much anxiety as almost any other problem connected with this Bill. After framing his Amendment, he saw that the practical difficulties in engrafting it upon the educational system were so great that nothing but the most absolute security for carrying out the object for which it was designed could justify him in throwing this burden upon an already overburdened Committee. Could they say that the Amendment would actually work very successfully in practice? They had not had much experience, but they had had some, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in the debate was justified in his reference to the Birmingham School Board. But the Birmingham School Board tried not precisely the same experiment but something like it, and which, for the purposes of this argument, was indistinguishable. They tried in the early days of their existence this experiment, and he imagined that the School Board would have preferred purely secular education, leaving the religious teaching to the ministers of religion. He thought that by universal consent the plan did not carry out either the intentions or wishes of its framers. He had not refreshed his memory, but he thought he was not wrong when he said that the School Board which finally put an end to the experiment was the School Board in which denominationalists had a majority, and which had a Bishop of the Church of England in the chair.
MR. MIDDLEMORE (): It was not a denominational school. The school was the one at Coventry.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think he was going too far when he said the existing School Board in Birmingham was a denominational one, that it had a Bishop of the Church of England in the chair, and, as far as this School Board was concerned, they would not desire to repeat the experiment which was tried and abandoned by their predecessors. When they remembered the enormously bitter hostilities which an Amendment of this kind excited in the country, and, secondly, the very doubtful prospect of it producing any sound practical result,

421
he felt constrained to come to the conclusion that he could not be responsible for suggesting it to the Committee even as regarded singleareas, and therefore, afortiori, he had to abandon a plan upon which he had much set his heart for the whole of the educational area. He had told the House exactly where he stood. He did not believe it was possible to add an immense controversial problem like this to the Bill at that stage. He did not see that it was now practical at all. If this were embodied in the Bill and they were now engaged in a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill he would go with the noble Lord without scruple; but if any vote of his in favour of reading this Clause a second time was to be taken as a pledge that the Government were going to make themselves responsible for any proposal of that kind, he thought they would be greatly misleading the House by adopting any such suggestion. Under these circumstances he could not vote against the Clause, but he should abstain from recording his vote on the question.
(5.10.) MR. YOXALL ()said the experiment suggested had been tried for many years by the Birmingham School Board under circumstances very favourable to it, and had proved to be a failure. The experiment tried by the School Board lasted over many years, and a most earnest effort was made to ensure its success, because there were many men in Birmingham who were not antagonistic to the teaching of religion in schools, but who held that the proper solution of the difficulty was the adoption of secular instruction by the State. They took special care to provide every possible facility for this teaching in Birmingham Board Schools, and it was tried under very favourable circumstances. It broke down: in the first place, because it became difficult to secure a sufficient supply of voluntary teachers; in the second place, because many of them could not teach; and, thirdly, because many of them could not maintain a decent show of order in the schools. Gradually the Birmingham Board was driven to see that religious teaching in board schools, within the limits of the Cowper-Temple Clause, was the proper solution of the difficulty, and that was the position of
422
the Birmingham Board Schools today. He denied that there was any effective demand throughout the country for the plan proposed. He would give to the House an example to show that there was no effective demand for this kind of teaching in the country. The only locality where this demand once assumed a practical form was in them Metropolis, when Mr. Athelstan Riley brought forward upon the London School Board a modification of the religious teaching syllabus, in order to give it a more direct sectarian meaning. It was only the addition of a word or two, but it was held by the Board, by the teachers, and by the parents that the addition of those two or three words would unduly dogmatise and sectarianise the syllabus of the Board. The next London School Board election turned upon the question of direct dogmatic teaching, and the proposal was so defeated that it had never been entertained since. He believed that Churchmen as well as Nonconformists were opposed to it. He suggested to the noble Lord that he was entirely wrong in supposing that if his plan were demanded and could be brought into practice it would produce the result he desired to secure. The noble Lord desired to have religious teaching in the day schools, and he did not seek it for one Church alone; he put forward a demand which, in his view, would satisfy and appease religious quarrels and promote a higher type of religious life throughout the country. He (the hon. Member) did not think the proposal made by the noble Lord would have that effect. It was impracticable to make children understand theological distinctions expressed in theological terms, which, no matter how much they were simplified, remained terms of art. To endeavour to impress theological terms of art upon the children would leave no impression upon children's minds which was comparable to the broad religious teaching which could be give by a skilled teacher. Because he believed that, so far from improving the religious level and the real moral tone of the schools, this proposal would damage and even lower them; because he knew from his own experience as a teacher that it would interfere with the general working of the schools; and because he believed there was no effective demand on the part of the parents for this kind of teaching, he was opposed to the Clause.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT ()asked leave to call attention to the position in which the House stood in reference to this proposal—a position which in a long Parliamentary life he had never had any experience of before. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, at the eleventh hour, said that he had given most anxious attention to this subject and had endeavoured to find a solution of a similar character. But he had come to the conclusion that it was utterly impracticable; that it would load this measure with a controversy of the most bitter kind; that, in his opinion, the Nonconformists would be against it; that the Church of England would be against it; and that the schoolmasters would be against it. And yet he would not vote against it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I would not vote against the Second Reading.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the House by encouraging the Second Reading of a Clause which would have the results which had just been described. The course the right hon. Gentlman had taken was to abandon the charge of this Bill, and to hand over to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the task of dealing with the religious difficulty in a Bill for national education. That was the net result of the speech of the First Lord. The First Lord would not cross swords with the noble Lord. He had said that this proposal was impracticable, and that, consequently, it would be mischievous; that it would introduce the religious difficulty in its worst form into this Bill; that everybody would be against it, and yet—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is correctly quoting me, he is quite mistaken. He is not representing me in the smallest degree.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for believing that attempts of a similar character were impracticable was that every one would look at this Clause
424
in its worst possible light. He described how the Nonconformist minister would think the clergy were invading the board schools; how the clergy would dislike the Nonconformist minister's going into his school; and how the schoolmaster would dislike both the Nonconformist minister and the clergyman going into the school. And yet he would not vote against the proposal. Was not that a most extraordinary conclusion for the responsible Minister in charge of a Bill of this description to come to? If a Clause that would have these consequences was carried, every class responsible for education would determine to destroy this Bill, and yet the right hon. Gentleman washed his hands of the transaction. A more remarkable situation for the head of a responsible Government he had never heard of. He believed no such example could be found in the history of the House of Commons. He did not know what was going to happen to this Clause, but he knew what was going to happen to the Bill if the Clause was carried. For his part, he should vote against a Clause which would have the consequences described by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that this Clause, which would be like putting two game cocks into a room to fight our their religious difficulties, was one of the most mischievous proposals that ever was made to a responsible representative Assembly. It had been tried before and it had failed, and these game cocks were no longer allowed to fight in the place where they fought before. What sort of thing would happen? He read the other day something which shocked him. A child was brought to be buried, and the curate asked whether it had been baptized. The parents said "No," and he said, "Then it cannot come into the church." Then at the grave the consolatory sentences of the burial service were omitted because the child had not been baptised.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (): What has that to do with this Clause?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was giving that as an illustration of what they had to deal with. By leaving

425
the decision of a question which went to the root of the religious difficulty in the hands of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, whom they greatly respected, but from whom they profoundly differed, the Government were not casting oil upon the waters of religious difficulty, but rather oil upon the flames. That the religious difficulty should be left in the hands of the noble Lord, and not in the hands of the Government, did not, in his opinion, promise well for the ultimate success of this measure.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that it was no part of his duty to answer the personal attack on his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. He had always understood that there were two stages of the proceedings on Report in regard to a new Clause. The first was the Second Reading of the Clause, when the principle on which the Clause was based was confirmed; and the subsequent proceeding was the adding of the Clause to the Bill, which was an entirely different proceeding, when the House might come to a different decision. He had not any official responsibility for this Clause. He would support the principle of the Clause by voting for the Second Reading if it went to a division, but he must insist on explaining that he did not consider himself in any way bound to vote for the addition of the Clause to the Bill unless it could be made workable, and one which would really operate in the interests of education. There was no more remarkable phenomenon in our educational system than the contrast between the profound peace that reigned in all the schools on the religious question and the violent tempests which prevailed on platforms, and, to some extent, even in this House, Why was that? The fact was that the managers of voluntary schools seconded by the teachers managed, notwithstanding the trust deeds, and notwithstanding the Cowper-Temple Clause, to give that religious instruction to the children which was acceptable to the parents of the children in the school. He did not insist that that was saying very much, for he must admit that a very large number of the parents of these children did not care what particular religious instruction their children were
426
taught. No doubt there were very devout parents who had strong views on religious matters, but, as a general rule, the parents of children in the elementary schools were not very anxious or careful as to the particular religious instruction given to their children. But the managers of the voluntary schools not only gave religious instruction which was satisfactory to the parents, but also not objectionable to the particular denomination to which the parents belonged, even in districts where there was only one school. And the reason was that the sort of religious instruction given was not of a controversial or dogmatic character; it consisted, for the most part, of the simple teaching of the facts of Christianity directly from the Old and New Testaments. He supposed that the Parable of the Good Samaritan, if it were taught to a child by a nun, would not very much differ from that given by a sister in a Church of England Sunday school. Nor was the Church Catechism a very controversial document. A very large part of the Church Catechism was not very distasteful to many of the Nonconformist bodies. [Some cries from the OPPOSSITION Benches of "Oh, oh!"] He knew that many Wesleyans did not object at all to the statements in the Church Catechism as to baptism or the Lord's Supper; and the teachers managed to teach even the Church Catechism in such a fashion in thousands of schools as to give no offence whatever to the parents of Nonconformist children. He understood that the Clause of the noble Lord was merely intended to carry out in all schools that which managers and teachers managed to carry out in thousands of schools all over the country now. It would be a slight improvement on the existing Conscience Clause. He had always thought the existing Conscience Clause defective, because it only allowed the children to be withdrawn from the religious teaching during the hour that that was given, and the children so withdrawn had to do sums or writing exercises while the religious instruction was going on. As to the second Clause of the noble Lord's Amendment, he did not read it at all in the sense suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—that interlopers were to come into the schools for the purpose of giving religious instruction, which would be the Birmingham case

427
revived, and which, he thought, was an extremely bad system. What he understood to be the meaning of the Amendment of the noble Lord was that religious instruction should be given to the children by the teachers of the school in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and a very large discretion was left to the local authority as to how that was to be brought about. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen said that that had not succeeded; but it had succeeded in hundreds and thousands of schools. In the great majority a Church schools teaching was given to which nobody objected, and which was accepted by not only the parents, but by the ministers of Nonconformist bodies. There was also a very large number of broad schools in which religious teaching was given of the most admirable kind which was accepted, not only by churchmen, but even by Roman Catholics. He had gone into schools in London where the children were receiving religious instruction to which no objection was made either by Churchmen or Roman Catholics; and he must say that he had never heard better religious instruction given them than by nonconformist teachers, under the Cowper-Temple Clause and the rules of the London school Board. But there was a certain number of country schools in which, no doubt, there was a desire on the part of nonconformist parents that their children should not be taught the church of England Catechism, or the doctrines of the Church of England contained in the English Prayer Book. He did not know whether it was a violation of the trust deeds or not, but there were hundreds of schools in which one set of children received Bible lessons while another set of children, in another class room, were taught out of the Catechism and the Prayer Book. He could assure the House that that was done with the greatest possible good effect. It was for that reason that there was such profound peace in the schools in regard to this religious question. He did not deny that there were isolated cases in which zealous school masters, or managers, had given instruction which had caused a great deal of disturbance and difficulty, but these cases were rare. He should say that there were not more than two
428
or three in a year, while he was at the Education Department. He understood that the Amendment of the noble Lord meant that it would be the duty of the local authorites to provide, in cases of that kind, for the separate teaching of those children whose parents did not like the religious teaching given in the schools and required some other religious teaching. That would work perfectly well with the good will of the managers, and would conduce to religious peace, and the termination of religious strife on public platforms. Holding these views, he should vote for the noble Lord's Proposal to amend the Bill.
(5.45.) MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire)desired to call attention to the extraordinary position in which the House was placed. The Question had been put from the Chair that this Clause be read a second time. The First Lord of the treasury had no idea of supporting it in the division lobby, but he had supported it in his speech. what would the position be if the Clause was read a second time? He supposed it would then be amended, and after Amendment the Question would be put that the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill, when the Government would reject it. Such a course was treating the House with contempt. Every one knew the Closure would fall on the debate at eleven o'clock, and it was not right to waste all this time over this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had spent a good deal of time and thought over this Clause, and had abandoned it because he found everybody was against it, yet now this was a Clause upon which the First Lord had no mind, and he was going to run away when the division took place. He had not intended to say anything upon the Clause itself, but as it was left an open question for the House, he might say he had no hesitation in voting against it. He thought they had no right to ask the State to contribute towards teaching dogmatic religion. If the people were called upon to contribute to the maintenance of these schools, the teaching should be such as that given in the Board Schools, and should not be distinctive of any

429
denomination. He did not wish the children to be brought up little bigots, as they would be under such a Clause In the West of England the "Bible Christians" were a very large sect, and he held in his hand an advertisement by a clergyman for a gardener, which read as follows—
"Wanted a gardener who understands green-houses and fruit growing; good wages and comfortable home to a first-class man."
And then it says—
"No Bible Christian or other incompetent person need apply."
What would be the state of affairs in such a parish as that if the parents were allowed to bring in different religious teachers to teach their various beliefs? It was surely ridiculous in this twentieth century to attempt to set up a system which would widen the religious differences among children. It would create the greatest confusion—a sort of theological Babel — in the rural school.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was right when he said there were different types and different forms of Church teaching in the various schools, because while the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was speaking he had received the following telegram — "Please oppose the Cecil Amendment. — Church Association." He opposed this Motion, however, not because the proposal before the House was radically bad, and would import confusion and bitterness into the schools. The main object of this proposal was that all denominations should have a right of entering into the schools and teaching their special form of religion; but there were both spiritual and practical objections to that. Those who favoured this proposal were those who looked at the schools from the outside; and those who opposed it looked at the schools from the inside. How was this sectarian canvass to be conducted? The only result could be to create wishes on the part of the parents which did not at present exist. Those who represented the Anglican Church were not very sincere in saying that they desired to consult the wishes
430
of the parents, or, at least, it was very late in the day for them to be so solicitous of the wishes of the parents after having ignored them for the last thirty or forty years. In the 5,000 districts where there was only a Church school the wishes of the parents had been ignored. The proposal contained in the Clause could only be carried out by grace and favour of the teacher; for every one of the volunteer instructors in religion would have to have a school-master beside him to maintain order. No teacher worth his salt liked the proposal. They all preferred to give the religious teaching themselves. There could be no smooth-working system if those who were hostile to it had to stand aside and keep order. He thought that it would injure the school and the children, who after all counted for something. The Committee was being asked to supersede he head teacher very frequently. Did they not think that it was a bad thing to lower his status? Did they not think that the whole furure of the school and of the children depended on the opposite process—on exalting him, on making him a man of influence and of prestige among the children of his school? He also thought that they were going to divide the school against itself, to destroy the religious unity of the school. They would have the children meeting together for some common lesson and then filing into separate class-rooms to worship God apart as if there were several gods. By this Amendment they were emphasising the divisions, obscuring the radical concurrences; and in his judgement it was rather a terrible thing to obscure these great and vital concurrences. He did not know in whose interest this Clause was proposed, but he felt sure that it was not in the interest of the children. The Dissenters would not have it, and although he did not know what the Roman Catholics thought about it, they would certainly not allow any Dissenting interlopers to come into their class-rooms and proselytise their children. They would repudiate it with indignation and talk of "atmosphere." He did not think special treatment in regard to Roman Catholic schools was either practical or feasible. All voluntary schools must come into the same plan. If special facilities were given to the Roman catholic schools, the Roman

431
Catholic religion would be more eatablished in this country than that of the Church of England. The noble Lord wanted to enter the board schools, and he and his friends had taken what was called, ratherabsurdly, Cowper-Templeism, as if it were a system of religion. It was not a system at all; it was not a religion; it was not a system of imparting religious instruction which was in some respects like the Scottish system. Members of the Church of England could enter the board schools now and teach their own doctrines. They did so now in Birmingham. The Church of England sent their teachers round, and lately they had been giving a set of discourses on the doctrine of the Trinity. This fact proved that the noble Lord's Clause was unnecessary. Anything could be taught in the board schools provided that a formulary was not used, and he could not see what the noble Lord was fighting for, unless it was for a formulary. If they abolished every formulary in Christendom he thanked God that Christianity would remain. Whether board schools or Church schools were good or bad, the religious teaching did not depend on the formulary, but upon the man. He might mention that there was one school whose services he recently attended, at which he heard a most beautiful prayer. He asked the head teacher where he got the prayer form. The reply was "I once taught in a board school, I found it there, and I brought it into this Church schools." Here they had the case of a board school without a formulary exalting and spiritualising the teaching of a Church school with a formulary. what was the essential difference? The teacher believed what he taught, and that was the whole thing. No parent had asked for his experiment to be tried—the system of Christianity by compartments. The noble Lord and his friends wanted to break up the religious unity of the schools, to make them sectarian, to make the poor little children sectarian, each with his own label, a label that no angel in heaven could read. Again, they would impoverish and secularise the teaching of the headmaster, abase his calling—he upon whom only the whole tone and atmosphere of the school depended, he who on some occasions must have mute lips and could not say a word for the faith that was in him. Oh! shame on you. He listened to many speeches of the noble Lord with
432
personal advantage, and could not see how any one with his delicacy of apprehension could support a scheme that struck him as being so monstrous and really so irreligious.
(6.15.) SIR WALTER FOSTER ()said he could not express in sufficiently strong terms his pleasure, as an old Birmingham citizen, at hearing Birmingham once more articulated in the house of Commons. During the School Board struggle in Birmingham they went through the various phases which had been discussed on this Bill. First, they had a School Board with a Church majority; then they had a majority whose object was to have no religious teaching whatever in the schools; and finally, they came to a compromise which had been the basis of the teaching so well described by the hon. Member for North Birmingham. The views expressed by the hon. Member were those held by a larger number of people in Birmingham, because they had had practical experience of the proposals that were made. When the difficulty arose as to how religious teaching should be continued in the board schools of Birmingham, a worthy citizen carried on a campaign in favour of a scheme almost identical with that of the noble Lord. The scheme was discussed in the Press and on the platform. At first sight it was received with general approval because it seemed to provide a means of getting rid of the religious difficulty by giving an equal field and no favour to all denominations. It was tried, but had finally to be given up as great city, with all its wealth of enthusiasm for education, with the various sects primed up to the highest pitch of energy, the scheme was found impracticable because sufficient teachers could not be found to carry on the work. In addition to that practical difficulty it was found that it would create a confusion and disturbance in the management of the school which would be fatal to the general scheme of education. He deprecated Members supporting the Amendment from a desire to heal religious differences. It would not heal them, it would accentuate and embitter them. It would place before the coming generation in every school the worst object-lesson they could have in religious differences. At an age when their minds were most

433
susceptible to such impressions there ought above all things to be an attempt made to put before them a common basis of religious teaching which would not be embittered by differences between one set of children and another. He asked the House to imagine a school divided into little sects, each sect trooping off to its separate room, to receive their religious teaching from a special teacher! Anything more likely to cause differences between sections of children could not be conceived. Religious differences would be forced into the minds of the children, to become a source of religious difficulty and schism in later years. He was convinced that this system, no matter how earnestly or on how high grounds it was advocated, would accentuate the religious difficulty and cause future religious strife, rather than provide a solution which in the common interests of education and Christianity all were anxious to find.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid it seemed to be the impression of some speakers that his noble friend the Member for Greenwich and those who supported this proposal wished to recreate or to make worse the religious difficulty in the schools. Nothing was farther from their intention. The Amendment was put forward with the simple desire to get rid of that which. over and over again, had been declared in the House to be a great religious difficulty. How many times had there been put forward the hard case of the children of Nonconformist parents in parishes where there was only one school, and that a school connected with the Church of England, in which the children received religious instruction according to the doctrines of the church of England or none at all. The number of these schools had been greatly exaggerated. As a matter of fact there were 7500 single school districts. Of those schools, only 5600 were Church of England, in which he admitted the Nonconformist grievance existed, but there were 1326 single board schools, in which Church of England parents, and those of every denomination had an equal grievance in that their children could get only
434
undenominational religious teaching, which did not satisfy them. The contention he put forward, simply with the object of arriving at a just and common understanding, was that it was only fair in all these cases that some separate provision should be made if the parents demanded it, so that the children might obtain religious instruction in the doctrines held by their parents. He was certainly disappointed that the proposal had not met with a more liberal response from hon. Members on the other side. At the sametime, he was to bound to admit that the difficulties which had been urged were chiefly of a practical order. Over and over again it had been said that the Amendment would not work. How was it that in Ireland, where religious differences were greater and more acute than in this country, a similar system had been in existence for many years and was working with absolute satisfaction? He preferred the proposal with regard to facilities outside rather than facilities inside the school, because it would interfere less with the children in the school. It was said that various people who had a right to be consulted would oppose the scheme. He did not think that would be the case as far as the great bulk of the energy were concerned, as the Prime Minister seemed to fear. Some would disapprove of it, but he believed the bulk of the country clergy, and certainly the majority of the town clergy, would be perfectly willing to make such arrangements in their schools as would enable the scheme to be carried out. Then they were told that Nonconformists would oppose it because they might have a poorer staff. His noble friend and himself had tried to meet these difficulties by a proposal which they thought was perfectly fair, and which would enable the local authority to give these separate facilities.
SIR HENRY FOWLER (): What sort of facilities?
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was afraid that he went would not be in order in discussing that. Separate rooms might be hired, and certain teachers inside the religion of the minority. He ventured to think that the real reason why hon. Members opposed this proposal was to be

435
found in one short sentence which occurred at the end of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for south Aberdeen, when he said, "If you will only give us popular control the whole thing will be settled." If that were so with popular control, would the right hon. Gentleman accept the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause? He would not object to complete popular control over all schools alike, provided that the Cowper-Temple Clause was abolished and the majority were allowed to decide what religious instruction should be given in every locality, coupled, of course, with such provisions in the interest of the minority as were contained in the new Clause of his noble friend.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that if they were agreed on that point they might arrive at a compromise. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] But he observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen shook his head.
MR. BRYCE: I do not approved of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I think it would be better than the Bill and I would accept it before the Bill, in my view, schools which receive grants from the State should give no denominational instruction.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid be was in favour of popular control in the fullest sense. He objected to the Cowper-Temple Clause because it limited popular control, by preventing the people of a locality from giving in the schools of that locality the religious instruction they desired. He regretted that the two sides could not come to some agreement in the matter. For his part he would go very far indeed to get rid of the religious difficulty. But no doubt it was too late to reconstruct the Bill at this stage; and taking the Bill as it stood it seemed to him that the only way to meet the grievance of those who did not believe in the religion taught in the one school of a district was to accepts the new Clause of his noble friend, which would give to the minority, whether Nonconformist or Anglican, the chance of obtaining for their children instruction in the religious doctrines which they professed.
436
So far from wishing to intensify religious differences, he had no object, except as far as possible to mitigate those differences, and allow the schools, untrammelled by any restrictions, to carry on the great work of education.
(6.35.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member for Tunbridge, who had just made an important suggestion, had confined his appeal to hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House. Why did he not appeal to the Prime Minister, and to hon. Members sitting around him, who were in a majority? It did not rest with the Opposition to dictate terms upon this question, for they were in a minority, and a very small minority. He should like to know what the answer of the Prime Minister would be to the hon. Member's suggestion. He could only speak as to what happened in Wales. In Wales they did not regard it as an ideal system, but they were ready to accept what the hon. Member for Tunbridge had suggested as a good working compromise, and they were willing to proceed to act upon it. He knew it was impossible to obtain an ideal system in education or in anything else. If the Prime Minister was in the same frame of mind now he did not think it was too late for him to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tunbridge. A great many Government Amendments had already been put down, and why could they not put a few more down to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Tunbridge. As to the new Clause, the Prime Minister had come to a rather lame Conclusion in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised it very severely, but he had given no guidance to the House as to how he desired his own supporters to act with respect to it. For all the House knew there might be a majority of hon. Members opposite who were prepared to carry it through. In that case, was the Prime Minister prepared to embody it in the Bill? He thought the Prime Minister was trifling with the House in not giving it definite guidance. If they only knew that the Government were going to resist this proposal they would not need to oppose it, and they might consider the matter at an end. The declaration of the Prime Minister meant that he was not going to take any step to get this proposal thrown

437
out. He should like to know how they would stand if the discussion upon this Clause was kept up until eleven o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER: The only Question to put to the House will be that the Clause be added to the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had understood that nothing but Government Clauses could be put. He understood from the ruling which had just been given that if an Amendment to this Clause was under discussion, assuming the Second Reading of the Clause was carried, at eleven o'clock it would be competent for Mr. Speaker to put the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill. It so, he thought the Parliamentary situation was a veery serious one indeed as far as this Clause was concerned. They might be adding to the Bill a Clause of the very greatest importance, without a word of guidance from the Government, who were responsible for the Bill. He frankly confessed that he did not understand the position of the Prime Minister. He had seen a report of a diocesan conference where they discussed this question, and where a resolution was moved in favour of the noble Lord's Clause. Once of the speakers said, "It won't be any use, because the Government will not accept it, and what is the good of wasting out time." Another ecclesiastical dignitary said, "Don't forget what happened with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, upon which the Government changed their minds:" and the same speaker further stated that the Government had only got to be squeezed and they would give in. What they wanted to know was whether the Government were going to be squeezed into accepting this Clause in the Bill. For his part, he took a different view with regard to the general principle of this Clause from that of many of his hon. friends. He did not say that in no circumstances should they contemplate the giving of facilities to religious communities to have their particular doctrine taught in the schools. Such a system was in operation in Canada and in New South Wales, and it worked well, because in these cases there was popular control, and that made a great difference. Was the noble Lord prepared to go as far, with regard to popular control, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge?
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Provided you abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was prepared to go as far a s that, because it made a considerable difference. If he was, he had beem wondering why they had been arguing at this for six or seven months, for whatever might be said about it, the plan suggested by the hon. Member or Tunbridge was a much better solution than the one contained in the Bill. He thought that even hon. Members on the Opposition side who objected to these facilities would admit that the suggestion put forward by the hon. Members opposite was a much better solution than that which was contained in the bill. He observed that the noble Lord opposite preferred to remain silent upon this point, and he thought this silence showed that he held a more extreme view than his hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge. He was afraid that the noble Lord was rather moving this Clause more in the interests of the sectarian schools than for a settlement of the religious difficulty. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had shown, at any rate, that he was in favour of something that would make for peace in this matter. But the noble Lord opposite was moving this proposal from a totally different point of view, because he did not suggest any proposal of the kind put forward by the hon. Member opposite. Popular control was the very essence of this matter. He would point out how it would make a difference in the working of the noble Lord's Clause. Supposing these facilities were granted to various religious denomiantions under the present system. What would happen? Let them face the facts of the situation, and let them consider actually what would happen. He was speaking for that part of the country which he knew best, and what would happen in Wales would be that both parties would use these facilities as a weapon to destroy one system or the other. He did not hesitate for a moment to say that in wales they would use it as a weapon. Did the noble Lord mean to say that he and his friends would not use it as a weapon in the English

439
counties where they had a majority, or in every Church school through out wales? The hon. member did not hesitate to avow that it would be used as a means of destroying one system or the other. There was nothing wrong, or anything that any one needed to conceal about it. Let the noble Lord not press this without knowing exactly what he was preparing for himself. Suppose that in wales there was a parish where eighty of the children were those of Nonconformist parents, and only twenty were the sons and daughters of Anglican parents. In that case the facilities provided by the Clause would be used in the way he had indicated. That was a very bad thing for the schools and they could only justify it as a means of bringing to an end the present dual system which he thought was most disastrous to education all round. As long as the present dual system was in existence, it worked unequally. What did it mean? As far as majority of the schools were concerned, the teachers maintained by the ratepayers would be giving instruction which would be purely sectarian. Therefore, if the Nonconformists wished the dogmas of their sect to be taught, they would have to make provision and do organise for the teaching of their dogmas in the whole of the elementary schools of the land. They would not start on equal terms with the denominational schools. A good deal had been said about the theological bitterness that would be introduced. That was perfectly true. He would put this to the House as a practical matter. There were a large number of children who belonged to no sect at all. It was a mistake to suppose that all parents desired to bring up their children in the dogmas of any particular sect. The fact was, that the majority of parents were outside of all sects. Who was to take charge of that class of children? They would have disputed territories, and disputes about spheres of influence. They would have hundreds of little theological Fashodas all over the country; one theological sect saving "That boy belongs to us," and another saying "He belongs to us." In these little theological Fashodas they would have one sect fighting with another. They would have endless squabbles, and there was
440
nothing so bitter as a quarrel about a thing of this sort. They would have at one time a child belonging to one sect, and in another week or a fortnight there would be a successful Jameson Raid, or there would be some local Major Marchand who would have the child taken away. That was exactly what would happen. It was not a question of superior dogmas, it was a question to superior buns. As a matter of fact, it was all a question of bribery and corruption in those cases. The noble Lord talked as if all those children were thirsting for Church dogma. There were simply ravenously greedy for buns. It was a question of blankets with the parents. This was the sort of thing that would go on. It would create wrangles and bitterness. It might be said that these things were trivialities. It was a great mistake to suppose that theology exalted people above these trifles. Quite the reverse. Theology rather exaggerated them. There would be bitterness and wrangling and jealousies—one sect saying, "We are only getting Tuesday. Monday is the best day, and you give that to the Methodists." Another would say. "Look at the Congregationalists, they have had the best class-room. We Anglicans have only got that miserable little apartment round there." The noble Lord was very anxious to spread the spirit of religion. He could assure the noble Lord that strife was not the atmosphere in which religion prospered. This sort of strife and squabbing would go on with the facilities given for this, what might be called, lamb-stealing—one sect crossing the boundary and taking sheep from the flock of the other. He knew that the noble Lord wanted some sort of cattle-branding process whereby they would fix on the children these marks. Although the noble Lord believed in Canon Moberly and his doctrines, these things did not divide the children. He had read Canon Moberly religiously, and he gave the noble Lord Dr. Clifford. He ventured to say that the noble Lord had the better of the bargain. These things were so abstruse that although he had been trained at a Church school he did not understand them. The idea of reading all these abstruse things, all this mysticism, and that they should read Canon Moberly in an Oxfordshire rural school to a lot of children! They

441
would not understand it. Children did not worry about these things. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said they had perfect peace in the the schools. Of course they had, and the children knew nothing about these theologies, and they cared less about them. Why on earth where they had peace should they introduce discord? They were proposing to bring these differences and these sects face to face. They would bring the children into physical conflict in some of those cases. There were some people who thought it was much more important to train children in some of the elementary ideas of the duties of citizenship. If they gave theological discourses, why should they not have political lectures? Why not bring them up in their views of politics? In a rural district they might have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford taking the children into a class-room and discussing the virtues of pure beer. That was a dogma the right hon. Gentleman believed in much more profoundly than anything else. If they were going to have the dogmas of the parent, what right had any one to dictate the lines on which they were going to proceed in these matters? The only successful way was that which had been followed in all our colonies and in America with no harm to the theology or dogma. Let not the noble Lord forget that there was much more dogma, much more doctrine, in America than in this country, and that more people in proportion attended the churches there. Yet their dogmas were not taught in their schools. They taught there what were called the Christian virtues. The noble Lord did not seem to think that these were of much importance compared with Canon Moberly. After all, the Christian virtues were undenominational, and the most important of them, charity, was certainly undenominational. The noble Lord made use of a very curious expression. He said that the real life was in those things about which the denominations differed. What an extraordinary proposition! The Christian virtues were the tree with the bark stripped off, the branches lopped, and the leaves gone, and the true life, according to the noble Lord, was in those things which enabled a man to quarrel with his neighbour about them. What a notion
442
of Christianity! All the rest was absolutely nothing. All he could say was that any other country but this could teach Christianity without introducing all these differences into the schools, and that was what we ought to do in this country. The noble Lord said that the children knew of these differences already, and could not cross a village green without seeing that there were churches and chapels. He could assure the noble Lord that he knew of villages where the children could cross the village green without seeing any chapel; where the chapel was put in the background, and there was no outward and visible evidence there, at any rate, of any of these differences. But there was a great distinction between the children seeing such evidence and bringing the differences into the schools with sectarian doctrine. What was wanted was to train the children as common citizens, not to give facilities for the introduction of these sectarian squabbles and wrangles into the schools, but to place every difficulty they could in the way of such introduction.
(7.5.) MR. TALBOT ()said that he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon who it was that was responsible for these religious squabbles and religious differences. It was not the supporters of the voluntary schools that were responsible for them. There was nothing about which they need squabble. Would the hon. Member say why it was alleged that there was a religious grievance? It was not they in the Church of England who wanted to raise religious difficulties.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman wished him to answer at once, he certainly would. The Church of England had 12,000 schools supported at the public expense, and 60,000 teachers exclusively appointed.
MR. TALBOTsaid it was quite right that hon. Gentlemen opposite should throw off the mask, and show that what they wanted was to eliminate all the voluntary schools in the country, and establish universal board schools. This was now the avowed policy of hon. Gentlemen

443
opposite, although they had, for a long time, refrained from coming to close quarters, and professed their willingness to do justice to the voluntary schools. By this Clause his noble friend did not create all this religious controversy. He and those who agreed with him had tried to meet the Nonconformist grievance by offering to give facilities which they thought would satisfy the Nonconformist conscience. The supporters of the Amendment had derived a very considerable accession of strength that after noon from the very remarkable speech delivered by the Leader of the House, who had disclosed the workings of his mind and had told them how he had come to his present condition of mind as to the effect of his noble friend's Amendment. The Prime Minister had said that if he were free to do what he liked, he would support the Clause moved by his noble friend, but that he did not think the Clause would work in practice. But all that they asked was to give them a chance to try whether it was workable or not. He believed that if the Clause were put in operation the anticipated friction prophesied would not arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, in the course of his speech had used language which had lifted them into a high and pure atmosphere, and that right hon. Gentleman, he believed, was in favour of the principles he and his friends were advocating, though he would not avow it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not see how the Clause of his noble friend could be practically worked. It had been practically worked in Ireland and in Scotland and why should a system which worked well in Ireland and in Scotland not work in England if fairly tried. He had heard of a case in the Western Highlands of Scotland where the inhabitants were partly Roman Catholic, and partly Presbyterian. The children in the school were divided into two separate divisions—the Roman Catholics going to one side of the school, and the Presbyterians going to the other side of the school, where each got their own particular religious instruction. No friction occurred, and the religious difficulty was solved.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he imagined it was the general wish
444
of the House that they should not delay long in coming to a conclusion on this matter. He had only one or two observations to make in regard to the merits of the Clause itself. He was content to accept as the expression of his own opinion the most admirable speech of his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen at the beginning of the debate but there were one or two things he wanted to point out. In the first place, the noble Lord, the author of this Clause, talked in a feeling way, and with great effect, of a double in justice, and had the idea that the one injustice could be set off against the other in justice— the injustice of the Nonconformist, or other man, outside the Church of England, who, in certain parishes, found that his child must be instructed in a faith not his own, while, on the other hand, there was a corresponding injustice inflicted upon the Church parent having his children in the school under the dominion of the School Board. There the noble Lord made the mistake, which was a very common mistake, of assuming that the School Boards were necessarily Nonconformist. As a matter of fact, that was not so. In the only part of England with regard to which he had seen an analysis of the membership of the School Boards there was a majority of three to two of Anglican members over all the other members of the School Boards. There was this further matter of fact, that in the majority of School Boards in the large towns, the Chairman was a bishop, or a canon, or some other dignitary of the Established Church. It must be remembered that these clergymen might or might not be placed on the Board by the operation of the cumulative vote; but the significant point was that, after being made members of the Board, they were elected to the Chairmanship by their fellow members. It was, in these circumstances, ridiculous to talk of a Nonconformist religion being foisted on the Church children by the School Boards. Yet, that was the common talk among the supporters of the Bill, and the common view taken by a large number of people in the country, even if the noble Lord himself did not use language so strong. There was no foundation for it whatever. He believed that that neutral representation of the fundamental

445
principle and doctrines of Christianity, which might be called the religion taught in the School Board schools, was eminently representative, at any rate, of the Protestant feeling of the people of this country, and therefore could not be antagonistic to the Established Church, because if the Established Church was not a Protestant Church it was time that the people of this country knew it. That was the first point that he wished to make against the argument of the noble Lord. Then it was said with regard to the alleged fair and equitable arrangement between the two parties in this matter, that, while the Anglican clergy would have access to the School Board schools, in order to see that their doctrines were duly taught to their own flock, the Nonconformists would have equal access to the denominational schools in the country parishes. The two cases were not on the same footing. In the one case there was a Church which was rich and great in influence and with any amount of staff—clergy and others—on whom it could draw to undertake this duty in all the schools. What provision was there in the country villages for the teaching of the different classes of religious opinion which might be found represented among the children of these schools? There was no equality at all in the matter. On that ground the provision seemed to him to be objectionable as it stood. But it seemed to him that the merits of the Clause were almost overshadowed by the extraordinary character of the position in which the House of Commons was invited to discuss this question. It must be borne in mind that the House was discussing this matter under the immediate prospect of the guillotine. This day was allotted for the discussion of all the new clauses and of all the Amendments upon the first four Clauses of the Bill. and the greater part of the time was to be occupied in discussing a Clause that had been on the Paper for weeks, as to which everybody's mind must have been made up; yet the mind of the Government was not made up. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government had taken a course which he believed had never been taken by any one in the right hon. Gentleman's position before. Here was a most
446
important Clause, which he said would be impracticable, and which might therefore cause mischief to the working of the educational system, and he stated that he approved of it in theory, but disapproved of it in practice, and that he would not vote either one way or the other. The House was to be left without his guidance—or, rather, with this double guidance—to find its way in this complicated, most vital, and most important matter. The right hon. Gentleman had conducted the discussion of the Clauses of this Bill in all its stages in a way to attract the sympathy, respect, and admiration of all who had attended the debates. But when it came to this important point, and there were other Clauses and Amendments which greatly demanded the consideration of the House, and which would not be reached because hour after hour was occupied in this discussion, the right hon. Gentleman had not had the courage to do what his words would lead the House to believe he ought to do—namely, to oppose the Clause. If he had done so, a division might have been taken two or three hours ago, and all this time might have been saved. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if this Clause were introduced into the Bill he could not be responsible for the Bill. At any rate, whatever the other words were, be used the phrase the he could not be responsible for the Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I said I could not be responsible for introducing it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman was responsible whether he liked it or not. It might be open to any individual Member to say he would not be responsible for introducing this Clause, and therefore he would not vote; but the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the Bill. He trusted that the House would reject the Clause, because he felt certain that the good object with which it had been introduced would not be accomplished, and that it would do a great deal of harm to the education and even to the religious interests of the country.
The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 576.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Grenfell, William Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Baldwin, Alfred

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lawson, John Grant

Tully, Jasper

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Cranborne, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Welby, SirCharles G. E.(Notts.)

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

Malcolm, Ian

Younger, William

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

Morrison, James Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. Talbot.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Myers, William Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Maxwell. WJH(Dumfriesshire)

Robinson, Brooke

Toulmin, George

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Robson, William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Milvain, Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tritton, Charles Ernest

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Runciman, Walter

Valentia, Viscount

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Rutherford, John

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Walker, Col. William Hall

Murray, Rt. HnA. Graham(Bute

Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)

Wallace, Robert

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Schwann, Charles E.

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Shackleton, David James

Wason, Eugene

Newnes, Sir George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Webb, Colonel William George

Norman, Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Weir, James Galloway

Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durbam

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, George (Nerfolk)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Whiteley, George(York, W. R)

Paulton, James Mellor

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Pemberton, John S. G.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Perks, Robert William

Simth, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Philipps, John Wynford

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pilkington, Lieut. Col. Richard

Spear, John Ward

Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

Plummer, Walter R.

Speneer, RtHnC. R. (Nothants

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.

Price, Robert John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stewart. Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Purvis, Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Strutn, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

Rea, Russell

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wylie, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tennant, Harold John

Yoxall, James Henry

Renshaw, Sir Charlews Bine

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Renwick, George

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, JA(Glamorg'n, Gower

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Colonel Sandys and Mr. Middlemore.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

Thornton, Perev M.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomkinson, James

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, further proceedings on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned until this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  (9.0.) MR. BRYCEmoved the adoption of a new Clause to remedy the inconveniences, confusion, and occasion for friction, which he has satisfied would be found to arise from the system of dual control of voluntary school buildings set up by the Bill. They were now attempting to create what had been called a national system of education, and surely one of its characteristics ought to be a certain measure of uniformity. He would suggest thata one of the best ways of removing the inconveniences of dual control would be to bring the school buildings under the control of the local authority, to transfer them from the managers or trustees, and to put them equally with the provided
  schools under the control of the local authority. This might properly be done by the application to the cases of section 23 of the Act of 1870. Let him say a word or two about the schools to which it was proposed to apply that section. They had got too much in the habit of talking about them as if they were the property of a denomination—of the Church of England or of the Wesleyans. But they were not in any sense the property of a denomination. They were schools held under certain trust deeds and incapable of being used except for the objects of the trust. The trusts were educational, and primarily for the education of the poor; in some cases, but not in all, they were for the education of children in the tents of a particular denomination. A crisis had arisen in the history of these schools. They could no longer continue under the old system. During the last few years they had more and more complained of the difficulty of supporting themselves; the managers had said it was impossible to get sufficient subscriptions to keep the school efficient and had applied to the Government for aid. The Governments under this Bill had come to their assistance and proposed to maintain the schools

  451
  out of the rates, while leaving the liability for repairs on the shoulders of the managers or trustees, or owners of the buildings. Under this proposal the local authority would become the owners of the schools either in fee simple or as lessee, would undertake the whole cost or repairs as well as maintenance, and would carry out the trusts, as far as might be, consistently with the changed circumstances of the time. That was to say, the local authority would carry out the primary object of the trust, that of providing elementary instruction, and would also provide for religious instruction by securing that the trustees or managers should be entitled to have religious instruction at such times as would not interfere with the ordinary secular instruction. The question arose on what terms the transfer should be made. Strictly speaking, looking at it as a question of law, it would appear that no Clause could be founded to have any payment made for the use of the schools, because after all they were charity schools held upon trust, which the State had a perfect right to vary. Suppose the schools were sold, no person had a right to appropriate the money. The trustees could not put it into their pocket. If, therefore, the schools were devoted to purposes of elementary education, no claim could arise in respect of them. It was necessary, however, to make a general arrangement. Acting under the Act of 1870, the Committee of Council laid down the principle that nothing should be given to trustees whose schools were taken over by the School Board, the only consideration to be the maintenance of the school; in fine, it was to be a gratuitous transfer. If, therefore, they were now to provide that these schools should be taken over at a nominal rent, they would be doing no more than was contemplated by the Act of 1870. His proposal was that the transfer should be made upon such terms regarding rent or purchase-money as may be agreed between the trustees and the local education authority, or, in default of agreement, fixed by the Board of Education, regard being had to the purposes for which, under the trust deed, the buildings may be used, to the sources whence the sums expended on the buildings were derived, and to the rights of user reserved to the trustees. That appeared to him to be a
  452
  reasonable compromise. The question followed, upon what basis the value of these school buildings should be estimated? Some very exaggerated and absurd estimates had been made of their total value; he had known it estimated as high as £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. He thought his hon. friend the Member for Wigan, however, estimated it at about £15,000,000.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL (): More than that.
  MR. BRYCE: If they made the various deductions which ought in reason and equity to be made from any estimate of the capital value of these schools, he thought less than half of £15,000,000 would probably fairly represent their value. They would have to deduct the schools not under trust, the property of private owners, which were not covered by this Amendment. They would find, too, a large number of schools which had been erected to a great extent out of building grants from the National Exchequer, and on land which had been given without any denominational condition. There was a large number of these schools which were undenominational; and, in addition, he believed a great many of the schools would be handed over by the denomination. They must consider, too, that the buildings were not saleable, partly on account of the trust, and partly because they were not fitted for other uses. Putting all these things together, he believed the value would be reduced to a figure which would not impose any very heavy tax on the resources of the local authority. He therefore suggested that the proper course for them to take would be to empower the local authority to purchase or lease these schools—he did not think the power should be made in the first instance compulsory; and that if the parties could not agree on terms the value should be settled by the Board of Education. What was their desire was that the control of all buildings should be in the hands of the local authority, and that there should be the same kind of jurisdiction for all schools. Although this scheme no doubt departed from that hitherto advocated by the Government, it would have the greatest possible advantage of being uniform and simple.

  453
  New Clause:—
  "The managers or trustees of any school which by its trust deed is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school shall at the request of the local education authority transfer the school buildings to that authority either by way of lease for a term of years renewable for ever or absolutely, Pursuant to section twenty-three of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, upon such terms regarding rent or purchase-money as may be agreed between the trustees and the local education authority, or, in default of agreement, fixed by the Board of Education, regard being had to the purposes for which under the trust deed the buildings may be used, to the sources whence the sums expended on the buildings were derived, and to the rights of user reserved to the trustees. Provided that such managers or trustees may reserve out of such transfer to trustees, to be nominated by them for that purpose, the use of the school buildings when the same are not being used for school purposes, and may provide for the giving of any religious instruction, over and above that which may be given by the teachers, either before the opening or after the close, or both before the opening and after the close, of the ordinary school hours, under the direction either of the last hereinbefore mentioned trustees, or of such person or persons as the last hereinbefore mentioned trustees may from time to time appoint. "—(MR. Bryce.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had listened to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with a good deal of surprise. If he had not known the right hon. Gentleman to be and eminent constitutional lawyer he should have termed his proposals revolutionary, and to a certain extent predatory, and they would involve such and entire change in the policy of the Government that it could hardly be expected that they would for a moment be entertained. The right hon. Gentleman began with a kindly consideration of the difficulties under which voluntary schools would labour when the local authority had a very large user of the building, and he was so kind as to suggest that the difficulties in regard to the school buildings might be solved by a happy and rapid process of extinction of the voluntary schools. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of cases in which land had been given for purposes of the construction of a school without any denominational condition, although by
  454
  long practice the school was denominational, and such schools he proposed to hand over to the education authority without inquiry into the intentions of the original donor. Then he proposed a process of expropriation to which the owners of the property were to have no alternative. He founded himself on Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, but did not dwell on the important fact that the provisions of that Clause were optional. That was a very different thing from a compulsory process of expropriation in which the persons having the legal ownership of the land had no choice, and under which the local education authority was to be empowered, as its own request, to take the land whether the owner would or no. It was a very different thing to take land without an option at a price to be ascertained and to allow land with liabilities upon it to be handed over at the request of the persons interested. The Board of Education might thus fairly say, "If you choose to get rid of your liabilities in this way there shall be a nominal price or the rent shall be a peppercorn rent." But assuming, as the right hon. Gentleman did assume that in these cases a substantial rent or a substantial price would be demanded, what was the process? Surely under such circumstances there would be a reference to some form of legal inquiry, so that the authorities might be satisfied that their claims had been assessed by a tribunal used to dealing with such matters. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act with a reference to arbitration or to a sheriff's jury would be the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. Under other circumstances questions of a similar kind to this had been referred to the proper machinery under the Lands Clauses Act with a sherif's jury, or a court of arbitration. There was to be a reservation to the trustees to nominate other persons under whose supervision religious instruction, in accordance with the terms of the trust, or the practice and principles under which the trust had been administered, was to be given out of school hours. That surely was a very poor representation of the terms of the trust or the practice and principles of the school as they had been conducted in the past, and under which religious teaching had been

  455
  given as a part of the children's education. He held the strongest opinion that religious instruction, if it was to be of real value to the child, should not be given by a separate instructor and at a separate time but should really be a substantial part of the education of the child. He asked the House whether it was not a complete departure from the principles upon which this matter had been conducted, that these schools should be taken away from the ownership under which they had hitherto existed, and placed under the local education authority under which the religious instruction hitherto given as part of the school daily course would be given by a separate instructor at different times? He did not think this could be considered as any sort of equivalent for the system under which the schools had existed down to the time of this compulsory appropriation. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was not merely a serious invasion of the rights of property, conducted under the semblance of a kindly consideration for the difficulties of trustees. It was also an absolute reversal of the policy of the Bill, an entire departure form the intention of the Bill to preserve denominational schools where they were capable of supporting themselves and maintaining their independent existence and the instruction which they had given to the satisfaction and advantage of the area in which they were situated. He hoped, therefore, the House would not delay long in expressing its opinion that the new Clause could not be accepted.
  (9.35) MR. GEORGE WHITE ()said he desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend. He did so partly because it contained the principles of a Resolution which was agreed to unanimously by the City Council of Norwich, which was composed of a majority of the supporters of the church of England, and in which they declared that a solution of the religious difficulty was to be found by the authority hiring and taking possession of the various schools known as denominational schools. The hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House said that this proposition would be revolutionary, but a
  456
  proposal which had received such support could not be regarded in that light, and particularly in view of a letter which had been Written by one of the most trusted and honoured Churchmen of Norwich—Archdeacon Sidney Pelham. In that letter reference was made to the fact that the question was forcing itself upon many Churchmen whether the time had not come when the Church of England might safely surrender her schools to the strong and sympathetic influence of religious people. It was also pointed out that as the denominational schools were depending more and more upon the taxes, and quickly becoming the schools of the nation, that they should be dealt with in a way similar to that proposed by this Clause. They heard these schools described too often as "our schools." When it was remembered what large sums of public money were paid for their support, it was, in his opinion, an entirely unwarrantable claim to speak of them in this manner. Some of these schools were used for an entirely opposite purpose to that for which the grants were given them. There were some in Norwich which were used as parish rooms and Sunday schools, and in no sense used as elementary schools. It should be emphasised that these schools were not the private property of one denomination. They received large grants of public money to carry on certain duties, and if they failed to perform them they should either transfer them, so that they could be used for the purpose for which the grants were made, or the money should be refunded to the public authority. He believed it was true that the Free Church of Scotland transferred the whole of their schools to the public authority without any payment.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (): Because the religion was to be maintained.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid Members on the Opposition side were quite as anxious for religious teaching as hon. Members opposite. As the Council of Norwich said in their resolution, there should be simple Bible teaching, with the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, and for special denominational

  457
  purposes facilities should be given as described in this Clause. The value of a large number of the schools in Norfolk had been greatly overrated. Many of the schools were old, and would have to be dealt with in a very drastic way if they were to be used for the educational requirements of the day. In Norfolk more than £30,000 of public money had been granted towareds the building of these schools. When they were taken over from the private owner their capital value woule be much smaller than the general estimates offered to this House and to the country. He warmly supported this proposition.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLreminded the House that there were such persons in the world as private owners. Many of these schools had been conveyed under the Schools Sites Act, with the proviso that in the event of the land ceasing to be used for the purposes mentioned it should revert to the owners whence it came. Clearly a provision such as the Clause contained would amount to absolute confiscation. He knew a case where a site was conveyed under the Schools Sites Act, but as it became totally unsuited for the purposes of education owing to a change in the population, it reverted to the owner. If this proposal had been in force that site would have been lost to the owner. In this instance the site was valued, and the owner gave to a new school the full value of that site. Still the owner was entiled to that site, seeing that it had ceased to be used for the purposes of a school. He contended that to take away that site from the owner would have been absolute, direct, and complete confiscation. He did not think that he need dwell upon the arguments of previous speakers, but he would point out that here was the greatest difference between the Section of the Act of 1870 and the Clause moved by his right hon. friend. Some of them thought the Act of 1870 was very harsh, and many schools had been transferred in a panic which, if more time had been granted, would never have been transferred at all. The friends of voluntary schools had to deal with the facts of the case, and he thought they had done their best under difficult circumstances.
  458
  They must remember that their Roman Catholic brethren had never transferred one single school, and had shown in this respect an example to protestants which they would have done well to have followed more closely. In the case of the Act of 1870, the consent of the managers was required, but in addition there was a power given of prohibition upon alienation except by the consent of other outside persons. When the National Society made their grants they imposed a condition that their consent would be required for the transfer. In cases where the old school was in a bad condition, the National Society had given their consent; but in many cases, by withholding their consent, in the course of a year or two a more wholesome condition of opinion had arisen, and schools had been saved. Under this proposal all those schools would be doomed. In the Act of 1870, as regarded voluntary schools, they had found that the principle of partial transfers had entirely failed, and they had already ceased to sanction transfers under those conditions. The reason was that if they transferred the schools for certain hours only they had found so much friction and inconvenience that the working of that scheme was absolutely impossible. They had been taught by experience that this partial transfer during certain hours of the day and for certain purposes did not answer in practice and had caused great disappointment and could not, in justice to voluntary schools, become a part of the national system of this country.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that in and about 1871 a great number of these transfers took place, and he thought they took place beneficially for the national interest. The National Society since then had done its best to prevent these tranfers and they had now been told by the hon. Baronet opposite that the Naional Society meant to pursue that policy to the end and adopt the same course with regard to transfers arising out of this Bill. He wished to point out to the hon. Baronet and to the First Lord of the Treasury that perhaps a proposal of the kind made by his right hon. friend might be advisable as a safety value for use when this Bill

  459
  became an Act of Parliament and came into operation. Many localities would regard this Act with great suspicion and would be inclined to use the legal rights which they possessed both within and outside the limits of this Act to the utmost. One of their rights would be, in the case of a quarrel between the managers and themselves to refuse to deal with the managers in the way the managers might desire. The hon. Baronet opposite had referred to the Schools Sites Act. There were hundreds of cases in the country where, if the question was looked into by a court of law, it would be found that buildings originally erected by a trust, to which contributions had been made in the way of building grants by the Board of Education, were now in the possession of a denomination, and were not being used for day school purposes at all. The House might depend upon it that these local authorities, through their municipal and legal advisers, would take steps to discover what was the legal position of these schools, and in the event of a quarrel, and if it became impossible to carry on the school. then this question of the legal ownership of the building and the reversion of the site under the Schools Sites Act would be gone into and would be considered in a very awkward way. Therefore it appeared to him that the proposal would be a valuable provision in the working of the Bill as a safety value against that kind of thing. In many cases the buildings would cease to be used as a school because of a quarrel between the local authority and the trustees, and it would be wise to insert a provision to relieve the difficulty which would arise. In the Act of 1870 it was laid down that schools could be leased at a nominal rent or otherwise. For some reason, the Board of Education in 1871 laid down by Minute that only a nominal rent was to be paid. His right hon. friend now proposed to allow more than a nominal rent to be paid, so that the trustees might in that way obtain funds for the maintenance of the fabric and the upkeep of the building. Unless some such provision was made, either in the Bill or by Minute of the Board of Education, in case of difficulty or quarrel there would be no alternative but to call in the School Sites Act, and the operation
  460
  of the provisions under which building grants were given. The trustees might find themselves unable to carry on the schools as voluntary schools, having lost their parliamentary grant, unable to carry on the schools with the assistance of the local authority because of a quarrel between the local authority and the trustees, unable to sell their building because of the lien which the State had upon them in respect of the building grant, and yet unable to give over the site of the building to the original donor under the School Sites Act. The hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Board of Education, would do well to consider the propriety of issuing a new Minute with regard to the rents for such schools.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)said the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education appeared to be labouring under considerable misapprehension. He had spoken about compulsory expropriation, and had used other expressions indicating the opinion that the trustees of this property were the owners. The trustees were not the owners; and therefore the word "expropriation" was altogether inappropriate when the beneficial ownership remained in the same persons as before. The beneficial owners were the persons on whose behalf the trust had to be exercised, and the trustees were merely the nominal owners in whom the lega lestate was vested for purposes which were of no benefit to them, but were a labour and obligation upon them. The duties of the trustees were now to be shifted on to other shoulders, and it was right and proper that the machinery given to them to perform those duties should be handed over also. He quite recognised that there might be subsidiary trusts on which the property was held to a certain extent. The trustees might have the use of the buildings for Sunday School and evening services, but the Clause was so framed as to safeguard such cases. The House ought to face the situation boldly, and say that, so far as the buildings were impressed with a trust for public education, they should be transferred to the body in whose hands Parliament had placed the duty of administering public education.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment was an important one, and he should support it as a possible alternative to the Government's proposal. The Secretary to the Board of Education had described the Amendment as" Predatory." but how could that be when a rent was offered for the building? It was altogether a question of the amount of rent. The trustees were surrendering the functions for which they were created as a trust, and if they were surrendering their liabilities, was it too much to say that they must also surrender their assets? But his right hon. friend did not go as far as that. Where was the robbery in taking over a trust in which the balance was on the wrong side? Robbery came in when you deprived a man of his property for your own benefit. Here there was no benefit except that of the public; from the financial point of view it would be a burden on the locality. According to the Bishop of London the rent value of these properties was £750,000. He believed that to be a grossly exaggerated estimate, but for the purposes of argument he would accept it. The exclusive use of the buildings for religious purposes on Sundays and week evenings was surely worth £250,000. That left £500,000 which might be charged against the State, although, when it was remembered that these were purely educational trusts, it was not right to so charge the whole of them sum. However, the Government, under this Bill, were giving by way of a grant in aid £1,200,000, less than one half of which would have settled the whole problem and nationalised all the schools, without depriving any body of trustees of their rights in the property. It was a grave misfortune the Government had not faced that problem. The Amendment
  of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich demonstrated that in his view, the religious difficulty would be met in more than half the parishes in the Kingdom by the granting of facililties for teaching the dogmas of the particular sections in the National Schools. That condition would be met by the proposal of his right hon. friend, and no one would contend that education would not be better served by the complete control being vested in one body rather than in two bodies which were hostile upon several points.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEexpressed his regret that the proposal had not been brought forward in a voluntary rather than a compulsory form and that opportunity had not been given to the House to consider proposals of a more moderate character. If certain proposals to facilitate the voluntary leasing of schools under certain conditions had been brought to discussion, the Government might have seen their way to amend Section 23 of the Act of 1870, which certainly did not give the facilities for transfer desired in certain places. Owing to the action of the Board of Education and the National Society that Section for many years had a very limited operation. If a freer hand had been given to managers and fewer consents required, he believed they might have achieved the end desired by many people, viz., the stamping of schools with a public character, and at the same time securing the denominational teachers.
  (10.12.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes,102; Noes,196. (Division List No.557.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Brigg, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, GeorgeM. (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Burt, Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buxton. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Bell, Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Black, Alexander William

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas, JA.(Glamorgan, Gower

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tomkinson, James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Perks, Robert William

  Toulmin, George

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Price, Robert John

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rigg, Richard

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Whiterey, George(York, W. R.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Runciman, Walter

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wilson, Fred W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Acerington

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R (Northants

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Disracle, Coningsby Ralph

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hobhouse, RtHnH.(Somers't, E

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dyke, RtHon. Sir William Hart

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoult, Joseph

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Mane'r

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col W.(Salop

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Keswick, William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fisher, William Hayes

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bigwood, James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bond, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Lawson, John Grant

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Flower, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagn

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bull, William James

  Garfit, William

  Lockie, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Macartney, RtHn W. G. Ellison

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hain, Edward

  M'Arthur. Charles (Liverpool)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  M'Cann, James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. RobertWm.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Helder, Augustus

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

  Dewar, SirT. R.(Tower Hamlets

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  464

  465

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tufnell, Lient.-Col. Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tully, Jasper

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, John

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sack ville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Walrond, Rt. HnSirWilliam H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Nolan, Col John P.(Galway, N.)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Skewes-Cox. Thomas

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Pilkington, Lieut,-Col. Richard

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Purvis, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Remnant, James Farqubarson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, William

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Blue

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(OxfdUniv.

  Renwick, George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Ridley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Richie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  (10.25) MR. CHANNINGsaid that the effect of the new Clause which stood in his name was to practically restore to the local authority the option which had been removed by the striking out of Clause 5. It would enable the County Council and County Borough Council to continue the School Board as the education authority. He had not placed this new Clause upon the Paper with a view to rendering a mere barren testimony to the virtues of School Boards. He felt certain that they would come back after the passing of this Bill before long to something like the old ad hoc machinery. He did not believe that the people of this country would for long consent to leave education in the hands of a non-representative cabin-window committee, largely of officials and interested persons, and to put up for any length of time with a system that did not directly represent the people in educational matters. The only objections he had heard against the School Board system were those with which they were so familiar and which had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He had always regarded those as cap-and-bell arguments. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of School Boards as exciting no interest, but he could not have taken part in School Board work or a School Board election or he would never have used such an argument. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to make a case against the School Boards by quoting the instances of a handful of School
  466
  Boards in tiny villages containing some-what backward and sleepy communities, where perhaps a few thousand children had been submitted to a parsimonious regime. Because a few village schools like that had been starved by cheese-paring farmers they were calmly asked to set aside the democratic School Boards of the great towns representing populations by the hundred-thousands, the instruments which had rescued the people by the million from the ignorance and absolute barbarism of thirty years ago. That was the argument, and it was an insult to the intelligence of the country and of this House to thus invite them to sweep away the machinery which had worked, and was working, such splendid results. They had been taunted with the argument that there was no demand for the retention of the School Board system. At the North Leeds election the wonderful victory which was won there was almost entirely fought out on this one question of the absolute incompetence of the Town Council on Leeds to deal with education, while the democratic School Board of Leeds had produced the most recognised the duty of providing a complete alternative scheme to that of the Bill, and had placed other Clauses on the Paper for the creation of district School Boards and a central court authority for controlling all branches of education, so as to give effect to the scheme laid before the country by Lord Spencer He begged to move the new Clause standing in his name.

  467
  New Clause—
  "The Council of a county or county borough, or of any borough with a population of over ten thousand, or of any urban district with a population of over twenty thousand, may, after such notices and under such regulations as the Board of Education shall prescribe, determine by resolution that any existing School Board within the county, or the existing School Board in any county borough, or in any borough with a population of over ten thousand, or urban district with a population of over twenty thousand, as the case may be, shall be the local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of this Act within the area for which such School Board has been formed, and thereupon such School Board shall have throughout their area, in respect of Pat III. of this Act, all the powers and duties of a local education authority under this Act as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said that this proposal involved an entire reversal of the policy of the Bill. He did not know whether he was right or not, but he thought he heard the hon. Member say that te Town Council of Leeds was absolutely incompetent to deal with education. He could hardly think that the hon. Member was serious in that statement. Personally, he believed that the Town Council of Leeds was most competent for that work. He believed, also, that all the best elements of the present School Board in Leeds would be placed at the service of the new authority under this Bill, and either as members of the Town Council or the Education Committee, those people, who in Leeds had done such noble educational work, would put their services at the disposal of the community as in the past. This new Clause involved the sacrifice of that
  468
  principle which was an essential feature of this Bill, namely, the co-ordination of all education, both secondary and elementary. He hoped the House was not prepared to abandon principles which had been so thoroughly established in their previous debates, and he trusted the House would reject this proposal.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he had no doubt that the time would come when the Government would have to go back on the present policy. There was a great deal to be said for making great School Boards the authority for all forms of education. He remembered that in the year 1899 the late Vice President of the Council spoke in terms of eulogy of the work of our great School Boards. It would be a most unfortunate thing if the work of the Scholl Boards in our great cities and towns was in any way hampered or interfered with by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, speaking at Bradford on 11th January, 1899, stated that there was a great deal to be said for making the large School Boards the education authority for all forms of education. He felt confident that the time would come when the right hon. Gentleman would have ample proof that by this statement he had made a perfectly correct prophecy. He had no doubt himself that the personnel of the Leeds Town Council was as good as the Leeds School Board, but he felt that by handing over this great educational work to a committee, or to another body which was subject to any other authority, the work would break down from physical reasons, and the time would come when they would have to go back upon the policy of this Bill, and re-establish the ad hoc form of local government for educational

  469
  purposes. In Leeds they had an enormous expenditure of about half a million of money upon education. They had a great many school departments and tens of thousands of children, and thousands of teachers connected with elementary education, and besides this there was also in Leeds the higher and technical education to be dealt with. Therefore for any municipal council to take over that work meant placing upon them more work then they could do thoroughly. The result would be that in Leeds the educational work would immediately devolve upon a committee more or less nor-representative in its character, and the consequence would be that the officials in all great towns in the future would be the persons charged with the administration of education. In such places as Leeds, Birmingham, Nottingham, Bolton, Manchester, and Liver pool, education would be, for the most part, in the hands of the officials, and he thought this would be the greatest educational leap in the dark which this country had ever taken. Without making any reflection upon the capacity of the Leeds Town Council, he had no hesitation in saying that this Government and its successor would find it necessary in the future to go back to the ad hoc principle. When the Government proposed to apply this Bill to London he should do his level best to show that London presented a case which could only be efficiently dealt with under the ad hoc principle. He hoped his hon. Friend would press this proposal to a division. He had every confidence that the Government would before long regret that it had wiped out by this Bill the experience, the capacity and the public spirit of great public bodies like the large Scholl Boards of this country, which, according to the
  470
  late Vice President of the Council, had done such magnificent educational work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON ()said that he did not desire to argue that point of the small School Boards, but he held very strong views in reference to the position of the great Scholl Boards. He had to keep in mind the fact that they had been told that within a very few months the question of the London School Board would be dealt with on the lines of this Bill. What this Clause did was to give an option to the local authority created by this Bill if they found that they were incompetent to carry out the work, and instead of forcing this educational work upon them to destroy the good work which they were at present doing they would have the option of leaving the educational part of their work in the hands of the authority which up to now had carried on the work in such an admirable way. That was no reflection whatever upon the local authority, whether such authority was the County Council or the Borough Council. They could rely upon it that the local education authority would not leave this question in the hands of the School Board unless they were not able to carry out the work themselves. This Bill threw the educational work on the local education authority whether it broke down or not, and the result would be as was stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the work of education would be placed in the hands of the officials. That was the position which the Government had been forced to accept, and the House must remember that the one authority promised upon the introduction of the Bill had now entirely disappeared. He was sorry that the argument of the one authority had

  471
  "taken in" one or two of his hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House, but he thought they were now beginning to see their mistake. The only point they had now to consider was what was the best way in which this educational work could be carried on. The Attorney General had stated that the work could be delegated to Committees, but surely it was better to allow the local authority the option of permitting the present educational body to carry on the work than to create a new non-representative
  Committee which might be incompetent to carry on educational work. He confessed that he felt that there was enormous force in the proposal made by his hon. Friend, and if it were carried he thought it would help enormously the efficient working of this Bill.
  (10.43.) Question put.
  The House divided;—Ayes, 106; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 578.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Harwood, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ashton, Thoms Gair

  Hayne, Rt, Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shackleton, David James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bayley, Thomas(Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphrerys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R.(Northants

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Stevenson, Francis. S

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lambert, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, J. A(Glamorgan Gower

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, Georghe

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crombie, John William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Douglas. Charles M.(Lanark)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Duncan J. Hastings

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone)

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, Fred, W.(Norfolk, Mid

  Fenwick, Charles

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson John (Durham. Mid)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. George White.

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bartley , Sir George C. T.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hain. Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashf'rd

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bowles, Capt, H. F.(Middlesex)

  Hatch. Ernest Frederick George

  Remnanat, James Farquharson

  Bull, William James

  Helder, Augustus

  Renwick, George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Henderson. Sir, Alexander

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H.(Somers't ,E

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Robertson Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy. A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sackville, Col S. G. Stopford-

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sadler, Col, Samuel Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse>

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Saunderson Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Keswick, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Cranborn, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Spear, John Ward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh -Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stewart. SirMark J. M. Taggart

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lockie, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sturt, Hon Humohry Napier

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Long, Rt, Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Talbot, RtHnJ. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison

  Tufnell. Lieut. Col. Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tully, Jasper

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col, William Hall

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maxwell. WJH (Dumfriesshire

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Finch, Rt. Hon George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E.(Tannt'n

  Fison, Frederick William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshipre)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morgan, David J (Walth' mstow

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson. J. W. (Worcetersh. N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wodehouse, Rt .Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Gibbs, Hn. AGH (City of London

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Myers, William Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Newdegate, Francies A. N.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.

  Younger, William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Greene, Henry D, (Shrewsbury)

  Pemberton, John S. G .

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Gretton, John

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  (10.55.)MR. HELME (), in moving the Clasuse standing in his name, said that in the few minutes remaining he could only point out that the adoption of this Clause would reduce
  to a minimum the objection held by many to sectarian teaching in elementary schools. No settlement could be come to except by consent, and he thought they had a right to ask, especially in

  475
  the 8,000 parishes where there was only one school, that the religious instruction should be given in such a form as to be generally acceptable to the members of the different Churches. As the Bible was the common ground of Chirstianity, accepted by all the Protestant Churches as the basis of their teaching, catechetical or otherwise, he ventured to suggest that by the arrangement proposed to devote the first hour of the day on four days a week to general biblical instruction they would be meeting the wishes of those Nonconformist parents who desired that religious instruction should be given to their children but objected to have to withdraw them under the provisions of the Conscience Clause. By giving the catechism lesson during the last half-hour of the school meeting, those children might be allowed to go whose parents did not wish them to remain. He, therefore, urged the Government to accept this Clause, as affording a means of meeting the difficulty. He Knew cases in which the
  proposed arrangement had worked remarkably well.
  New Clause:—
  "It shall be a condition of every public elementary school not provided by a local educational authority that no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school, except during the last half-hour of the school meeting, and then only to those children whose parents have expressed in writing to the managers of the school a desire that such catechism or formulary shall be taught to their children.
  "Provided that no bye-law shall prevent the withdrawal of any child from any religious observance or instruction in religious subjects or shall require any child to attend school on any day exclusively set apart for religious any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parents belong."—(Mr. Helme).
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  (10.58.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes. 210. (Division List No. 579.)

  AYES

  Allan, Sir Willam(Gateshead)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarathen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, Charles P.(Gloue. Stroud

  Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

  Lough, Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bell, Richard

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Newnes, Sir George

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norman, Henry

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth. R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Burt, Thomas

  Hotland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Langley, Batty

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Franics

  Runciman, Walter

  Crombie, John William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, J. A.,(Glamorgan, Gower

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Helme and Mr. Duncan.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Lockie, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fielden, Edward Brock lehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. Chalers W. (Evesham)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh, O.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gibbs. Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Milvain, Thomas

  Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w)

  Bond, Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham(Bute

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Guest, Hon. Iver Churchill

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bull, William James

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Burdett Coutts, W.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Myers, William Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Newdegate Francis A. N.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pea-e, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Charrington, Spencer

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colomb, SirJohnCharles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hope. J. F.(Sheffield Brightside

  Purvise, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ratchff, R. F.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Kemp, George

  Renwick, George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Dewar, SirT. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Keswick, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJoseph C.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rutherford, John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sadler, Col. Samual Alexander

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  478

  479

  Seely, Maj, J. E. B.(Isleof Wight

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Spear. John Ward

  Warde Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M.'Taggart

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Younger, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER,in Pursuance of the Order of the House of the 11th instanat, Proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments proposed by the Government to parts I. and II. of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, at end, to insert, as a new sub-Section, the words, '(2) A Council, in exercising their powers under this Part of the
  Act, shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges, and any steps already taken for the purposes of higher education under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  (11.12.) Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 108. (Division List No 580.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gibbs, Hn. H. A. G.(City of Lond.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr H'mlets

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Green, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bailey James (Walworth)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Groves, James Grimble

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hain, Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dewar, SirT. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bigwood, James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Bond, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Helder, Augustus

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Fison, Frederick William

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hoult, Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wore.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Chapman, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Charrington, Spencer

  Forster, Henry William

  Jaffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kemp, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Garfit, William

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Keswick, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm th

  Palmer, Walter(Salisbury)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham)

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

  Lockie, John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Purvis, Robert

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Webb, Col. William George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Renwick, George

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Rutherford, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walthmastow

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Smith. Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Murray, CharlesJ. (Coventry)

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Myers, William Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Price, Robert John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rea, Russell

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burt, Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Crombie, John William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Tomkinson, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Perks, Robert William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  482

  483

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Amendment proposed—
  "in page 2, line 17, to leave out the words 'or college,' and insert the words 'college or hostel' instead thereof."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question, "That the words 'or college' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  (11.24.) Question put, "That the words 'college or hostel' be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 106. (Division List NO. 581.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kemp, George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Anson, Sir william Reynell

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Keswick, William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, Willam Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lockie, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bond, Edward

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Massye-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Bull, William James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, HearyD.(Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A.(Wore

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, DavidJ.(W'lthamst'w

  Chapman, Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hain, Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Clive Captain Percy A

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mownrau, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Colomb, SirJohnCharles Ready

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Myers, William Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Newdegate. Francis A. N.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hatch, Ernest FrederickGeorge

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Som'rs't, E.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Percy, Earl

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dewar, sirT. R.(Tower Hamlets

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Doughty, George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Purvis, Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Renwick, George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson, A. Stanely(York, E. R.)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Wodehouse, RtHon. E. R.(Bath

  Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Royds. Clement Molyneux

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rutherford, John

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tully, Jasper

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Younger, William

  Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(Isleof Wight

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE.(Taunton

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Welby, SirCharles G. E.(Notts.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Allen. CharlesP(Gloue.,Stroud

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shackleton, David James

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Atherley-James, L.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bell, Richard

  Kitson, Sir James

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants

  Black, Alexander William

  Lambert, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Langley, Batty

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Brigg, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Levy, Manrice

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Burns, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, J A(Glam'rgan, Gower

  Caldwell, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Crombie, John William

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Norton, Capt. Ceceil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh-

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Rigg, Richard

  Woodhouse, SirJ T(Hudd'rsf'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. HerbertJohn

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Trevelyan.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Harwood, George

  Runciman, Walter

  MR. DUNCAN ()said he desired to move the omission of Clause 5. He was a member of a deputation which waited on the chief officials of the Education Department in order to impress on them the desirability of not
  introducing into their Bill a proposal to deal with primary education. That was before Party feeling had been aroused; and they then thought that the great necessity was not to interfere with primary education, but to provide a system of secondary

  487
  education. It had been stated more than once, throught out the debates on the Bill, that the object of the Government was to co-ordinate and unity education; and he felt that, in order to co-ordinate education, it would be necessary first to create a proper system of secondary education. It was quite true that the Country Councils had administered technical education very well; but a proper system of secondary education, which was the connecting link between primary and technical education, had not yet been created. A great deal had been said about the difficulty of dealing with primary education in large country boroughs, but he did not think that difficulty was comparable to the difficulty which wouldarise in a large county with a great number of schools scattered over many square miles. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there were 850 schools, employing 5,200 teachers, scattered over between 2,000 and 3,000 square miles. It was said that County Councils were too ambitious; that, in American parlance, "they had bitten off more than they could chew;" but in this case it must be noted that it was the intention of the Government to thrust on County Councils work which objected to having this work put upon them were in many cases Councils which had set an example to others by the manner in which they had managed the education entrusted to them. It was not because the Councils did not take a direct interest in all branches of education that they objected to primary education being put upon them. It was because they felt that the work should be done thoroughly, and because they desired to put into that work all the skill and experience they had
  488
  in other branches of educational work. Reference had been made during the debate to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice-President of the Council at Bradford in 1899. He had the pleasure of listening to that speech; and if he had any objection to it at the time it was that the right hon. Gentleman put upon the School Boards the necessity for dealing with all branches of education. Those who had experience of educational work in the County Councils believed that technical educational work had been well done; but not in the proposal that all branches of education should be put into their hands. It would be more advisable if the large councils, whether borough, municipal, or county, should have the opportunity of retaining the School Boards, which in the past had done such excellent work, in order to carry on, for a time at any rate, the work of primary education. The School Boards in the North of England were elected for educational purposes; and the people had not lost faith in them, or in the way in which they had carried on their work. Believing that it was desirable that for a time at least the larger the larger School Boards, and some of the smaller ones, should be retained for the work which he was sure they would discharge as faithfully in the future as they had in the past, he moved the omission of the Clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Duncan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of the Clause, to the word 'secular,' in page 3, line 2, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did nor propose to reply at any length to the speech of the hon. Member. The omssion of the Clause would go to the very root of the policy of the Bill; and to dicuss it now would be to revive a discussion which was carried on at considerable lentgh some months ago. He would only say that it was the belief of the Government that there would be great advantages in the counties and rural districts by establishing larger areas over which the local authority for elementary education would extend. To bring the education, in town and country under one co-ordinating authority would be of
  undoubted advantage to the community. He quite admitted that they would lose something in the dissolution of the larger School Boards, which, in towns, had done work which no one undervalued. But in every great change in which great advantages were contemplated, some loss must needs be incurred, which they all regretted, but the gains were not merely commensurate to the losses but outweighed them immeasurably.
  (11.48) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes. 166; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 582.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kemp, George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W.(Salop)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Keswick, William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ. (Mane'r)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lockie, John

  Beresford, Lord Charles William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Alegernon

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Bristol, S)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lord, Archie Kirkman

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flower, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lawestoft)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gibbs, HnA. G. H(City of Lond.)

  M'Arhtur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans. (T'rH'mlets)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Massey-Mainwarning. Hn. W. F.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Grenfell. William Henry

  Montagu, G.(Huntingdon)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robr. jasper (Shropshire)

  Chapman, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Clive, Captain Perey A.

  Hain, Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Coghill, Dougals Harry

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG (Midd'x)

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Heath, Arhtur Howard(Hanley)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Perey, Earl

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Platt-Higgins, frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Pryce. Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne)

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Renwick, George

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Ritch e, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinsen, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

  Tully, Jasper

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

  Rutherford, John

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Sackv lle. Col. S. G. Stopford

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Walrond, RtHon. Sir WilliamH.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sincla Louis (Romford)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloue.,Strood)

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arhtur Wellesley

  Black, Alexander William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants)

  Brigg, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower)

  Caldwell, James

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Markham, Arhtur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Norman, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Price, Robert John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dewar, John A. (Invernesssh.)

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Rigg, Richard

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Byrn (Eifion)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arhtur D.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Duncan and Mr. Georger White.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Runciman, Wlater

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Samuel, HerbertL (Cleveland)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shackleton, David James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Further Consideration, as amended, adjourned till Tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
  1. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2).
  2. Supreme Court of Judicature.

  WORKHOUSE NURSING.
  Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board to inquire into the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses:—
  Part I. Report and summary of recommendations.
  Part II. Minutes of evidence, together with appendix and index to evidence.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Report on the Dutch Brined Vegetable Industry; Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table
  House adjourned at Four o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.