Sitting of 27 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SOUTH AFRICA, 1902.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into sentences passed under Martial Law [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (OPIUM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th November; Mr. Henry J. Wilson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 383.]
  AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT 1899.
  Copy presented, of forty minutes by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland sanctioning Forms of Instruction for certain County Boroughs, Counties and Urban Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALTERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
  Address for "Return showing (1) the names of those present at the Conference on the 28th day of February, 1894, of Representatives of the King's, Printers and the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge to consider proposed Alterations in the Printing of the Prayer Book; (2) a list of all the alterations in the Printing of the Prayer Book then arranged; and (3) the authority under which the three Presses took action."—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Hackney Downs Railway Accident— Intercommunication Apparatus.
  MR. WEIR): To ask the President of the Board of Trade,
  610
  in view of the statement contained in the last paragraph of the Report of Lieutenant Colonel Von Donop, R. E., concerning the accident which occurred on the Great Eastern Railway near Hackney Downs Station on the 25th April last, will he state whether the Railway Company have yet provided all carriages on their passenger trains with the apparatus for intercommunication which has been approved by the combined Railway Companies; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Railway Company concerned have informed the Board of Trade that, under instructions given by the directors kn March last, all their existing passenger carriages are being fitted with the apparatus when they come into the workshop for repairs; it had previously been determined by the company that all new carriages should be so fitted. The hon. Member is not doubt aware that Railway Companies are under no stautory obligation to fit with communication apparatus trains that do not run twenty miles without stopping.

  Coastguards, Ilfracombe Division—Alleged Neglectful Look-out.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire,): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on Thursday night, the 13th instant, two vessels, i. e., the "Bessie Clark," of Braunton, North Devon, and the "Ouse," of Appledore, were in a serious danger of being wrecked after crossing the bar at the mouth of the estuary of the Taw and Torridge; whether he is aware that flareups were burnt as danger signals by the crew of the "Ouse," and by the crew of the "James," of Appledore; whether he is aware that no notice was taken, and no assistance rendered by any one; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the failure of the coastguard to keep a look-out in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have obtained a Report on the case to which the hon. Member refers from the Inspecting Commander of Ilfracombe Division of Coastguard. It appears that the flares were seen by the coastguard both at Downend Point and Westward Ho, but as the weather was fine at the time

  611
  and the wind moderate it was supposed that they were intended as a signal for a pilot. The coxswain of the Appledore lifeboat is stated to have understood the signals in the same way. I will make further inquiry as to the confusion of signals that appears to have arisen.

  Coal Duty—Decreased Import of British Coal into Russia.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent consular report from Pernau stating that the quantity of coal imported into that port during the year 1901 amounted to 37,220 tons, of which 20,695 were British and 16,525 West-phalian, while in 1900, the year before the imposition of the coal duty, 40,375tons, all British, were imported; and will he say when the report will be presented to Parliament; and, seeing that the general decline in trade activity has been this year accompanied by an increased total exportation of British coal when bunker coal is added, will he say whether he has official information assigning any reason for the particular result the general decline has had at Pernau.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The consular report referred to has already been presented to Parliament (No. 2911, Annual Series), and if the hon. Member will consult it, he will see that the experience of the buyers of Westphalian coals at Pernau was such that the British Vice-Counsul does not think those coals are likely to be imported there again. As regards the cause of the decline, the general remarks that I made on the subject in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Monday last apply to the case of Pernau.

  Vaccination—Fees for Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of the magistrate at the Marylebone Police Court, in which a medical man, who claimed a certificate of exemption under the Vaccination Act in respect of a child born in August last was required to pay a fee of 1s. for the exemption certificate; and, seeing
  † See page 235.
  612
  that this fee has to be paid by persons of the poorer classes who have conscientious objections to vaccination, will he state upon what ground a magistrate has power to make this charge for an exemption certificate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) A fee such as that mentioned is charged for a certificate of exemption from vaccination in accordance with the ordinary law governing the charges made in connection with proceedings before magistrates. The charge is not confined to this class of certificate. The magistrate has power in a proper case, on application, to remit fees.

  Cruelty to Children—Penruddocke Case—Alteration of Law—Removal of Mr. Penruddocke's Name from Roll of Magistrates.
  CAPTAIN GREVILLE): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence imposed upon Mrs. Penruddocke, convicted of cruelty to one of her children at the recent sessions at the Central Criminal Court, by which a fine was inflicted for aggravated cruelty; and whether, in view of the fact that sentences of imprisonment are sometimes awarded in cases of cruelty to children, he proposes to introduce legislation which would secure uniformity of punishment in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Detailed answers were given to somewhat similar Questions yesterday. I would only add that legislation to secure uniformity of punishment in all cases is as impossible as it would be undesirable. The punishment must obviously vary according to the circumstance of each case as they present themselves to the Court. Statues can only define the limits within which the variation may take place.
  MR. HOGG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the verdict of the jury in the Penruddocke case and the censure passed on Mr. Penruddocke, his name will be allowed to remain on the rota of justices of the peace; and whether he will consider the

  613
  advisability of proposing a change in the law to prevent the possibility of cruelty being inflicted on young children without imprisonment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) In answer to the first paragraph I must repeat my answer of yesterday to the effect that it is not proposed to remove the name of the gentleman in question from the Commission of the Peace. As regards the second paragraph, I think it must be obvious that no such hard and fast rule for assigning the punishment without regard to the circumstances of the case would be admissible.

  Cost of Training Seamen.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the cost per head for trained seamen from the time they joined till they have passed through the gunnery and torpedo schools and are regarded as efficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The average cost per head from time of joining to date of becoming either a seamen gunner in a gunnery school, or seamen torpedo man in a torpedo school, is a follows:—

  If trained as a boy in stationary training ship.

  If trained as a boy in sea-going training Ship

  £

  £

  Seamen gunner

  291

  261

  Seamen torpedo man

  314

  284

  Alleged Dishonesty of a Glasgow Lawyer.
  MR. BAIRD): To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to an interlocutor issued by Sheriff Boyd, Glasgow, on the 19th November, in which he describes as dishonest the conduct of a certain lawyer in withholding, by means of false representations, damages which had been awarded to his client for injuries received in the course of his employment; and will he state whether he proposes to take any further steps in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The facts stated by my hon. friend are
  614
  substantially correct. I am informed, however, that the case is under appeal, and I must await the result of that appeal before considering whether there is any action that ought to be taken.

  Promotion in the Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR): To ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the statements of the late Controller of the Central Telegraph Office that the only qualifications for entry into the senior class of telegraphists were good conduct, seniority, and manipulative ability, he will explain why a telegraphist has been promoted over the heads of thirty of his fellows; and whether, in view of the repeated assurances that the conditions of entry into the senior class have remained unaltered since 1881, he will state if the men passed over are good conduct and possess manipulative ability.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer given by me to the Question of the hon. Member for Hoxton on 13th of this month,† to which I have nothing to add.

  Central Telegraph Office—Appointment of Supervisors.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that officials attached to the personal staff of the Controller Central Telegraph Office have been given important positions on the superintending staff of the commercial section; will he say whether these officers have previously performed the work of supervision among telegraph operators and are acquainted with the technical and practical part of their duties; and whether he will explain why men who have performed the work of supervision in the instrument gallery for a number of years have not been selected for these positions.
  (Answered by. Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The two officers who were recently promoted from the Controller's Office to be superintendents in the Central Telegraph Office had been assistant superintendent and assistant superintendent 2nd Class, respectively, in the general body before entering the Controller's Office, and were
  † See preceeding volume, page 859.

  615
  well acquainted with the duties of supervision. These officers were chosen because, in my opinion, they were the best fitted for the duties of their new posts.

  Bilbao Harbour Lights.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the losses sustained by the mercantile marine through the present system of lighting of the entrance to Bilbao Harbour, will he state whether the Spanish authorities have yet been induced to render the lighting more effective.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Since my answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject of the 7th of May last His Majesty's Counsul at Bilbao has reported that the apparatus for the lighthouse now in course of construction has been ordered.

  Volunteer Long Service Medal—Suggested Alterations.
  MR. EUGENE WASON): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increased stringency of the requirements for Volunteer efficiency, he will consider the advisability of granting the Volunteer long service medal for ten years service, instead of twenty as now, and granting a bar or clasp for every further period of five years service; and whether he would be willing to change the colour of the present ribbon attached to this medal from its present shade of dark green, either by the insertion of a white stripe in the present ribbon, or by replacing it altogether by one of a brighter and more attractive hue.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick. I do not think the multiplication of medals proposed in the Question would tend to raise their value in the eyes of the Volunteer Force, and no proposal has been made to the War Office to alter the colour of the present ribbon. I therefore think it would be inexpedient to adopt the suggestions put forward in the Question. c

  Reserve of Officers—Gratuities.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELD): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that captains and majors of the reserve of
  † See (4) Debates, cvii., 944.
  616
  officers, retiring on pensions of £200 a year, after twenty or more years service, are eligible for any benefits under Paragraph 601A of the Royal Warrant; whether officers having less than twenty years service, who have retired with gratuities, can under Paragraph 601A obtain additional gratuities of £400, being the difference between gratuities already received and the larger amount payable in respect of longer periods of service completed during mobilisation; whether, while the pensions of mobilised reserve officers have been suspended during their employment on full pay, they receiving only the difference between pension and pay for the further services they have rendered, the officers who had retired with gratuities have not been subjected to any deduction on account of the income derived by them from such gratuities; and will steps be taken to place both categories of officers on an equal footing as regards recompense for the services they have performed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) In reply to the first paragraph, these officers generally are not so eligible with the exception of a few who retired with vested rights. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, with the proviso that by the extra service the officer comes into another gratuitable period. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. I must remind by hon. and gallant friend that the deductions hitherto made from the pay of the re-employed officers who retired on a gratuity were suspended during the war, but following other precedents in the public service pensions are suspended on an officer reverting to full pay.

  1st Inniskilling Fusiliers—Return Home.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, looking to the continued service in South Africa, dating from December, 1899, of the 1st Battalion Inniskilling Fusiliers, and its loss in action of twelve officers and 192 non-commissioned officers and men, and also in view of the fact that the 2nd Battalion of the regiment is in South

  617
  Africa, he will consider the possibility of removing the 1st Battalion to a home station.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This battalion will be brought home in its turn from South Africa as soon as it can be spared.

  Extra War Gratuity—Participation by Officers.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of the State for War if he will say why officers were not permitted to participate in the extra war gratuity granted to the warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men under an Army Order issued in January, 1902; and if there is any precedent in previous campaigns where officers were excluded from participating with their men in war gratuities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It was held that in view of the prolonged detention of the reservists in South Africa, and of the fact that the soldiers of the regular forces were serving side by side with men drawing considerably higher rates of pay, inadequate provision had been made for the war gratuity to the warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. The same reasons did not apply to officers.

  Officers Serving Abroad—Exemptions from Income Tax.
  MR. GROVES): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the claims of officers of His Majesty's Naval and Military Services to exemption from income tax when serving abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Officers in the service of the Crown, Naval, Military, or Civil, are by the Income Tax Acts, chargeable with income tax on their salaries paid out of Votes whether serving at home or abroad. This has always been the case, and I see no reason for making any change.

(2.15.)QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Rewards for Volunteer Officers.
  MR. LUKE WHITE): I beg to ask the Secretary
  618
  of State for War whether he is now in a position to give the number of officers who served with Volunteer companies and Engineer detachments in South Africa, and who were mentioned in despatches and recieved rewards.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Thirty-eight officers of the volunteer companies and engineer detachments were mentioned in despatches and of these four were rewarded.

  Civil Surgeons and the War Gratuity.
  CAPTAIN NORTON): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that civil surgeons employed in South Africa as well as civil veterinary surgeons employed both at home and abroad and not holding commissions receive a gratuity, whether he can explain why civil surgeons who have been employed doing military duty at Home are not entitled to the gratuity.
  *LORD STANLEY: The civil surgeons employed in South Africa and civil veterinary surgeons employed at home were engaged under a contract, one of the conditions of which gave them a right to a gratuity of sixty-one days' pay on completion of twelve months' service of cessation of engagement. The civil surgeons employed at home were not engaged on such a contract, were employed purely as civilian surgeons, and therefore have no claim whatever to such gratuity.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the noble Lord deny that they are both under the Royal Warrant which was issued in Army Order 186, and which distinctly says "ex-officers of civilians."
  *LORD STANLEY: I do not deny anything, but I do say that two separate contracts were made, one of which gave veterinary surgeons sixty-one days' pay, while the other, into which the civil surgeons entered of their own free will, did not give it.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: The Secretary for War gave me an answer in an opposite sense some time ago.

  Artillery Volunteer Adjutants.
  SIR MARK STEWART): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the 1st Ayr and Galloway Artillery Volunteers have not had the services of an adjutant for more than a year; and will he state how many other Artillery Volunteer corps have no adjutants at the present time, and what steps he proposes to take to meet the difficulty, in consideration of the higher efficiency expected from Volunteers.
  *LORD STANLEY: The adjutancy of the regiment in question has been vacant for a year, and several other Artillery Volunteer corps have been without adjutants in consequence of the great demand for artillery officers in the recent campaign. Instructions have recently been issued to General Officers commanding to take immediate measures to secure candidates for the vacancies.

  Colonial Allowances to Officers Serving in South Africa
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what allowance, if any, it is proposed to grant to officers serving in South Africa to meet the cost of living in that country; and whether, in the event of an increase in the colonial allowance being granted, he will direct that it shall date from the conclusion of hostilities.
  LORD STANLEY: The Colonial allowance has been raised to 4s. a day, with effect from the 1st September last. This is an increase of 2s. 6d. on the allowance of 1s. 6d. payable in Cape Colony and Natal before the war.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: Does that apply to the South African Constabulary?
  LORD STANLEY: That Question should be addressed to the Colonial Office.

  South African War Transports.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed to complete the Return giving the names, tonnage, &c., of the vessels engaged as transports during the South
  620
  African War, and whether he will add to the particulars already given the rates of freight paid for the chartering of vessels throughout the war.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): A further Return bringing the information with respect to names, tonnage, &c., up to the 31st October last, has been presented to Parliament. This Return will be continued for the present year in due course. As a rule, it is not considered in the interestes of the public service or of the contractors themselves, to publish detailed particulars of prices paid. In the present instance, however, the particulars as to rates of freight have been laid before the Royal Commission charged with enquiry into the conduct of the War, and no doubt any points affecting the public interest arising out of the examination of these particulars will be considered by the Commission in making their Report.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN): In order to make the Return complete, will the hon. Gentleman say how many of the vessels were fitted with watertube boilers?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Admiralty List of Irish Lights.
  *MR. LONSDALE): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the inaccuracy of the description of many of the Irish lights in the Admiralty lists, due to the fact that no allowance has been made for alteration in the variation in recent years; and whether, in view of the importance of these lights to navigators, he will take steps to have the Admiralty lists revised and corrected.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The small differences in the bearings of the sectors of the lights due to the constant alteration in the variation of the compass needle are corrected in the Light Lists from time to time, when the alteration is sufficiently great. It is, however, not absolutely necessary to do this very frequently, for the lines showing the radii, between which the sectors are visible, are always correct on the Admiralty Charts, as they are laid down on them from the

  621
  True Meridian; and it is the Chart, and not the Light List, that should be used for navigational purposes.
  *MR. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several accidents have occurred in consequence of the variation of these lights?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, I think if the Admiralty Chart is relied upon for navigational purposes, no accidents will occur.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Admiralty Chart should be relied on, but is he not aware that that Chart is very often an old one, whereas the Light List is issued year by year, and is looked upon as the guide for lights by all seamen?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Indian Native Army—Promotions of Colonels.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether, in administering the new system of promotion of colonels of the Native Army to the rank of generals, consideration will be given to the cases of those colonels whose promotion was stopped under the old system, and who cannot now obtain promotion under the new system unless the new regulations are made to apply as from the date of the expiration of the old system of promotion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Royal Warrant referred to last Tuesday has stopped the principle of promotion by seniority to the rank of Major-Genedral, and has substituted if its place a system of promotion by selection. Promotion by seniority has therefore ceased, and, having ceased, no claim can be urged by those who under the new system may not be selected.

  Scarcity of Employment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the scarcity of employment which now exists in many parts of the country, and the fact that the scarcity usually becomes more general during
  622
  the winter months, he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular, similar in character to those issued in 1893 and 1895 by the Local Government Board, urging the local authorities to carry out such works of sanitation and local improvement as could be undertaken by those who are in need of employment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The subject referred to in the Question is receiving my careful consideration, and I am taking steps to obtain the best information I can with regard to it. I am not in a position to say that it is expedient to issue at the present moment a circular of the kind suggested, but it I should hereafter find this course to be desirable, I shall not hesitate to adopt it.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER): May I ask whether the situation is not aggravated by the wholesale importation of pauper aliens.
  MR. WALTHER LONG: No, sir, I cannot say I have reason to believe that.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the destitution due to scarcity of employment, the Government will introduce legislation on an early date to empower local authorities, acting either singly or in combination, to make provision for obviating the hardships entailed upon the working class during periods of bad trade.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I may remind the hon. Member that a Committee was appointed in 1895 on this subject, and reported in 1896, and of that Committee the hon. Member was, I believe, a member for a part of the time. It did not find it practicable to make any recommendations for legislation to supply work. The Local Government Board have no evidence of seriously increased destitution or scarcity of employment, though the Board of Trade Gazette suggested some recent increase in the number of unemployed.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL): Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to the reappointment of a Committee or Royal Commission to consider what measured are practicable for dealing with this question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the question is hardly ripe for a second Committee.

  Mr. J. A. Kensit.
  MR. SLOAN): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings arising out of a public meeting held at Liverpool on 30th August last, in connection with which Mr. J. A. Kensit was bound over to keep the peace in £200 and two sureties of like sum, or in default there months imprisonment, while other persons were bound over in their own recognisances of £5; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Some two months ago the case to which the Hon. Member refers was engaging my almost hourly attention. I then took the action which appeared to me to be right, and in the special circumstances which arose, I advised the release of Mr. Kensit. There is no further action for me to take.
  [In answer to a further question by Mr. SLOAN, Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS said he did not interfere with the action of the stipendiary magistrate. He only acted with regard to the reduction of the sentence.]
  MR. TULLY): Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend a reduction of the sentences of bail prisoners in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Argentine Cattle Trade.
  MR. SCHWANN): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Argentine Government, on his request for securities against the importation of cattle for slaughter into this country from the River Plate, passed
  624
  a Bill, which came into effect on the 15th of February last, which gave protection against the export of diseased animals of a contagious character from Argentina, and also against the introduction of diseased animals from other countries, he will say what further guarantees he now seeks from the Government at Buenos Ayres, and what stands at present in the way of the admission at Liverpool and Deptford of live cattle for slaughter at those ports, and the corresponding admission into Argentina of our high-class breeding stock.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): There is no connection between the admission of fat cattle from Argentina into this country and the admission into Argentina of our pedigree stock. Our pedigree stock are not admitted into Argentina solely because foot and mouth disease has existed in this country within the last six months. What I have asked of the Argentine Government is to take the same precautions with regard to the importation of store animals into that country as we ourselves take even in the case of fat stock. I am glad to be able to add that the Argentine Government have within the last day or two submitted to Congress a Bill which will bring their law into closer conformity with our own.

  Barvas Medical Officer's Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state why the annual report of Dr. Ross, the medical officer of health for the parish of Barvas, Island of Lewis, is no longer published in the annual report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: Dr. Ross did not send any special statement on the health of the parish of Barvas during 1901 for publication in the County Report.

  Illegal Trawling in Board Bay
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the arrangement under which the lightkeeper at Tiumpan Head, Island of Lewis, records vessels which are observed to be engaged in

  625
  illegal trawling in Board Bay has resulted in a trawler having been convicted of illegal trawling in Broad Bay; and, seeing that the coastguard and lightkeepers have detected other cases of illegal trawling in Broad Bay which have resulted in convictions, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of communicating with the Northern Lighthouse Board with a view to ascertain whether there are any other lighthouses around the coast of Scotland where the practice in force at Tiumpan Head could be adopted.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The statement contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is correct. With regard to the second paragraph, the Secretary for Scotland will consider what other lighthouses are placed in a similarly favourable position for observation, and will then communicate with the Northern Light-house Commissioners. It is, however, questionable whether they would hold a general extension of the arrangement referred to, compatible with the interests of service, which must be their first charge.

  Shader (Island of Lewis) Landing Place.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will state the cause of the delay in the construction of a landing place at Shader, in the Point district of the Island of Lewis, in aid of which the Congested Districts Board provided a grant of £270 on 4th June, 1901;and, in view of the demand of the people of the district for this work, and of the fact that they have offered free labour, will efforts be made to have it completed at an early date.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The delay in taking advantage of the proposed grant by the Congested Districts Board is due to the failure of the County Council to take advantage of the grant intimated by that Board and proceed with the work. Unless the County Council move in the matter very soon, the offer of the grant may have to be withdrawn.

  Bagnalstown Police.
  MR. TULLYI beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether instructions have been issued to the Royal Irish
  626
  Constabulary in Bagnalstown to comply with Section 12, sub-Section (2), of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act in the case of the service of summons at the suit of the Town Commissioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): On the 19th instant I informed the hon. Member for South Meath that summonses in cases in which the Town Commissioners of Bagnalstown were the complainants had hitherto been served by the police in order to convenience the Commissioners. The police have been instructed that henceforth such summonses should be served by the officer of the Commissioners.

  Banbridge Board of Guardians.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the conviction of two men, named Campbell and Leary, at Banbridge Petty Sessions, by two local justices, who had ordered the prosecution as members of the Banbridge Board of Guardians; and whether, seeing that the defendants have not been imprisoned, he will state what action he proposes to take in this case.
  MR. ATKINSON: The proceedings in this case were instituted by the Banbridge Board of Guardians, not by the Crown. The conviction was subsequently quashed and the accused were discharged from custody. As Campbell was in custody under the illegal conviction for sixteen days and Leary for eleven, it was not thought necessary to institute a second prosecution at the suit of the police.
  MR. TULLY: Will not the justices who maliciously got these men imprisoned be removed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Longford Guardians—Boarding-out Dispute.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the action of the Longford

  627
  Board of Guardians in terminating with Jane Devine, of Longford, a boarding-out contract for the maintenance of three children, because she refused to change her religion when summoned before the meeting of the Guardians; and whether he can state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Guardians are taking legal proceedings to compel Jane Devine to surrender to them the custody of these children. I am precluded, therefore, from discussing the merits of the case.

  Horse-breeding Experiments in Ireland.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the particulars of the expenditure on experiments in horse breeding were omitted from the last two Reports of the Congested Districts Board; and will he state how much has been spent by this Board on highly-bred stallions in congested districts during the last two years.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amount expended in horse-breeding during the past two years is shown in Appendix IV. to the Board's Annual Reports. The expenditure for the period, deducting receipts, was £7, 329.

  Irish Congested Districts Board Staff.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a Return of the number of officials and clerks on the staff of the Irish Congested Districts Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Forty-nine persons are employed at the Central Office. There are seventeen inspectors and engineers employed in the congested districts, in addition to instructors in agriculture, fishing, lace-making, and clerks of works, coopers, etc.

  Corkly Orange Lodge.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the members of the Corkly Orange Lodge visited Keady on 5th November and
  628
  17th November, and after partaking of refreshment at a local public-house proceeded on both occasions to fire shots adjacent to the residence of the Christian Brothers; will he state what policemen were present on these occasions; and what action is proposed to be taken against the parties discharging firearms on the public road.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some shots were fired on the 5th November, but not near the residence of the Christian Brothers. The police who accompanied the band were unable to detect by whom the shots were fired owing to the darkness of the night. The police are pursuing their inquiries. No shots were fired on the 17th November.
  MR. TULLY: Why were not these men prosecuted for unlawful assembly under the Crimes Act?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Belfast Telegraphists' Grievances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, when assistance was required recently in the offices of the Superintending Engineer, Postal Telegraphs, Belfast, it was obtained from Mullingar and Ballina staffs, and that the applications of Belfast telegraphists possessing the necessary qualifications were refused on the grounds of pressure of work in the commercial branch; and whether, seeing that season substitutes were dismissed for lack of work, he will explain why the applications of the local staff were refused.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I find, on inquiry, that telegraphists possessing the necessary qualifications could not be spared from the Belfast Post Office to assist in the office of the superintending engineer during the recent season. I ought, perhaps, to add that the local staff have no claim to a monopoly of this work to the exclusion of all other Post Office servants.

  Railway Rates between Limerick and Liverpool.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his

  629
  attention has been directed to the complaint of the President of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have made their through rates between Limerick and Liverpool higher by Dublin than by Cork or Waterford, and have refused through rates by Dublin to intermediate stations; and will he state what action he proposes to take in this matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAORD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir, the complaint referred to has not been addressed to the Board of Trade. With regard to the last part of the Question, I may remind the hon. Member that the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Act, 1900, provides, in Section 34, that reasonable facilities shall be given to induce traffic to pass to, from, and via Dublin, and that any case of dispute shall be settled by an arbitrator, appointed by the Board of Trade, on the application of any of the parties authorised by the Section to make one.
  MR. TULLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application for the appointment of an arbitrator?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  Army Contracts in Belfast.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state on what grounds the contract for supplying bread to the Victoria Barracks, Belfast, and the Hollywood Barracks, County Down, was given to a firm of wholesale druggists and chemists in Corporation Street, Belfast; and whether, seeing that this firm, being non-bakers, will have to sublet the contract, he will state what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
  LORD STANLEY: These contracts were arranged, as all bread contracts are, by the General Officer commanding the district. The firm in question was selected as their offer was the lowest in the competition. Inquiries will be made as to subletting.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. LOUGH): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that only one day's sittings were allowed for discussion of the Brussels Sugar Convention and in view of the number of Members on both sides of the House who still desire to speak upon it, the Government can see its way to introduce the Bill for the ratification of the Convention during the present session, in order that a further opportunity for discussion may be given before the obligations which the Convention will impose upon this country are entered into.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the First Lord, in view of the fact that many Members—among them myself—desire to speak on this subject, to consider whether it would not be preferable that the Convention should be discussed, not in this sitting of the House, but in the next session, when there will be more time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt, as my hon. friend suggests, there will be an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Convention in connection with the Bill which it will be the duty of the Government to bring in. As regards the Question on the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say, what can be no matter of surprise to the House, that the business which we have to get through before the House is prorogued is of so pressing a character that I do not think it possible to give any additional time for the discussion of the Resolution which was passed the other day.
  MR. LOUGH: Will this opportunity for further discussion be given before the ratification of the treaty takes place?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think not.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will reasonable facilities be afforded to hon. Members on both sides for the discussion of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What my right hon. friend is asking is that I should

  631
  give some account of the business of next session, in regard to a Bill not yet introduced. I should regret any curtailment of the amount of debate which hon. Gentlemen desire, but I can give no specific pledge.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I hope it will not be closured on the first night.

  Education Bill—Position of Transferred Schools.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will provide in the schedule of the Education Bill for the repeal of Section 24 of the Act of 1870, or in any other way secure that schools transferred by a denomination to a School Board shall not be retransferred after the passing of this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered several Questions as to this. My own view is that where a school is handed back to the voluntary managers, they shall not have the right, and the local authority shall not have the right, to decide off-hand which class of school it shall be. Under the provisions of Clauses 9 and 10 the matter must be referred to the Board of Education.

  Education Bill—Clause 23.
  DR. MACNAMARA): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to insert words in Clause 23, Sub-Section (2) of the Education Bill, allowing the local authority discretion to retain a scholar beyond the age of fifteen in a public elementary school when, in its opinion, there is no proper provision for higher education in the immediate district in which the elementary school is situated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will find on the Order Paper of the House an Amendment in the name of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. It was put down last night, and I hope it will meet the case. The words to be added at the end of Clause 23 are—
  "Provided that the local education authority may, with the consent of the Board of
  632
  Education, extend those limits in the case of any such school if no suitable higher education is available within a reasonable distance of that school."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT): I proposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the day after tomorrow, but it will be convenient perhaps for him to answer now, whether he will reconsider the drafting of Clause 23, as it is extremely obscure. I wished to know whether the intention is that in a parish where the public elementary school is so distant from any secondary school as to be inaccessible to the children of the parish, there should be power to give instruction of an elementary character in the evening schools to persons above the age of fifteen. That is what ought to be made clear, as well as the question of how, under the Bill, higher education is to be made available for children in parishes thus situated. I believe that to be the intention of Clause 23, but the wording is not sufficiently clear, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to alter it, either here or in another place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to call my attention to this matter last night, and I have put down an Amendment to meet the point. I have here Clause 23 as we propose to amend it. [The right hon. Gentleman read the re-drafted Clause.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked how, under that Clause, the children in rural schools distant from a central school were to get higher education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is provided for in the Amendment which I read in answer to the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE): I shall divide the House against the first of the new Amendments to Clause 23, of which notice was given by the Government this morning, limiting the definition of elementary education and also against the later words extending the trust deeds.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the scheme—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Clause has been read, but hon. Members are not entitled to discuss it now.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise not to put down further Amendments today or tomorrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I cannot make such a promise. This Amendment was put down largely in consequence of a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and of another Question which the right hon. Member for West Monmouth showed me yesterday. It would have been a serious loss to those Gentlemen and to the House if I had not met their representations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: As the House meets at twelve tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman abstain from putting down any more Amendments unless he can show them to us today?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do my best to make the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with them, but manuscript Amendments are not excluded by the practice of the House, and they are, indeed, largely availed of by unofficial Members. Therefore I can give no pledge.
  MR. JAMES HOPE): Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inserting in the Schedule provisions for the protection of voluntary school teachers, similar to those already inserted with regard to board school teachers?
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,): Such a Question as that cannot be answered without notice.

  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  The Select Committee on the Osborne Estate Bill was nominated of— Mr. Hayes-Fisher, Mr. Solicitor General, and Sir James Woodhouse.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  As amended, further considered
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,)moved, as a drafting Amendment, to omit from Clause 7, page 4, lines 15 and 16, the words, "without reference to religious creed or denomination."
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  (2.45. MR. FREDERICK WILSONmoved as an Amendment to Clause 7: "To leave out of sub-Section (d) the words, 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house.' "He pointed out that the ratepayers had been promised the valuable asset that the managers would supply the school fabrics free of cost, and it was only an afterthought on the part of the Government to charge rent for the teacher's dwelling-house, and thus cast this additional burden on the public. The managers had secured a preponderance o two to one on the management committee, and how it was proposed to let them escape the payment which the people had been promised. This arrangement would work very unfairly in practice, as he would show by citing the cases of two schools well known to him in adjoining parishes. One school had a handsome endowment, a substantial grant, and a good school building, and by this Bill it would be able to charge the ratepayers for its teacher's house, and thus not only relieve its parish rate but accumulate a reserve fund. The other school had no teacher's house, no tithe, and shared a clergyman with another parish, and would therefore have to provide a house for its own teacher, but in addition to these misfortunes it would have to contribute in rates towards paying for the use of the teacher's house of the other school. Then take the case of an adjoining town, where long ago men with real zeal for education built British and National schools. The British school was long ago absorbed in the School Board. The building founded by voluntary gifts became public property. No rent was paid for any part of those buildings;

  635
  but the more prudent managers of the National school had had the wisdom to keep the fabric in their hands. He thought the scholars might have before them in letters of gold the legend "Never give anything away." Wait long enough and you might get rent. The managers of the voluntary schools would now be able to charge the public rent. The foundation managers were to have a two to one majority in the control of the schools, and they could under the Bill teach their doctrines at the public cost. Would they give up nothing for the privilege they had gained in teaching boys and girls the bitter differences of sectarian doctrine, differences almost unknown in the House, but confined in the country to parsons and old maids who would practically rule the parish committees? The difficulty of the Church was that it did not call for enough self-sacrifice on the part of its members. The Nonconformist, on the other hand, thrived on self-help. He loved the village chapel because he had paid for so much of it himself. Everything about it reminded him of some little self-sacrifice. Perhaps it might be the spirit of the times, but the Church could now declare that its religion was cheaper than ever. If people wanted cheap religion let them go to the Church of England. He thought, however, the Church of England made a great mistake in bargaining for rent for these schoolhouses. The ratepayers would resent the extra cost they were called upon to pay for the teacher's houses, and the only thing he could hope for was that Churchmen themselves would be more generous than the Government and would grant the buildings for education free and without charge for any part.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.—
  "In page 4, line 18, to leave out the words 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house.' "—(Mr. Frederick Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the hon. Member had dwelt on the time-worn subject of the alleged bargain which had been made at some unknown time with
  636
  some unknown persons, whom he described generally as the British nation and the supporters of voluntary schools. He entirely denied the existence of any such bargain, though he assumed that the hon. Member referred to the general scheme of the Bill as presented to the House last may. That general scheme dealt with various things which were to be done by the managers, and with other things to be done by the local education authority. The managers were to provide the buildings, and the local education authority was to provide, among other things, the salaries of the teachers. There could be no doubt that the teacher's dwelling was part of the salary of the teacher; and if, therefore, the managers supplied part of the salary of the teacher they were entitled to call upon the local education authority—admitting a bargain, which he did not—in the strictest terms of that bargain, to demand that the rent should be paid and that the local education authority should do what it had always undertaken to do —namely, to provide the cost of the teaching in the school. If, therefore, there was a bargain, the words in the Bill would now carry it out. The objection to rent being paid was that the managers would thereby be assisted in maintaining the fabric in repair. Again and again hon. Members had dwelt on the iniquity of the managers receiving any assistance towards the maintenance of the fabric from any sources of revenue except that of private subscriptions. Surely every one would admit that an educational purpose was served by the maintenance of the schoolhouse in a good condition of repair. When they started a school in any locality the first thing to be done was to build a schoolhouse. But hon. Members said that they did not wish the managers to have any assistance; they were more anxious evidently to put them to their last resources in the way of voluntary contributions, so that the school might fall on the rates. He doubted whether it would be the view either of the County Council or the minor local authorities, who would find a serious pecuniary charge thrown on them if the non-provided schools should rapidly become provided schools with the cost of maintaining the fabric thrown on the local education authority. It was to the educational advantage of the whole area that the legitimate sources of income

  637
  that came to the managers, other than contributions, should be allowed to come freely into their hands to maintain the buildings for the reception of the children and the educational purposes of the area. Therefore, if there had been a bargain, that was a part of the fair terms of the bargain, inasmuch as the local authority had to provide what was a part of the teacher's salary. It was an equitable construction of the arrangement between the local education authority and the managers. The hon. Member said that this was a hard bargain to drive, and used a number of harsh words which he would not recapitulate, but would merely describe as dyslogistic. He should be disposed to carry the war into the enemy's camp. The local education authority was charged with the duty of providing for the education of the whole area;it was bound to find buildings as well as to provide education for the children. Fortunately for the local authority the buildings were found ready to its hand. Surely there was an element of parsimony, or perhaps he should rather say of extreme economy, on the part of the local education authority if it grudged to the managers the sum which was fairly due from it as part of the salary of the teacher and for the maintenance and efficiency of the school. He did not believe that the County Councils and the other local education authorities would be so parsimonious or so grudging as hon. Members opposite were on their behalf.
  (3.0.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT)said that from the beginning of this Bill until the question of teachers' houses was raised, it was thoroughly understood in the country that the Government gave all these extraordinary powers to voluntary school managers on the condition that the buildings of the schools were to be kept up by them, and also everything that was necessary to carry on the schools. Surely teachers' houses were necessary to carry on the schools, and everybody understood that the declaration of the Government on this subject was that the maintenance of the schools other than the buildings was to be borne by the ratepayers, but that the expenses of the buildings should be borne by the managers and subscribers. He would not use the classical word employed by the Secretary to the Board
  638
  of Education, but he thought the word "shabby" was the plain English, in the vulgar tongue, to describe this miserable attempt on the part of a great richly endowed Church to throw off its contribution in respect of which it received this inordinate gift of a monopoly, and cast it upon the ratepayers. That was the whole transaction. The teacher's house was part of the school building, and to advertise these buildings in the county newspapers to be let to the highest bidder, was one of the most degrading transactions he ever heard. Was it possible that these houses would be let to anybody but the school teachers? The teacher's house was as much a part of the school building as any one of the class-rooms, and he could not understand how any man in his senses could suppose that in a country parish where the squire and the parson were in charge of these buildings, they should be able to say to anyone, "Give us £20 a year and you shall have the schoolmaster's house." He could not understand how such a transaction could commend itself to the mind of anyone. The Secretary to the Board of Education had just stated that he would carry the war into the enemy's camp. Therefore the process they had been going through in the last few weeks was the most humiliating one of endeavouring to cut off 1s. here and 6d. there from the subscribers in order to cast upon the ratepayers burdens which the supporters of voluntary schools should bear. He did not know what view hon. Gentlemen opposite would take of the light this would throw upon the Church of England. He did not think it would be an elevated position for the Church of England to take up in this matter to say that if they could get £5 here and £15 there then they would do so and make the ratepayers pay it. If all they gained by this was to shift on to the ratepayers what might amount to a half-penny rate, the Church of England would have sold its birthright for a very wretched mess of pottage. He should support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Even now he hoped the House would not support a transaction of this character, which he must say did not show itself to the advantage of the parties by whom it was demanded.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON)said the extraordinary

  639
  thing was that hon. Gentlemen opposite always talked about the Church of England and these voluntary schools as if the managers of those schools wished to get rid of their liabilities at the expense of the public. Those who represented large town constituencies knew that there was a very different phase to this subject. A large number of these schools were situated amongst poor populations with no large funds to draw upon and few rich people to contribute, and it was only with great difficulty, and because they were dear to the people who sent their children to them, that they were able to keep going, for there was often a free board school next door. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite was taking a very comprehensive view when he spoke as if voluntary schools were only where there were rich people to maintain them. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of an understanding. He had heard before of understandings which were assumed by one side of which the other side had no knowledge. It was quite true that the Government had made largely increased provision out of the Exchequer for necessitous schools of all kinds, as well as charging the rates with the maintenance of voluntary schools, but the funds hitherto paid to the managers of voluntary schools would be paid to the local authority, and could only be paid out for specific purposes, and voluntary schools which had kept themselves going by the goodness of their education and charging fees, would now be thrown back upon private resources to meet the expenses which were thrown upon them by this Bill. It was only through the excellence of their teaching that they had been able to carry on. In Lancashire more money per head was earned by these schools than by the board schools, taking them all round, but now they would have to find other sources. The voluntary schools had to consider every £5 note, and if the schoolmaster had been paid at a lower salary, with a house, than that paid in the board schools, clearly that was part of his income, because it saved him a rent. Under these circumstances, why was that rent not to be reckoned along with the cost of maintenance of voluntary
  640
  schools? He was not in the least afraid that his constituents would call this a shabby claim.
  (3.10.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Baronet had intimated that he had no knowledge of the understanding which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. He would remind the House that the Bill as originally drafted drew no distinction at all between the teachers' houses and the school buildings, and the understanding was that it included all those buildings. Therefore the change made must have been the result of pressure brought to bear since the Bill was introduced, for this was a clear departure from anything that was arrived at when the Bill was first drafted. The right hon. Baronet said that the voluntary schools must consider every £5 note. He thought they were doing this, and they were managing to extract at the same time many £5 notes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. He was glad that this practice was going to come to an end, because, with a few more days of Closure, heaven knew how many more £5 notes might be extracted. The right hon. Baronet said these school-houses were in very poor districts, and he gave that as a reason why the rent should be charged. He appeared to forget that it was those very districts which would have to pay the rent. This was a most extraordinary argument. If these school-houses were in very poor districts, that was the very reason why they should not charge a rent for them. Under this Bill the rent would fall upon that particular area, and if these houses were built for educational purposes why should they charge the ratepayers with this rent? The right hon. Baronet knew that the difficulty in those poor districts was because of their poverty, and the rates ran up to a very high amount. Those were things they could not avoid. Those poor districts were the places where the voluntary schools were going to "look after every £5 note," and they were going to take it from the ratepayers. Might he make one comment on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education? The effect of the Closure on the Bill was

  641
  bad enough, but it was nothing compared to the bad influence it had seemed to have on the hon. Member. Entrenched behind the guillotine, with the protection of that potent instrument, he hurled defiance at them and made most aggressive challenges. His speeches formerly were conciliatory—he would not say apologetic, but he used to be purely on the defensive. Now he carried the war into the enemy's camp, and he had done it very effectually. He had captured altogether £200,000, and given it to the voluntary school managers. He had captured half the endowments;and—really he ought to deplore this guillotine business, for it had not improved his Ministerial manner—he attacked the Opposition as if they were the people who were getting the £200,000, and not his friends. What about the grant of £250,000, out of public funds to build the school-houses? The term "shabby" was not strong enough to apply to this matter. The managers were going to charge the very people who gave that £250,000, interest at the rate of 5 percent. for the money. That was a most impudent proposal; he thought that "impudent" was the epithet which was most applicable, with every desire to be moderate. The Bill was getting worse and worse. He trembled for the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. It had cost them £400,000 a year already. Nay, it had cost them more; the Parliamentary grant-in-aid went up to £500,000 as a result. The endowments were given; school fees were given; and they had to pay rent for the teachers' houses. Mr. Kenyon-Slaney had no idea of the burden he had thrown upon his country. It was a most valuable Amendment, but he did not think its capital value was worth £20,000,000. Luckily, the House of Lords had no power to impose changes in taxation otherwise the prophecy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might take something off the income-tax would be a very futile one. If this went on there would be 2d. put on the income-tax.
  MR. GROVES)said he failed to see that the provisions of the Bill warranted the expressions that had been used towards them by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs,
  642
  and even after the brilliant speech just delivered he failed to see that this Clause dealing with the rents of teachers' houses should have applied to it the epithets which were employed. In coming to a conclusion; on a matter of this kind, every one on his side of the House was disposed to give fair consideration to even the minutest proposals of the Bill. There were places where teachers' houses were provided, and others where houses were not provided. He knew of a school in the parish of St. Bartholemew's, Salford, in his own constituency, where there was no teacher's house, and another school in the same parish where there was an adequate house. In one case the education authority obtained the use of the school, and had to provide a house for the teacher at their own cost. Why should they object to pay for the house already attached to the other school in the same parish? The hon. Member had referred in terms of contempt to the poor districts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not refer in terms of contempt to the poor districts.
  MR. GROVESsaid that the poorer the district the stronger the argument in favour of this proposal. He was not convinced by any argument which had been advanced from the other side of the House that there would be any injustice in charging rent for the teachers' houses already existing, seeing that the education authority would have to provide houses where there were none at present, or pay a proportionately higher salary.
  MR. TREVELYAN)asked on what basis the rent was going to be charged. Most of the teachers' houses existed or, at any rate. a very large part of them, in the small country villages, where there was very often no other house within a mile or two which was good enough for a teacher's house. He instanced the case of the village in Northumberland with which his family was connected. There was a British school in that village, and the teacher's house formed part of the school building. If there were two doors to these village schools, one led to the

  643
  teacher's house. The teachers' houses were indistinguishable from the school buildings, which were now to be handed over to the local authorities. Practically all the houses in the village were unfitted to be a teacher's house or were occupied. What was to prevent his father, if he chose, from exacting a monopoly rent far above the value of that house? It had a monopoly value in that district. It was not business to put it into the hands of the private owners and Church owners of these houses to charge what rent they pleased for, perhaps, the only house for miles round in which the teacher could probably get decent lodgings. This was far worse because of what the hon. Member for Carnarvon had pointed out, for these dwellings had been largely built out of public grants. For the last three-quarters of a century the nation had been helping to build these houses. During the period when the voluntary schools were being built wit greatest rapidity—between 1861 and 1881–1,680 houses were built with the considerable assistance of £65 for the house in each case. That was to say, they were putting into the hands of the Church the power in many cases of charging rent probably above the real value of a building, although the building had been built very largely out of public funds. He thought that was a serious consideration. It proved to the full what was the system the Government had chosen to adopt. If they were going to adopt it he should like to know what they were going to do where houses had practically a monopoly value. Were they going to put something into the Bill which would give some control over, possibly, the exorbitant demands of some of the owners?
  MR. PURVIS)said he would not deal with the epithets hurled from the other side, such as "shabby," "extortionate," and so forth, because it would generally be found that those who wished to drive an extortionate and shabby bargain were those who used extravagant language to the other side. If the teacher had a house provided at the expense of the school managers, then where there was no house, according to the same reasoning they ought to make up their minds that the managers should
  644
  pay for the teacher's lodgings. Surely that was going beyond the original concordat. He believed it was beyond the general scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill was that the managers should not be expected to pay for the lodgings of the teacher. If they were going to pay for his lodgings they would have to pay for his books, school pencils, and other things. If they allowed that the teacher should have a house provided for him by them where there was no house, they would have to make up their minds to provide far more than that.
  MR. BRYCE)observed that the hon. Gentleman had said with great truth and force that this proposal that rent should be charged for the teacher's house was contrary to the scheme of the Bill.
  MR. PURVIS: No.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he heard words to that effect, and he took the words as expressing the truth. The scheme of the Bill was that the managers were to provide the dwellings for the teachers. That was to say, the school building included the school house where there was a school house, because by the Act of 1870, which was incorporated with this Bill, the school house building included the premises of the teacher. The Bill was brought in on that footing, and it was understood that the teachers residences, as well as the school houses, were provided by the managers. The proposal that the managers should be enabled to charge rent for the teacher's residence was entirely contrary to that scheme, because, by the way in which this Bill had been frequently expounded, the teacher was to be appointed and dismissed by the managers and not by the local authority. He went a little further than the hon. Gentleman, because he held that not only the school premises but the school teacher's house were held upon trust. What was the object of that trust? It was that the house should be enjoyed and occupied by the teacher of the school, as teacher. That was a trust which they were not entitled to break. While that trust stood the managers could not let the schoolmaster's house. They had no

  645
  power to do so. The house could not be used for any other purpose except for a residence for the teacher, and therefore it was not in the market for the purpose of charging a rent. Looking at it from a strictly legal point of view—as, no doubt, hon. Members opposite would wish to look at it—it was perfectly clear that this proposal to charge rent was not in the original scheme of the Bill, but only introduced when the Government were laid under pressure. And yet the answer of the Secretary to the Board of Education was that it would be an advantage that this charge for rent should be given to the managers and the cost thrown upon the ratepayers! It was to be to the benefit of the ratepayers that they were to pay the rent which otherwise the managers would have paid! He entirely failed to follow that argument.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the local authority would have to provide the school and the teacher's house if the managers did not provide them.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the managers kept the monopoly. They could not use the house for any other purpose because it was affected by the trust, or they would commit a breach of trust. They talked about bargains; but it must occur to most hon. Members who had watched the changes made in the Bill that a very good bargain had been made for the Church. The Church had got a large share of the endowments, a large share of the fees, and a rent for the schoolmaster's house. That was the result of the hard bargain which the Church Party had driven with the Government. Whether it was a good bargain in a political sense time would show.
  (3.38.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,said he was not disposed to enter at any length into this controversy, beyond saying that the arrangement for charging rent for the teacher's house seemed to him to be perfectly fair and equitable. One could not stroll into the House without being struck with the fact that there was a chorus constantly going on on the Opposition Benches thanking
  646
  heaven that they were not as those other men—extortioners and unjust. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire professed to translate the adjective used by his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education; but he must admit that the right hon. Gentleman's own Anglo-Saxon was sufficiently expressive. The argument by which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to support that adjective was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. Was it not perfectly clear to every one that if a teacher did not have a dwelling-house supplied to him he would get more salary? The right hon. Gentleman actually said: "Whoever heard that the amount of salary depended on whether a house was supplied for the teacher or not?" The right hon. Gentleman laid down the proposition that the salary given to the teacher depended on his qualifications, and would not be affected in the slightest degree if he got a house or had to provide a house for himself out of his salary. That argument required no comment whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said that there was a legal difficulty. He confessed that he did not follow the legal difficulty. It was perfectly true that the buildings were held in trust for the purposes of education; but suppose that there was a part of the buildings which was not wanted for the moment for educational purposes. What was to prevent the trustees letting it and applying the proceeds to the purposes of the trust?
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the object of the trust was designated in the trust deed.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the buildings were applied generally for the purposes of education, and the local authority was the body which was bound to provide a salary to the teacher. He contended that a rent might be charged for the schoolmaster's house, but that the managers were bound to apply the proceeds within the terms of the trust.
  MR. WHITLEY)said that according to a Return given to the House no less a sum than £250000 had been

  647
  paid out of the Exchequer for building grants for teachers' houses. Would the power to charge rent include those houses which were built, in whole or in part, out of public money?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not see how that affected the question. The money was granted for the purposes of providing buildings for educational purposes; and as long as the proceeds of the rent were applied to public purposes within the terms of the trust, he failed to see how the hon. Member's question affected the matter.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if he was correct in assuming that the Attorney General meant that the rent was to be applied to public purposes and not to the purposes of the denomination? It was a revelation that the public were to be required to pay a rent for a building built out of money provided by the public themselves. There was not even a deduction to be made from the rent corresponding to the amount of money contributed out of the Exchequer. It was quite clear from the Return to which he had referred that there were 3,200 teachers' houses, which had been partly provided out of public money, or at the rate of £65 a piece. Hon. Members who were acquainted with the rural districts knew that that represented one-half the cost; and yet they were told that the public were to pay for ever rent on the money which they themselves had provided.
  MR. LUKE WHITE)said he thought there was another point which ought to be taken into consideration. This Clause, if passed in its present form, would create difficulties and injustice in many rural districts in the country, if the whole of the rents of the non-provided schoolmasters' residences were to come out of the county rates. In the county which he repre-
  sented there were fifteen School Board districts, and in each of those parishes the School Board had already provided a house for the schoolmaster: but under this Bill each of these parishes would have to pay, through the county rate, the cost of the rent of the voluntary school-masters' residences, while at the same time they had in their own parishes paid the principal and interest of the cost of their schoolmasters' houses. He believed that, in fairness and justice, if this Clause was passed, the Government should provide that the county rate should get the benefit of the rent in those parishes which had already provided schoolmasters' residences. He trusted this matter would be taken into consideration, and that some alleviation would be made so far as the rural School Board districts were concerned.
  MR. KEMP)said he was entirely against the Amendment. But he should like to say that some exception should be made in regard to the schoolmasters' houses which had been built and partly paid for out of public money. He wanted to be absolutely just in this matter.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he really had hardly anything to add to what had been said by the Attorney-General. The money was given for the purposes of the trust, and would be applied to the purposes of the trust, namely, the educational advancement of the school. He did not see any injustice in applying the money to the purposes for which it was intended.
  MR. LUKE WHITEasked if the hon. Gentleman would reply to the question he had put?
  (3.46.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 588.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Campbell, RtHn .J. A.(Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Carew, James Laurence

  Austin, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bond, Edward

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A(Worc.)

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somers't,E.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, HonM. W.(Stalybridge)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kemp, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lecky, RtHon WilliamEdw. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside)

  Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley. Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r)

  Loder, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lonsdale, Jolm Brownelee

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macartney, RtHn W. G. Ellison

  Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tully, Jasper

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Cann, James

  Valentia Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Walrond,RtHn. Sir William H.

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E.(Notts.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute)

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn LordG(Midd'x)

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Doherty, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Younger, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lambert, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Asquith, RtHonHerbertHenry

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bell, Richard

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lloyd-George, David

  Black, Alexander William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Rt. Hn John(Montrose)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cremer, William Randal

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crombie, John William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Priestley, Arthur

  650

  651

  Rea, Russell

  Spencer, RtHn C. R.(Northants)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rigg, Richard

  Taylor, TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thomas, DavidAlferd(Merthyr)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Toulmin, George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Warner, ThomasCourtenayT.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wason, Eugene

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Weir, James Galloway

  and Mr. Causton.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In Clause 7, page 4, line 20, leave out from 'school' to 'and,' in line 23" "In Clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end, insert as a fresh paragraph—(e) The managers of the school shall, if the local educational authority have no suitable accommodation in schools provided by them, allow that authority to use any room in the schoolhouse out of school hours free of charge for any educational purpose, but this obligation shall not extend to more than three days in the week.'" "In Clause 7, Page 4, line 28, after 'school' insert 'maintained but.' "In Clause 7, page 4, line 28, make lines 28 to 37, being paragraph (e) of sub-Section (1), a new sub-Section (2)." "In Clause 7, page 4, line 39, after 'school' insert 'not provided by the authority.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  (4.5.)MR. CRIPPS)said he desired to move to omit the Clause inserted by the hon. and gallant Member for the Newton Division in Committee and thought he would be held guiltless of any discourtesy to the hon. and gallant Member if he referred to this Clause as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. He was anxious at the outset to make his position clear to many of those opposed to this Clause, and therefore he might say it was an entire mistake to suppose, as had been taught on many occasions in this House in matters where the Church of England was interested, that the only party in the Church interested was the High Church party. He did not wish to argue his own views in matters of this sort, but he belonged to the same school as his hon. and gallant friend who moved the insertion of this Clause, that moderate school which disliked extremes and which thought that within the portals of the Church there was room for everyone of a wise and moderate spirit. It seemed to him in this Church question that everyone in the Church was entitled to express his own views so long as he kept within the legal limitations of the National Church, and he deprecated the in tolerant spirit which led one extreme party to persecute
  652
  and ostracise the other. A spirit of that kind would lead to the destruction of the Church, and he disassociated himself entirely from it. In order to show that he did not represent any narrow view within the Church, he might mention he received, two days after the Clause had been passed, a document, signed by no less than 500 clergymen of the Manchester diocese, protesting against it, and anyone who knew the diocese knew perfectly well that the document was signed without any regard to High or Low Church; there were an equal number of clergymen representing both views protesting against what they considered to be an interference with their views and the views of the National Church.
  There were three points of view from which he regarded the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. It had been said that this Clause was in the nature of an insult to the Church of England. He did not believe it was either introduced or accepted from any such point of view. He was sure the hon. and gallant Member had no such idea, and that those who supported him had nothing farther from their thoughts. Everyone who loved the Church, and felt that the clergy did their duty, must acknowledge that their position had been recognised again and again in the many speeches made by the First Lord of the Treasury. But although nothing in the nature of an insult was intended, they had to consider, as regarded the practical bearing of this Amendment, what had been the position of the clergy in regard to denominational education in this country. Without hesitation, he laid it down that if it had not been for the self-sacrifice of the clergy a vast number of these denominational schools would not be in existence at the present moment. It was not very much sometimes for the rich man of whom they had heard so much to give out of his abundance for the purposes of education, but he was

  653
  familiar with many instances where the clergyman, in his desire to maintain what he considered was the true form of denominational teaching, had denied himself and family the necessaries of life, and for this form of self-sacrifice they ought, he submitted, have the respect of every member of the House. (A VOICE: What about the rich archbishops?) There were one or two special directions in which he might emphasise that. He would not go into the poorer districts where the school had been managed and maintained by the country clergyman; he would not go into the slums of the big towns where, so far as the clergy were concerned, the schools had been maintained so ably: he would say a word with regard to his own constituency. It lay between Manchester and Stockport. A few years ago it was a country district—it was covered with buildings, many of them of the poorer class, at the present moment; it was one of the districts where the greatest self-sacrifice was required from the clergymen in order to keep themselves on a level with the population as regarded the schools and the church, and in the spirit of self-sacrifice he knew that the clergy of that district had gone without the necessaries of life in order to carry out what they conscientiously considered to be their duty. Upon the Church question pure and simple, whatever might be the views on one side or the other, the House would be unanimous on this, that it should be the mission of the Church to teach the young children the doctrine on which they believed the great issues of futurity depended. He did not believe the clergy would adopt so unfortunate an attitude as to close these schools on account of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, although anyone could understand the great momentary irritation in a matter of this kind. He had no fear of that, but he feared the slackening of the energy of the clergy. He had the strongest conviction that if there was any slackening of devout energy on the part of the clergy to maintain the denominational character of schools, they would in a number of cases be condemned.
  One great objection he had to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, Which was not intended as an insult to the Church, was, if they considered human nature, that the
  654
  interest in education under the working of this Clause in the future was likely to be slackened. If it was, there could not be a greater misfortune happen to the denominational schools. A further objection to the Clause was that its effect upon the managers would be as bad as its effect on the clergy. One of the reasons why the denominational schools had worked so well and with so little friction was, that in the choice of the managers of those schools the extreme denominational element had been to a great extent excluded. That could not be so in the future if they were to have the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. With regard to present conditions, although he did not care to go into illustrations of a personal nature, in the parish with which he was associated, in a parish in which the Church element had been not only predominant, but almost exclusive, for a long series of years the school had been managed without the slightest friction by a governing body of four Church of England men, two Dissenters, and one Roman Catholic; and until this Bill was brought in, and he inquired as to what the religious convictions of the managers were, he did not know which faith they professed. It was said that the denominational character of these schools would be protected, because there was to be a majority of denominational managers. What did that mean? They introduced into their daily life questions of doctrine and religion. Would it not be absolutely essential in the future, if questions of doctrine and religion were to be determined, to appoint as foundation managers members of the denomination? Under this Clause they could not complain if the people appointed members who were not only members of the denomination, but bigoted members, which would be a most unfortunate result, because it would introduce an intolerant spirit exactly where it ought not to be introduced. He had heard this question argued as though the purport of this Clause was to introduce a larger local and popular element. There could not be a greater mistake or misapprehension. The managers, whether trustees or not of these private schools, outside the two appointed by the local education authority, represented a private interest, and a private interest

  655
  only. What reason was there to suppose that an individual manager or a particular body of trustees should not be at least as eccentric and extravagant as an individual member of the clergy of the Established Church? It was not a question of popular management on the one side and the clergy on the other, it was a question of whether in some of the parishes questions of doctrine and Church discipline should, instead of being in the hands of the clergyman and bishop, be in the hands of the squire or private owner, who in matters of this kind had no right to be heard at all. [A VOICE: Why not?] His view of denominational education was that it meant denominational education carried on under the superintendence of the ministers of the Church. The point he put was that there was no reason for it on the religious side, and on the practical side there was every reason against giving an individual or his nominees in a particular parish power over the religious teaching which happened to be taught in that parish. The Kenyon-Slaney Clause had nothing to do with the question of popular control. That was dealt with by other Clauses of the Bill. Take a clergyman, no matter what his tenets were, and assume that all his parishioners were in favour of the form of religious education which he taught, and take the owner of the school who at the time was antagonistic to all the parishioners, a man who might be an extreme Church-man. There they had a private owner of a school deciding against the wish of the parish and the religious teacher of the parish—what should be taught in the school.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was only one out of six.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid it was not one out of six because he appointed the other three practically. He hoped the House would appreciate the fact that they were dealing with a question in which if there was antagonism between the clergyman and the school-owner this is what would occur. Could such a thing be maintained as a fair solution of this difficult problem? What could be worse in its influence, as regarded religious teaching than to have a popular clergyman, with
  656
  whom all his parishioners agreed, and an unpopular school-owner who was antagonistic and had unpopular views, whose views were to be forced on that parish? There could be no other result if the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment were applied. He did not wish to deal with the religious question, he wished to make it a practical question. It was a monstrous thing to supersede the clergyman in such circumstances, and to substitute for him some private person who had no responsibility to any one.
  Another strong objection which he had to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment was, and he was now going on to more technical grounds, that it had been suggested that this Clause either did not affect the trusts at all, or only affected them in very unimportant details. If the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was to be given, any meaning at all, it would and must affect those trusts in future. He made that statement because if hon. Members looked at the Clause, they would see that religious instruction was to be given in the school not in accordance "with the provisions of the trust deed relating thereto." but "in accordance with the tenour of the provisions of the trust deed." Why were those words introduced, and what could they mean? They meant nothing more than this—if it was an Anglican school in the past it would be so in the future, and if it was a Roman Catholic school, or a Wesleyan school, in the past, so it would remain. That would be so without the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. But he thought the real meaning of those words went much further. He put it to the learned Attorney General in order that he might get an answer. He would take a case where the terms of the trust deed at the present time were that the religious education should be carried out according to the tenets of the Church of England. Suppose in that case there was a difference of opinion between the owner of the school, or his nominee, and the clergyman of the parish. Which was to have the government as regarded the religious education? Was it to be in accordance with the tenets of religion in the hands of the rector, or was it to be taken out of the hands of the rector and placed in the hands of others? If it was taken out of

  657
  the hands of the rector, then they were interfering in the most direct and improper way with the trust deed. If they had a trust deed leaving the religious education to the clergyman of the church, and by the operation of this Clause it was withdrawn from his hands and put into the hands of a body of managers or private individuals, were they not on a most crucial point interfering with the trust. That was a very clear issue. Under these conditions would the teaching be in accordance with the terms of the trust in the hands of the clergyman, or would it be transferred into the hands of the new managing body? He knew there had been some difference of opinion as regarded the construction of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause but the words were "and shall be under the control of the managers." In his opinion that was introducing a new term into every trust deed. Was it intended to be subject to all the provisions which existed in the trust deed at the present time? From his own point of view, if it could be made perfectly clear that no trust deed would be interfered with, and there were facilities for providing trust deeds in the future, he admitted that a very large amount of his objection to this Clause would be done away with. They would then always have trust deeds under which it was inoperative, and in those circumstances they would take the proper course of being governed by the conditions of the deed, outside of any special provisions in the Bill itself.
  The effect of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause would be to weaken the interests of the clergy in education and to demoralize the managers. They were now a composite body as regarded denominations, but they would henceforth necessarily be chosen from one denomination, because a member of another denomination could, of course, not be introduced without running the risk of the Church getting into a minority on the question of religious education. Lastly, as a Conservative of a pronounced type in this matter, he protested most strongly against any interference with these trust deeds which was not shown to be absolutely and essentially necessary. The hon. and gallant Member had urged that this Clause would be a means of security against the action of what he called eccentric or extravagant clergymen. But whereas a clergyman was now subject to control, both under the law of the Church and the action of his Bishop, the
  658
  effect of this Clause might be to put the religious instruction of the children into the hands of quite as eccentric laymen, who in their position as owners of school buildings had no special claim to interfere in this matter of religious doctrine. Surely it was a slur on the clergy in one sense if they assumed that the eccentricity and extravagance must be on their side only. That was not his experience. He had no doubt that they would be able to find exceptions to this rule, but the laity could not claim infallibility on this point any more than the clergy. That seemed to him to be the only argument.
  It was an argument of despair to introduce questions of Church discipline into the education of young children. A lay High Churchman might bring a crucifix into a school, and thus oust the clergyman who is a Low Churchman. That was an extraordinary proposition. Suppose there was a clergyman with whom he disagreed. Suppose a Low Churchman found himself face to face with a High Church manager—was it right that he should be excluded from that school and from the religious teaching if such teaching was given within the limitation of what was legal in the Church? What a bathos for the Church of England to have its doctrines put in the hands of four managers selected by individual owners of the school and two who came from the local authority. He was strongly opposed to any ostracising policy either by his hon. and gallant friend or by anyone else of the Church of England, and he bitterly regretted that in a Bill which, in his opinion, was tempered by religious equality all round, and which had gone further than any proposal made before to remedy the disabilities of which Nonconformists complain, and far beyond what was done by the Party in power in 1870, not only in the Bill itself but in the expressions with which it was introduced—he regretted, as a member of the Church of England, that the one instance of intolerance, the one case of a new disability, should have been introduced to the detriment of that class who, by their devoted self-sacrifice, had maintained denominational education up to this day, and without whose devoted self-sacrifice no Act of Parliament could maintain it in future.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 6, to leave out sub-Section (4) of Clause 7."—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'religious instruction' stand part of the Bill."
  (4.38.) SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was in entire disagreement with the main point of his hon. and learned friend's speech, but every one must agree with the spirit of the remarks with which he prefaced the more controversial part of that speech. He was not wrong in believing that the Government, in accepting the Amendment moved by his hon. and gallant friend, were acting not in the interests of any party, political or religious, but solely in the interests of the smooth working of the machinery of the new system under the altered conditions which the Bill had introduced. His hon. and learned friend had paid an eloquent and deserved tribute to the work which the clergy had done with reference to education in England. He said, and said truly, that it was to the self-sacrificing exertions of the clergy that in very many cases these schools had owed their continued existence. He might have gone a great deal further and said that at a time in the history of education in England, when there were none to help, the clergy of the Church of England stepped in. He might have further said that for many years, so far as the work of national education was discharged it was discharged by the clergy of the Church of England, and no one in dealing with the educational problem could for one moment leave out that great fact, which lay at the foundation of that which they had now to deal.
  When his hon. and learned friend apperhended that the effect of this Amendment would be to lead to some slackening of zeal on the part of the clergy in the Church with regard to education, he did not share that apprehension. He had a far higher opinion of the clergy of the Church of England than that into the expression of which for the moment his hon. friend was betrayed. He did not believe that the clergy of the Church of England were out of sympathy with the laity,
  660
  or that they would have any difficulty in co-operating with them. He was reluctant to enter into any controversial matters with his hon. and learned friend, but he must demur to one portion of his hon. friend's speech in which he seemed very unduly to minimise the place of the laity in the Church. He did not think that his hon. and learned friend really meant all that his words seemed to convey, but he must protest against the expressions which he used being taken in the full import which the words at the time he used them seemed to bear.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he thought his words must have been misunderstood. He was not talking about the laity, but he was speaking of the position of the owners of private schools.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the expression to which the hon. Member referred occurred in another portion of his hon. friend's speech. His hon. friend seemed to think also that this Clause would make the managers bigoted. He would have thought that it would have exactly the opposite effect, and that the tendency would rather be to have moderate men on the Board, who fairly represented the laity of the denomination with which the school was connected. His hon. and learned friend gave a very interesting instance from his own experience, where there was a Board of Managers consisting of four members of the Church of England, two Nonconformists and one Catholic. Taking the four members of the Church of England and the two Nonconformists, he apprehended that there could not be any more difficulty under the operation of this Clause in the working of that Board than there would be before this Clause existed.
  MR. CRIPPS: The clergyman in this case comes under the trust deed and has control of teh religious teaching.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he really could not see why, if a voice was given to the laity with regard to the administration of religious instruction, it should introduce on all Boards the bigotry which his hon. and learned friend had predicted. He hoped and believed that the effect would be exactly the opposite, and that these

  661
  schools would be worked in a spirit of mutual forbearance with the result of preventing instead of causing bitterness. There was one other observation which he must make with regard to the constitution of the board of management. His hon. and learned friend has compared the case of a school connected with a particular denomination under a trust deed and the case of a school the absolute property of a private owner. Of course, a private owner might shut up his school altogether, but in the case of a school founded under a trust deed in connection with a particular denomination, the state of things was altogether different. There they expected to have a Board of managers of whom the clergyman would generally be one, and the choice of four out of six places would be in the hands of the denomination with which the school was particularly associated. In those circumstances he really could not see how the danger could arise which his hon. and learned friend depicted of a tyrannical squire setting himself up as an ecclesiastical authority and imposing his views on theology on the management, and rejecting those of the clergyman.
  LORD HUGH CECIL)asked whether his hon. and learned friend contemplated that a Roman Catholic could be among the foundation managers.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not contemplate that. Where foundation managers were chosen to represent a denomination, one would expect that he would be a member of that denomination. He did not say there might not be occasional cases in which a gentleman of different views, who was thoroughly well known, whose judgment was implicitly relied on, and who was absolutely worthy of the confidence of the denomination, might be put on the board among the foundation managers. He apprehended that such cases would be extremely rare. Then they were told that there ought to be no interference with the trust deeds. With that sentiment in general he cordially agreed, but regard must be had to the total change of conditions and circumstances, and he was sure his hon. and learned friend would not contend that, if all the conditions were changed, the conditions prescribed in the trust deed should be adhered to inflexibly for all time.
  662
  A gloomy picture had been drawn of the doctrines of the Church of England being at the mercy of the managers. He hoped to be able to satisfy the House that that was entirely a fancy picture, and that there was no danger of that kind under the Bill. The Clause had been a good deal discussed, but in order to see clearly what the effect was, one had to look at the Clause as a whole. It consisted of two parts. The first part dealt with—he put it shortly— the nature of the religious teaching to be given; and the second part dealt with the control of the administration with regard to the giving of that teaching. The first part was in these words—
  "Religious instruction shall be given in a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, in accordance with the tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto."
  And the second part was—
  "And shall be under the control of the managers."
  The first part dealt with doctrine, and the second part with machinery, and he thought that any misconception which had arisen as to the meaning of the Clause had been caused in this way, that those who had endeavoured to construe it had fastened their attention too exclusively either on the first or on the second part. In order to get the true meaning of either part they must read the Clause as a whole, and read each in the light of the other portion, which, by all the rules of common-sense, was the way it must be construed. With regard to the first portion of the Clause, he apprehended that no one could suggest that giving the control of religious teaching to a body of managers empowered them to go outside the terms of the trust deed. If the terms of the trust deed provided for religious teaching according to the doctrines of the Church of England, he apprehended that it was perfectly clear the managers, however much they had control of the teaching, could not by any possibility introduce the teaching of any other religion in the school. They could not in that case introduce Wesleyan or Roman Catholic teaching; they were bound by the terms of the trust as to the nature of the religious instruction to be given in the school. If the trust deed made no provision for determining any questions of difference as to what the doctrine of the Church of England might be, the

  663
  question in the last resort would have to be determined by the Court of Chancery. As in the case of all other trusts for the application of endowments of any kind, if questions arose as to whether the trust was being carried out according to law, the Court would have to decide. He was glad it did not often come to that, for it was a delicate, anxious, and difficult question for a court of law to have to deal with. The courts would also have to determine any question of that kind when there was no trust deed at all, or if there were any circumstances in which a trust could be implied in favour of the tenets of one denomination or another. But the greatest admirers of the courts of law must confess that there were some questions they were better qualified to deal with than others, and the framers of some trust deeds seemed to have adopted that view because they had provided that cases of difference in relation to ecclesiastical teaching should be determined by some superior ecclesiastical authority. A provision of that kind, if put merely on the low ground of convenience, would be recognised as extremely expedient and as one that ought not to be interfered with. He read the clause as not interfering in the slightest degree with the functions of any such ecclesiastical authority to determine what the doctrine was of the Church with which the school was associated; and if a question arose as to whether a particular doctrine was a doctrine of the Church of England, than if the trust deed provided for the decision of that point by the bishop his decision would be obtained, and it would be the duty of the managers loyally to carry out the decision of the authority provided by the trust deed of which they were the administrators. That was the way he read the first portion of the Clause on the consideration of which the House was engaged.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Do I understand the Attorney General to mean that the bishop can determine both whether a doctrine is untrue and whether a doctrine should be taught? There are errors of omission as well as errors of commission.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAYreplied that, speaking generally, the bishop would have jurisdiction over errors of omission as well as over errors of commission, because they might have a
  664
  doctrine so vital to the tenets of a particular denomination that to leave it out would be as bad as to put in another.
  MR. CRIPPS: In a case where at the present time it would be under the rector of the diocese, would that be continued under the Bill, or would it be given to the law courts?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would deal with that presently. The second part of the Clause dealt with the control of the teaching. That was given to the managers. He was asked what would happen if the trust deed provided that the teaching should be under the superintendence of the rector of the parish. In future that superintendence would be subject to the control of the managers. In this was no disrespect, or even suspicion of disrespect, to the clergy of the Church of England. He did not believe that the collision, which his hon. and learned friend apprehended as possible, between the clergyman and the other managers would occur in one case out of a thousand. He had perfect confidence in the ability of the clergy to co-operate with the laity of the Church and with the other managers. But if in the thousandth case there was, unhappily, division as to the manner in which the doctrines of the Church were to be carried out, the last word must rest with some one, and he thought his hon. and learned friend would agree that, in view of the vast changes this Bill involved and the manner in which the schools were to be maintained, the system of one-man management, well as it had, on the whole, worked in the past, was not one the House would desire to continue. His hon. and gallant friend who moved this Amendment had brought forward words which would have the effect of giving the laity a fair voice in saying how the machinery of religious instruction was to work. He had endeavoured to put clearly his views on the Clause. He would only add that he did not think he had said a single thing that had not already been said quite as clearly by the First Lord of the Treasury partly in this House in the debate on the Clause, partly in this House in answer to Questions put the other day, and partly in answer to those innumerable letters with which his right

  665
  hon. friend had been flooded by those who were anxious as to the working of this Clause. His belief with regard to the Clause, as with regard to any other parts of the Bill, was that all the difficulties which had been conjured up would in practice not be found to exist. He believed the clergyman would retain his legitimate influence, and that he would be well able to co-operate with the laity in the discharge of his great function of seeing that the doctrines of his Church were taught to the children in the schools.
  (5.0.) MR. ASQUITH: I have placed on the Paper an Amendment which would have the effect of omitting the very words which my hon. and learned friend opposite has proposed to omit in his Motion to reject the Clause as a whole. But our objects are diametrically opposite. My hon. and learned friend wishes to get rid of the Clause. I, although I do not attach as much value and importance to it as so many people are supposed to, wish to retain the Clause, and the object of my Amendment is not only to retain the Clause, but to express what I believe is the unanimous intention of the House—both of those who opposed and those who advocated it three weeks ago—in clear and unequivocal language. I am, however, precluded by the technicalities of our procedure from moving the Amendment, and I will take the issue as upon the Clause in its present form. Now, I listened with great attention and much respect to the speech of the Attorney General, who gave a lucid exposition of the problem he was endeavouring to explain to the House. But I confess that that speech filled me with amazement. I propose to ask the attention of the House to two questions— first of all, What does the Clause mean? and secondly, What was the Clause intended to mean? Now, what does the Clause mean? The Attorney General has told us that it consists of two parts—one of which deals with doctrine and the other with what he somewhat vaguely called control or administration. But it appears that wherever a school is not managed by a trust deed which gives the power of appeal to the Bishop the question of
  666
  doctrine would fall under the category of administration, and the managers would be supreme.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It would be for a court of law to determine what was the doctrine of the Church in that case.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the first instance, the managers are to determine, and if any one likes to go to law and complain of a breach of trust he may do so. But subject to that contingency the managers in all these schools are to be the persons who are to determine the doctrine which is to be taught to the children, and it is only in the schools where the trust deed contains this power of appeal to the Bishop that the managers will be deprived, practically, of any effective voice in the selection of the doctrines to be taught or the manner in which they are to be taught and their powers of administration will be confined to I do not know what—apparently to nothing at all. I confess I should have interpreted the Clause in a totally different sense, althought I express the opinion with the utmost diffidence after listening to the speech of the Attorney General. I should have said that the words, "in accordance with the tenour of the provisions of the deed" are purposely chosen. Tenour is not a term of art. It is a totally different thing, and must be intended to have a different significance from "terms," "conditions," "provisions," and, still more, "detailed machinery." I interpret the word "tenour," as I believe it was universally interpreted in the debate of three weeks ago, as meaning that so long as the teaching given is within the general scope and effect of the trust deed—that is to say, that, so long as, as the Attorney General said, in a Anglican school the teaching is Anglican, in a Wesleyan school Wesleyan, and in a Roman Catholic school Roman Catholic—subject to that limitation, the control, the undisputed and undivided control, is with the managers.
  We have to consider the Clause as a whole, and we must look to the governing intention of the whole. That is a well-known rule of legal construction, as well as a rule of common sense. What is the governing

  667
  intention here? I venture to say it is that, provided the teaching given is within the general scope, in other words, in accordance with the tenour of the trust deed, the power, the control, of the managers is supreme. Let me quote the actual language of the ordinary trust deed of the National Society. It is that "the superintendence of the religious instruct on to be given in the schools shall be vested in the managers for the time being, and in case of any dispute or difference arising on any matter"—not merely on questions of doctrine— "affecting the religious instruction in the said school, an appeal may be made to the bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties." How a court of law is to say, in one and the same breath, that Parliament gives the control with one hand as regards religious instruction and yet keeps alive a provision which enables the bishop to waive the managers aside, is more than I can comprehend. I confess that, if the matter did come before a court of law, I should have a very confident expectation myself that it would be held that the governing intention of the Clause in such a case was managerial control, and that the provision of the trust deed which appeared to be of the contrary effect must be deemed to be swept aside. Whether this is the actual construction of the Clause or not, I have no hesitation in saying that it was clearly the intention of the Committee when the Clause was discussed and carried by an overwhelming majority. According to the Attorney General, the Committee during the whole of that debate was in a dream, and while it thought, as it undoubtedly did think, that throughout these non-provided schools it was establishing, as regards religious instruction, lay control, it was really, without suspecting it, as regarded a very large number of them, as regarded apparently all of them with trust deeds of the National Society, enthroning by stature the final and undisputed jurisdiction of a remote ecclesiastical authority. What was the intention of those who advocated the Clause? I turn now to the speech of my hon. and gallant friend who is the sponsor of this Clause —a sponsorship which has achieved
  668
  for him a universal and a universally appreciated celebrity. Was it the object of my hon. and gallant friend, when he moved this Clause, when he talked about the importance of bringing local lay opinion to bear upon, and in restraint of, the eccentricities of the clergyman, that laymen should have no determining voice in the matter, but only the power to say, "We do not approve of your practices, the thing must go to the Bishop." I doubt whether that was his intention. What was the avowed and pronounced object of my hon. and gallant friend?
  "He desired to make it impossible for the future," he said, "that any individual, whether cleric or layman, should be able to impose of his own will, any form of religious teaching, or any practice or observance in connection with religious teaching, which might not have the consent and approval of the majority of the management of the school."
  Surely the word "cleric" included not only the local parson, who might be supposed to know the needs of the parish, but also the bishops, far removed from the scene of dispute, and who, as a body, had not shown themselves in the past over zealous to check the exuberance of eccentric and refractory priests.
  But equally important is the meaning attributed to the Clause by those who opposed it. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge. Do not let it be supposed that this question of the trust deed was passed over sun silentio. It was pointedly brought to the attention of the House by him. He said, after quoting the terms of the National Society's deed—
  "He did not want to argue that point, because there was an appeal already to a recognised constituted authority; but if this Amendment were carried there was no appeal at all. They might give their decision in accordance with the tenour of the trust deed with no bishop or education authority to see that they did their work properly."
  That was the sense in which the opponents of the Clause understood it. It is still more important to see what was the opinion of the Government, for it they had not assented to this Clause its fortunes might have been very different from what they actually were. I take the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury himself. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from a

  669
  previous speech of his own, in which he used this expression—
  "Religious education will be under the control not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a board of six. Of these the parson would probably be the only minister of religion, and three would be managers representing the denomination."
  The right hon. Gentleman proceeded—
  "It was never contemplated that the teaching in a Roman Catholic school should be other than Roman Catholic, or that the teaching in a Wesleyan school should be other than Wesleyan, or that the teaching in an Anglican school should be other than Anglican; but I must traverse the contention of my noble friend that it was ever contemplated that the teaching should not be under the Board of Management."
  He developed the argument to show that the real object for thus associating the Board of Management with the clergyman was that you might bring to bear— no doubt in a rough and approximate and indirect way, but still effectively—on the character and quality and nature of the religious teaching given in the school, the opinion of the parents of the children. He said—
  "I do not pretend to maintain that, in an absolutely theoretic sense, these managers necessarily represent the parents. They are not elected by them, and, therefore, they do not represent them in that sense. But they will represent, broadly speaking, the general opinion of the particular denomination in a parish, and I think that if this Amendment is carried there really will be no danger that Anglican children will be taught a form of religion to which their parents heartily object."
  So that the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury was that they would have the voice, indirect, it was true, of the parent to restrain, if necessary, the eccentricities of the clergyman. What is to become of all that as regards a vast number of schools—they must be numbered by the thousand—in the vital matter which is the object of the Amendment—namely, the clergyman giving religious teaching which might very possibly be within the elastic range of the formularies of the Church of England, as interpreted by the bishops or the courts of law, but which was offensive, and known to be offensive, to the consciences and sentiments of a large number of the parents? How is the object to be attained as regards these thousands of schools where the voice of the managers is, in case of dispute,
  670
  to be set aside altogether, and the final and unappealable decision is to be given by the bishop and nobody else What have the managers got to control? What is there left for them to do? It is quite true that they would appoint and dismiss the teachers; but in the sub-Section now before the House they are given express definite authority to control religious teaching. But while that authority is given to them, it is now said they are only to exercise it subject to the veto of the bishops, which is practically taking away with one hand what is given by the other. I will not multiply quotations, but speaker after speaker in this debate, and no one more clearly than the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, agreed as to the effect of the Clause; and when the noble Lord proposed what the Attorney General now says is in the Clause, that the control of the managers should be subject to the provisions of the trust deeds, it was opposed by the First Lord of the Treasury and negatived without a division. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "He did not think the words proposed by his noble friend would do, but the general principle he had laid down would be safeguarded if they put in the following provision: 'Provided that any power as to religious instruction conferred by the deed on any clergyman or minister of religion shall, Subject to such control, remain vested in him.' "
  The noble Lord, with that penetration which might be expected of him, said that that would be worse than the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, as it would expressly provide that the clergyman should be absolutely subject to the control of the managers.
  The truth is that the supporters of the Clause, the opponents of the Clause, the Government which accepted the Clauses, and the Committee which adopted the Clause—all understood it in the sense which I have described. Why, then, have we got this suggested construction, never put upon it at the time, never dreamt of at the time by a single human being? There had been a storm brewing in ecclesiastical circles, and a bishop of the Church, one on the most distinguished and universally respected of them, the Bishop of Worcester, as soon as this Clause was passed, sounded the noted of alarm. The Bishop laid it down as one

  671
  of the fundamental principles of the Anglican Church, if not of any Episcopal Church, that, as far as the religious teaching was concerned, the clergyman of the parish was to exercise complete and undivided control, subject only to appeal to the bishop of the diocese. It was a doctrine of the Schoolmen that entities ought not to be unnecessarily multiplied, and I venture to think there is nothing more dangerous to a great institution, whether in the Church or State, than unnecessarily to multiply its fundamental principles. And where is this fundamental principle to be found? Where is it? By what authority and to whom has it ever been defined or propounded? I do not know, and I never yet knew anybody who did; but this I know, that if this is going to be regarded for the future as in any sense a fundamental principle of the Church of England, that a clergyman of that Church, whatever his opinion may be, however little he may be in harmony with the average religious sentiment of the parish in which he lives, is to have a complete autocracy as regards the form of religious teaching to be given in his parish—an autocracy which is to be complete, subject only to appeal to the bishop—a complete autocracy as regards the form of religious teaching to be given in the State school— in a school every penny of the remuneration of the teacher in which comes from public funds—if that is going to be recognised as one of the fundamental principles of the Church of England, so much the worse for the future of that church.
  I say then, first of all, and with great deference, that the Clause has not the effect which was now sought to be attributed to it, and it was never intended to have that effect. They very object with which it was brought forward and supported and opposed would be completely frustrated, as regards the great mass of these schools, if the so-called lay control was nothing better than a shadow and a figment, and the practical determination of the religious teaching was to rest with the clergyman, subject to appeal which was difficult to prosecute, and, as past experience shews, not likely in many cases to meet with a favourable reception from the bishop who knew nothing of the
  672
  local circumstances. Lastly, I maintain that there is involved here, quite apart from the language and intention of this particular Clause, a principle which this House when it adopted the Clause appeared almost without distinction of Party to enunciate and to adopt, a principle which it ought not to abandon, and that principle is this, that in these schools, supported as they will be—so far as the teaching is concerned— entirely by the State, the laity are entitled to a predominant voice in the religious teaching which is given.
  (5.23.) COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY)said he was sure he would have the sympathy of the House in being the first layman to take part in the debate that afternoon. He was in the extremely unfortunate position of having to take part in a wrangle between great legal giants holding opposite views. Though he had the great honour of having a Lord Chief Justice of England as a great grand father, he failed to find that any of his ancestor's legal knowledge had descended to him; and, therefore, he hoped the House would forgive him if he did not plunge into the legal aspects of the case. Inasmuch, however, as the Clause now before the House resulted from the adoption of an Amendment which stood in his name, and which now seemed to be generally known by his name, he hoped he might be excused for trying to come to the rescue of his innocent offspring from the terrible doom his hon. and learned friend pronounced on it.
  He should like to make one or two general remarks on questions which arose out of the controversy which ranged round the Clause. He understood and appreciated most thoroughly the attitude taken towards the Amendment by his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. Their position seemed to him to be perfectly fair and perfectly clear. Both the clergy and laity alike saw no objection whatever to the system of absolute priestly domination against which the Amendment was directed. He did not complain of the attitude of Roman Catholics in the matter; and he thought that, from their point of view, they should not accept it.

  673
  At the same time, he found some satisfaction in the undoubted fact that they would not suffer practically in the working of the Amendment, as they would be secured by the composition of the board of management; and, although he acknowledged their theoretical objection, no practical injury would accrue to them. It would, however, be absolutely impossible to allow any differential treatment for any particular section or religion; and therefore, he could not accept the suggestion that they should differentiate between Roman Catholics and other denominations. Apart from the great Roman Catholic body, he had heard from no side any disposition to disagree with the Clause on the part of the great Non conformist bodies; and, therefore, he was afraid he should have to treat the question as a controversy within the limits of the Anglican Church, of which he was a member. He could not say how painful to him had been some of the expressions of opinion which he had received. Old friends announced that, in consequence of his action, old friendships were at an end; and supporters of his had announced that their support would be withdrawn; but he was rather hopeful that those expressions of opinion had been some what premature and hurried, and that a little more consideration would show that he should not be condemned to suffer such severe penalties for taking the action he felt bound to take.
  Since his Amendment was adopted, several matters had occurred to which he should like to allude. There was the great meeting at the Albert Hall, at which the Bishop of London was the chief speaker. The Bishop at that meeting announced on authority—he did not know from what source it was derived—the interpretation which had now been authoritatively given by the Attorney General. He did not, therefore, propose to quote the speech of the Bishop of London as he had intended. He was bound to accept the interpretation of the Clause given by the Attorney General, but he frankly avowed that when he moved the Amendment he did not think it contained the appeal it was now held to contain. He was, however, perfectly willing to accept that reading of the Amendment, and
  674
  he believed that, as it stood, the Clause contained ample power to effect that which was its main object and purpose, viz., the complete restraint of the one man element of control. Henceforth that element would be missing from the school, and their object would have been achieved. The Bishop of London, in a very unfortunate allusion, spoke at the Albert Hall in terms now only too well known of "Squire Western and his head farmer and gardener" having to control the religious education. He knew his "Tom Jones" as thoroughly as the Bishop of London, and he might remind his lordship that there was also a "Parson Thwackum." If he had originally referred to the clergy as so many "Parsons Thwackum" he would rightly have been held to have spoken disrespectfully, and he protested against such a high dignitary using language equally as offensive of the squirearchy. He did not desire, however, to score a mere debating point out of that slip of the Bishop; nobody would acknowledge more readily than he the magnificent work his Lordship had down and the glorious example he was setting, but at the same time the remarks were unfortunate, not so much in themselves, as because they seemed to represent to the country a feeling of distrust in the laity. Until the mind of every Archbishop and Bishop was cleared of all distrust in the laity, the Church would not be as safe as she ought to be.
  Passing from that point, he desired to suggest one or two points in support of the Clause. In Scotland there was a system of religious education under which the minister was, so to speak, the agent of a lay committee. That system worked well, and no one would contend that the average Scotch child was less well grounded than the average English child in all that pertained to the realities of religion. Most hon. Members would agree that of the religious teaching under which they were brought up only a very small element was directly derived from any minister of religion. The bulk of their religion had been taught them by their parents, notably and most impressively by their mother: it had been carried out by nurse, governess or tutor, then by the master of the private school, who was not necessarily a clergyman,

  675
  and finally at the public school, so that through the whole of their career it was perfectly possible for them not to have been under the tuition of a single clergyman. Therefore, except when going through a course of preparation for confirmation, he doubted whether many Members had ever derived much religious instruction directly from any Clergyman. He made that statement simply to show that too much importance should not be attached in one case when it was not thought necessary to safeguard the instruction in another.
  In order to prove that the need of this clause had been made clearer since its adoption, he would quote another member of the Episcopal Bench. The Bishop of Liverpool had recently, in addressing his clergy, used these remarkable words—
  "There has risen out of the heart of the High Church revival a body of extreme men who have left their original leaders far behind, and who, while holding almost every Roman doctrine, contrive to satisfy their consciences that they can honestly remain in the Church of England. Of the devotion of some of these men there is no question. If self-sacrifice were the measure of truth, their orthodoxy would be unimpeachable. But the Church of England has her accredited standards of faith and practice, and has laid down well-defined limit, beyond which her members may not go; and the attitude and conduct of these extreme men are becoming an increasing source of irritation and of danger."
  The Bishop, after alluding to the various findings of Archbishop Benson, continued—
  "With these authoritative utterances before him it becomes a question how a diocesan bishop is to treat the clergy who decline to obey him."
  After mentioning two or three courses, his Lordship said finally—
  "There is that policy of episcopal excommunication. He may treat the offenders as self-made Nonconformists; as having placed themselves by their own act and deed outside his jurisdiction. He may decline to be present at their services, to preach in their pulpits, to confirm in their churches, to license any assistant clergy. That is the policy I have most reluctantly adopted in this diocese, and which I intend to pursue. If deprivation were substituted for imprisonment, it would be manifestly my duty to take a severer course, for the existence of this evil in our midst is a standing menace, a source of continual danger and weakness; it is alienating the laity, enraging the masses of our people; and it is inflicting untold injury on morality and on religion."
  676
  These remarks from such a source tended, he thought, to prove the necessity of the Clause, and for some restriction on the clergy whom he had called eccentric and extravagant. The Clause would go far to render impossible in the schools the practices which had apparently been going on in the diocese of Liverpool. It was sometimes thought that this was a matter in which the laity were on one side and the clergy on the other. He was thankful to say that that was not in the least the case. It was true that he had had a startling correspondence, some of it in terms of extreme violence, if not indecency, but it would be most unfair that he should allow it to be supposed that all the clergy were opposed to the Clause. He had received from the clergy nearly as many letters supporting the Clause as opposing it, and he might read one as a type of many that he had received which exactly expressed his feeling—
  "After carefully considering Colonel Kenyon-Slaney's Amendment, I have come to the conclusion that many of my clerical brethren are unduly irritated and alarmed.
  I do not feel at all as if I had received a slap in the face, nor do I feel at all afraid of the effect of the Amendment.
  "We are still protected by our trust deeds. We are protected by having four denominational managers against two outsiders, while they many very easily all be denominational, and we are safeguarded also by the fact that we do not, as a rule, draw up our own syllabus or religious instruction, but all work to a diocesan syllabus, on the lines of which our diocesan examination in religious knowledge is conducted. There is no doubt whatever that where plain simple Church instruction in the Bible, Prayer-book, and the Church Catechism is given no difficulty will arise, and no change will be made or suggested by the managers. More than this ought not to be given in public schools where Nonconformist children attend. Anyone who attempts to proselytise the children of Nonconformists attending Church schools forgets himself, both as a Christian and as a gentleman."
  He quoted that letter as showing that many clergymen welcomed the Clause, and recognising that it made for good and would assist them in their work.
  The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division was, he thought, a little unwise in talking as thought laymen were to have no voice or right to be heard in the matter of religious teaching. Church laymen as a body would not be disposed to accept that view. They were

  677
  determined that their rights in the matter should be acknowledged, and he hoped no more suggestions would be heard in the direction of dispossessing the laity of their rights—their equal rights, as he thought, with the clearge—in the matter.
  His noble friend the Member for Greenwich, who often had attributed to him views more extreme than those he really held, was the accredited leader of the section of the Church of England most strongly opposed to the Clause. He therefore appealed to his noble friend to recognise the situation, to recognise how much underlay the expressions of opinion evidenced by the recent division on the Clause. Those who supported the Clause were animated by convictions as sincere, by a determination as strong, and by a loyalty to the Church as unimpeachable as those which animated the noble Lord himself. He desired him to recognise the strength of that opinion and, as a leader of thought, to realise that which he would have to oppose if he continued to resist the strong feeling to which he had referred. He did not wish his last words to be in any sense words of menace, or words on which it would be possible to place a hostile construction. On the contrary, he would rather appeal to the noble Lord to use his influence in trying to persuade some of his supporters of the unwisdom of the attitude they had assumed. No insult to the clergy was ever intended or conveyed; but it was absolutely vital, in the best interests of the clergy themselves, that there should be some opportunity of restraining the extravagance and exuberance of those few among them who abused their position, and by that abuse had shaken the confidence of the people in the Church. He asked the noble Lord to remember that that action had somewhat impaired the otherwise splendid record to which the clergy could point of services well rendered to the country; but, above all, he asked him to undertake that it should be made perfectly clear to those with whom he acted that unless the laity were not only admitted, but welcomed, to their full share in the administration of the Church to which they were entitled, it needed no prophet to say that the years of the Church as an established institution were
  678
  numbered. As to the Government, he would ask them also to realise the strength of the feeling at the back of this clause. He trusted there would be neither in the House of Commons nor in another place any dilution of the Clause, and that the Government would evidence a strong instinct of resistance to any further movement that might in any way imperil the essence of the Clause, which he believed to be absolutely vital to the good working of the Bill.
  MR. LYTTELTON)desired to join in the appeal to his hon. friend the Member for the Stretford Division to reconsider the position he had taken up. He held the opinion very strongly that to cut the Clause out of the Bill would be dangerous to the true interests of the Church. The agitation which had arisen in the country against the Clause was, he believed, largely due to two letters written by the Bishop of Worcester, who was naturally and rightly venerated by everyone who knew him. But it was possible to assume the entire truth of everything the Bishop had said without being in the least disturbed in one's opinion as to the desirability of this Clause. Let it be assumed, that it was a principle of an Episcopal Church that the clergy should be entitled in the pulpit to state the doctrine of that Church, and should be responsible only to their Bishop for such statement. He drew a broad distinction between the parson in the pulpit and the parson in the schools as created by this Bill. What was the present position? There were hundreds, probably thousands, of cases in which there were no trust deeds. Apart from the trust deed the parson had absolutely no greater rights in connection with a school than any parishioner, beyond that which the voluntary respect of others to his sacred office, his character, and his influence might secure him. How, then, could it be said that it was a principle of an Episcopal Church that the clergyman should have a dominant right—exclusive of all the laity in the parish—to control the religious teaching in the school? That was a proposition which could not, either historically or in good sense, be maintained. It was contrary to what all knew to be the fact, and to the established condition of things in a great number of

  679
  parishes in which schools existed. Let Members test this proposition by an application to their own children. He belonged to what the Prime Minister called "the faction of parents." Would they, if they had sons seven or eight years of age, consider they were bound, out of loyalty to the Church, to submit their religious education entirely to the opinion of the clergyman of the parish? Such a proposition was absolutely unheard of, and, if put forward would be resented in the highest degree. The position of those who opposed this Clause was actually that the fathers and mothers of the Children—and he attached more stress to the opinion of the mother than that of the father in this matter—through their lay representative were to have no effective voice in the control of the religious education in denominational schools. That he contended, was not merely a novel, but an unsustainable, proposition. He would respectfully ask the clergy to consider what effect the mere assertion of such a claim was likely to produce. Such a feeling would be awakened as nobody had ever dreamt of arousing before. In thousands of parishes the clergyman would, of course, have the best knowledge of these things, and as one of the best qualities of the English people was that they were docile to those whom they believed to be better acquainted than they were with the subject in hand, a reasonable clergyman would practically never be opposed in these matters.
  An objection to the prolongation of the discussion was that it was purely academic. The burdens placed on the supporters of denominational schools, after the passing of this Bill, would be very heavy, and would demand substantial sacrifices on the part of many people. How could it be believed that people would make those sacrifices for the support of a denomination, as to the principles of which the members of that denomination could not themselves agree? The position supposed an impossibility.
  In conclusion, he believed that the fears entertained of opposition between the parson and the parishioners in this matter were in 999 cases out of 1,000 absolutely unfounded. He believed the local authority would be reasonable, wise, and conciliatory in the appointment
  680
  of their two representatives on the board of managers, and that in the vast majority of cases they would not attempt to thrust on to the board people of militant views, opposed to those entertained by the greater number of the parishioners. He did not in the least object to a Nonconformist being made a member of the board of management of a voluntary school if he were selected with care. [Laughter.] By that he meant a man of common-sense and a conciliatory disposition, who wished to make the school as a whole work well. Many clergymen at present voluntarily associated such men with themselves in the work, and why should it be supposed that the local authority would select untractable and unreasonable men as their representatives? The Scottish Church had been referred to. In Scotland the schools worked smoothly, largely due to the lay character of the Scottish Church. The minister was associated with elders; they sat in the kirk session, the presbyteries and in the Church Assembly, and laymen had a very solid voice in the government and administration of the Scottish Church. There were many in this country—and the Bishop of Worcester was among them,—who had endeavoured to draw a lesson from the Scotch Church as to Church reform in England. The proposal now made was not an audacious step; it merely associated six men together, four of whom were to be chosen by the denomination. But no sooner was the suggestion made than an outcry had been raised. The supporters of the Clause assured the clergy that there was not the slightest idea of conveying an insult or of casting opprobrium upon them. There was only the natural and fundamental desire that the parents should have some effective voice in the teaching of their own children. He trusted that the clergy would believe that they as well as the Church of England would be fortified by the Amendment, that they would gain strength, influence, and power in the management of the Schools through lay association, and he hoped that they would be induced to cordially work with laymen in an undertaking which would be beneficial to the children, honourable to the Church, and expedient in the interests of education.
  (6.3.) MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN)said he would not say anything about the merits of this Clause, but he appealed to the Government to state most emphatically to the House precisely what the Clause meant. The difficulty they stood in was that his hon. and gallant friend told them that it had certain definite meanings. Some of them opposed the Clause on the same ground. He wished to know exactly what position they stood in. One of their principal objections to the Clause was that the appeal to the bishop was taken away, and that, so far as religious instruction went, the managers were entirely independent. As regarded secular instruction there was an appeal to the local authority and a further appeal to the Board of Education, but when they came to religious instruction the appeal to the bishop was taken away. They had been told by the Attorney General that the particular part of the trust deed which gave an appeal to the bishop on matters of doctrine was preserved. The question was, What were the doctrines taught in the schools by the clergy? On the other hand, the Committee had been told by the right hon. Member for East Fife that this particular provision was not preserved. What were laymen to conclude when two such legal authorities differed? The least that the Government could do in these circumstances was to put words in telling the committee clearly what the Clause meant. If the appeal to the Bishop was preserved, his objection to a large extent disappeared, the sting of it was removed. He also asked about the provisions as to the right of the clergyman to go into the school and teach religion. Did he understand that this provision remained in force in the case of the trust deed?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Subject to the control of the managers.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Without the right of appeal; therefore, he could be excluded by the whim of the managers. He failed to see any reason for such a course. Practically it was an insult to the clergy, and it would lead to much friction in many parishes. Again, was there a provision in the Bill permitting
  682
  diocesan inspection? He urged that these obscurities should be cleared up, and he thought that the Government would have been well advised if they had not accepted the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. That Amendment did not fall in with the general scheme of the Bill. So long as secular education was made thoroughly efficient and in all schools alike brought up to the standard of the local authority, and maintained by it, he thought the schools should have absolute freedom to teach what religion they chose. He did not think that the trust deeds should be torn up in this way by a side wind. He hoped the Government would put the matter paerfectly clear, and if any part of the provisions of the trust deed was to be maintained they should know without doubt what it was. They ought to know whether the trust deeds were to be wholly or partly torn up, and if they were going to be only partly torn up they should know exactly what part would remain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY)said the Government when they introduced this Bill were so fair-minded that it was with great reluctance that he rose to offer a strong objection to this Clause. But he could not help feeling that this Clause raised a question of greater importance as regards the Church of England than any that had been raised for a couple of centuries, and he felt that, as regarded the Catholic Church, if they were to accept this Clause without a protest they would be really engaged in an abnegation of the faith to which they belonged. He had listened to the very temperate and calm speeched which had been delivered from the Church of England point of view, and he must say that he did not see how this Clause could be described as an insult to the Church of England or as an insult ot any Church. It was not a question of an insult, it was a question of a denial of jurisdiction, and as he understood the position of the Government it was this, that they said: "Here is a Church, by law established, entitled to teach only as the law allows; and therefore, from that point of view, we have the right to decide in what manner and under what circumstances its doctrine can be taught." It was very unfortunate for Catholics that,

  683
  owing to the divisions in the Church of England, there should be imposed upon them conditions not only repugnant but absolutely and diametrically inconsistent with the position which they occupied.
  It was very painful to have to introduce matters of religion into debate. It was painful to have to introduce questions which men preferred to keep veiled in the recesses and tabernacle of their hearts. Yet it was necessary now to state their position on a vital issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for FIfe, as he understood by his references to the Bishop of Worcester's speech, had put his finger upon the sore spot in the heartsof the English Protestant clergy, because this Clause, for the first time in hundreds of years, dug up again all the questions that were raised at the time of the Reformation really. It raised the question whether the Protestant Church of England was teaching Church or whether it was not. Taking into account the innumerable difficulties with which he was surrounded, and the temper with which he was treated, he could well understand the First Lord of the Treasury finding refuge in a Clause of this kind. But how had it been received by the Opposition? Why, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed no other Amendment, this Clause should have enabled the Opposition to accept this Bill, because, from a Protestant point of view, it reduced the position of the Church of England to the position of the Presbyterian Church or the Nonconformist Churches in England, because the Anglican clergy, as he understood it, claimed to be a portion of the teaching Church, and this Amendment associated with them for the purposes of controlling religious teaching, to use a common expression, "the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick-maker." Were he disposed to find a subject for merriment, as a Catholic, in the position to which this reduced the Church of England, he should certainly find it in this lay control. However, he refrained from taking any line of that kind, because this was a matter which was painful to him and searched the heart. Therefore, instead of using taunts against Protestantism he would confine himself
  684
  simply to the position which they took up as Catholics.
  This Bill had gradually, from their point of view, placed Catholics at a disadvantage. It placed religious teaching and the school books under the control of the local authority; it placed the repairs of the buildings upon the voluntary schools, and finally this present proposal seemed to him to go very far indeed to make this Bill a sort of Greek gift to the voluntary schools. He could not complain if the action of the Government did not affect Catholic schools, because, from a Protestant point of view, this being a State Church, Parliament was entitled to define the tenets of the State religion. But take the Catholic position. Either their Church was a pestilential superstition, or else it was a divinely-appointed Church, and their answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, when he taunted them with the remarks of the Bishop of Worcester as to the individual cleric not being the repository of dogma was this: it was an answer given of old. It was—
  "He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and a publican."
  That was the Catholic answer, and he was sorry to have to utter it in this assembly. You say to the Protestant minister, "You are not to have the right, because you are not the Church, to say what Protestantism is." Take the military position. The man the soldier had first to obey was the corporal, the corporal had to obey the sergeant, and so on up to the general. And that was the point of view from which Catholics had to look at this matter. He regretted to have to raise dogmatic matters in this Assembly, and he did it in order to explain their position, and he had to do so. With them the individual clergyman, however humble, was the repository of their faith, and he was entitled to teach it. If they disliked his doctrine they appealed from him to the Bishop, and if they disliked the Bishop's doctrine then we say "Go to Rome." But what was their plight under this Clause? It was that the control of religious education was put under a board of managers most of whom must be laymen and some of whom must be Protestants. And remember this—he hardly thought the

  685
  First Lord of the Treasury could have remembered it, or else he was sure that with his liberal and tolerant mind he would have made some provision against it—remember that, in the case of Catholics and the Catholic schools, they were nearly all in towns. The Church of England schools were very largely in country districts, consequently the county authority was far away: it was a loose body; but the Town Council which had to preside over Catholic schools was on the spot; it might be a Kensitised town council, and it might be, as in Lancashire, where many Catholics had found a home, that that special form of militant Protestantism was to be found there. Therefore these Catholic schools would be carrying on their operations under the town councils which were almost within immediate view of these schools, and to some of whom the idea of Catholicism was that of a gross and repugnant superstition.
  Was it, therefore, to be wondered at that even in this tolerant country the Catholic clergy should have taken alarm and should have objected so strongly as they did to this Clause? He did hope that as time passed by the town councils of England would be imbued with that religious toleration of which they had had so many excellent examples in this great Assembly. They must remember, however, that in essence they were Protestants, and that many of them entertained the very strongest and most militant Protestant views. They must remember the fact that many of these institutions were conventual institutions conducted by nuns. Therefore he could well understand the alarm and anxiety which was generated in the minds of the managers of voluntary schools from the fear—he trusted it might be an illusion—that the power which this Bill undoubtedly gave such town councils as those to which he had referred in those neighbourhood might be used to interfere with the managers of these voluntary schools. He understood fully the enormous difficulties which the Government had in passing a measure of this kind, which was intended to give satisfaction to those who were conducting the voluntary education of this country.
  He did not intend to say more beyond this. The construction of this Clause as a legal matter had been debated tonight by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  686
  for East Fife and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for England. He must say that he was rather disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, because he thought "tenour" was a less coercive word, and it was a word of less magnitude than the word "control," which made the managerial power something absolute. He was wondering whether the Government would accept, as a slight solatium, after the word "shall" the words "subject as aforesaid." That was what he should suggest might be inserted in line 9. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had contended tonight that the words "tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed" were really the governing words, but as they were followed by the words "shall be under the control of the managers," he suggested that after the word "shall" some slight alteration should be made by the insertion of the words "and shall subject as aforesaid,"—that was, subject to the tenour aforesaid—be under the control of the managers. He did not say that the acceptance of that Amendment would carry them a very long way, but at any rate it would be some slight protection to the interests of the managers in those voluntary schools, whether Protestant or Catholic. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and whose name was associated with it, had admitted, had felt compelled to admit to the full the fact that this Clause was unjust to the Catholics. He thought they were entitled, from the attitude the Government had assumed throughout the progress of this Bill, to ask that either here or elsewhere they would introduce some provision which would have some mollifying effect upon the apprehensions which, undoubtedly, at the present time had been raised, and strongly raised, in the minds of Catholics.
  (6.25.) MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR)said he did not think that there was any fear that this Clause would in any respect whatever interfere with the religious teaching given in Roman Catholic schools. They did not wish to interfere in any degree with the religious teaching given by the Catholics. He thought it was most satisfactory that the Government had announced their determination of not

  687
  receding from the position they had taken up of maintaining the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in its entirety. The hon. and learned Member had pronounced a glowing eulogy upon the clergy, but that appeared to him to be unnecessary, because in all parts of the House they were prepared to acknowledge their confidence and veneration for the work which the clergy of all denominations had performed. The hon. and learned Member who proposed this Amendment appeared to glide very gently over the fact that there was at the present time a hostile movement in the Church of England. He did not want to refer to that movement, for he was anxious not to wound the susceptibilities of any hon. Member of the House, but they all knew what were the doctrines taught by many of the clergymen. He did not think that this Clause would interfere in the slightest degree with the High Church, the Low Church, or the Broad Church parties, or with Nonconformist ministers or Roman Catholic priests, so long as they kept within the laws of their Church.
  They had had two views put before them as to the meaning of the Clause from high legal authorities on both sides of the House, and it would ill become him to express any opinion on the subject. Certainly he might say, as an uninstructed layman, he thought that the word "tenour" meant "general purpose or tendency" and his impression—it might be entirely wrong—was that so long as the general religious teaching of the school was adhered to, the manner in which that teaching was given could be left to the discretion of the managers. But they had it on high authority that the word "tenor" included matters of doctrine, and that there was provision in the trust deeds for appeal to the bishop, and that that appeal was not interfered with by the Bill. He could only say that if that was so he was sorry to hear it, because he thought they ought to place reliance upon the mangers, of whom the clergyman would be one, probably the chairman, to deal with these matters as they arose. He believed difficulties which might arise would be settled much better by an appeal to the law courts than by a reference to the bishops. They all respected the bishops, but they know they had failed altogether
  688
  to deal with the lawlessness in the Church, and if they had failed to do that how could they expect them to deal with lawlessness in the schools? The bishops ought to be relieved of that onus, and from inquiry into those small domestic quarrels. He did not believe these quarrels would arise. Whenever the clergyman was a law-a biding clergyman, whether of the Church of England or a minister of any other denomination, he would find no difficulty whatever in working with his managers. They had been told again and again that the object of the Clause was to put an end to one-man management, and to make the managers as a body supreme for all purposes. If that was not to be so, if the religious teaching was to be taken from the managers and left in the hands of clergymen subject to an appeal to the bishop, the clergyman would snap his fingers at the managers; if any question arose as to religious teaching in the schools he could say: "This is beyond your province, this is a matter entirely within my province, and you have nothing to do with it." He therefore ventured very humbly and earnestly to express the hope that no proposal would be entertained to modify the Clause. Let them keep the Clause as it stood. He was sure the fact that that Clause had been accepted by the Government was reassuring to great numbers of people in the country, people who were beginning to doubt as to whether the Government and the House were really faithful to the Protestant cause of the National Church of this country. By inserting this Clause in the Bill they had reassured them that something had been done at last to check extreme men and protect the young people of our schools, and he ventured to hope the House would in an unmistakable manner adhere to the position at which it had already arrived.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he greatly regretted it had been thought necessary to raise this controversy at all, and that is was not found possible to leave the matter as it stood originally in the Bill. In that event a great deal of bitterness would have been avoided; the disappointment which now prevailed among supporters of the Bill would not have

  689
  been aroused; the Bill would have passed through the House more easily, and when it came into operation would have been found to work more smoothly. But—with excellent intentions, as he believed—the Government and the hon. Member for the Newton Division had started upon a very difficult task, and, the blind leading the blind, both had fallen into one of the deepest theological ditches. They had raised a controversy which went to the very root of the existence of the Church, which introduced all kinds of side issues in connection with education, which it was impossible or undesirable to discuss in all their bearings in that House, but the full meaning of which was disclosed in the striking passage at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for the Newton Division when he appealed to him to use his influence to prevent any sharp difference between the clergy and the laity which might end in disestablishment. He could not congratulate the hon. Member on having taken a course which, in his own opinion, had brought disestablishment within the vista of practical politics. It was, indeed, a most unfortunate controversy, which, however it might be settled, could not but do a great deal of harm.
  Perhaps one of the most embarrassing points of the controversy was that the position of those who objected to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was, even by some of the best friends of the Church, like the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, profoundly misunderstood. It was not a question of giving the laity of the Church a proper voice in the management of the Church. It was not a question, in his view, of what might be called Church reform. If it were surely they should not have seen the Bishop of Worcester, a prominent advocate of the increase of the power of the laity in the Church, among the most pronounced opponents of the Clause. But the confusion of mind which those who objected to the Clause had to deal with best illustrated in the speech of the Attorney General, who made a curious distinction, quite unparalleled in theological controversy, between doctrine and machinery. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the difference between Anglicans and Presbyterians, between the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Friends, was
  690
  only an affair of machinery; that all the great questions about which Christians had been divided for 300 years were mere matters of machinery. Of all the hazy views to which theological discussion gave rise that was the haziest. What the opponents of the Clause complained of was, not that the Clause gave the laity certain rights of appeal to the bishop to bring the clergy to book when they transgressed the laws of the Church, but that it superseded the clergyman altogether in questions relating to religious instruction to be given in the schools, and substituted in his place a small committee of laymen. Of course, a clergyman would be on the committee, but the majority of laymen would prevail. In some of the Synods in the Colonies the clergy and the laity sat together, but no proposal could be carried unless both orders assented. If they put clergy and laity on the committee and allowed most votes to carry the day, they were not having co operation between the clergy and laity, but they were superseding the clergy altogether. That went very deeply to the foundation of the position of the Church of England. The Church of England maintained, and had always maintained, that the ordained ministers were the only persons entitled to teach its doctrines and to speak in behalf of the Church. Of course, the laity were perfectly free to give their opinions to make speeches as free citizens, and discuss religious questions with the greatest freedom. But the laity were not entitled to teach doctrines on behalf of the Church of England, or of the universal Church. That was a proposition which seemed to be understood.
  The hon. Member for the Newton Division had found fault with the Ritualists. But the hon. Gentleman was in the same boat with them. If he might apply to the hon. Gentleman without offence the kind of language which was sometimes used in reference to the Ritualists, he would say that his hon. friend was a violator of, and disloyal to the settlement of the Church of England, for that settlement was not less identified with the proposition that the doctrines of the Church could only be taught be its ordained ministers than it was with the Protestant constitution of the Church, to which his hon. friend had referred. He had also noticed, in the speeches of his hon. friend the Member for Warwick and

  691
  Leamington and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, a reference to these schools as State schools. They were State schools for secular purposes, supported by the State, but was it to be understood that for the purposes of religious instruction these schools were to be regarded as the State schools? If that were so, it was heard of now for the first time. The understanding was that they were to be the State schools—schools supported by the State and under the control of the State—for the purposes of secular education, but that their religious character was to remain undisturded, that they were to continue to be denominational schools, and that, being denominational schools, those which were attached to the Church of England should continue to teach Courch of England doctrines. If these schools were to be Church schools, and were to give teaching acceptable to the Church, then the Kenyon-Slaney Amedment was utterly indefensible. They might as well propose to allow a committee of laymen to dictate to the clergyman what his sermons were to be no Sundays. It was exactly the same thing. If his hon. and gallant friend would read the canons of the Church of England of 1604, which were legally binding on every clergyman in the country, he would find that school-masters were to be licensed by the Ordinary, and that no schoolmaster was to teach unless so licensed. That was the old idea, and although they had departed from it, they had done so in order to substitute for that idea such machinery as was set up in the trust deeds. The rights of the ecclesiastics were not put into those deeds inadvertently, but deliberately, for the very purpose of maintaining that Church system of teaching which his hon. and gallant friend sought to destroy. It seemed to him very strange that when they were professing to keep up Church schools carried on on Church principles, they should violate the trust deeds and at the same time violate one of the fundamental principles of the Church which all were brought up to accept.
  As to the extreme clergy of whom complaint was made, he was as much in favour as was his hon. and gallant friend of setting up a system of discipline which would restore order in the Church of England, but he was quite sure it could
  692
  not be done on the lines his hon. and gallant friend advocated. There was only one hope for discipline in the Church of England, and that was in the authority of the Bishops. He was quite certain that the present anarchy and difficulty in the Church of England would go on, and would be found irremediable, unless they were prepared to put much greater powers in the hands of the Bishops than they possessed at present. He believed the proper way of dealing with the difficulty would be to give the Bishop the power of excluding clergymen where he thought they were in the wrong, as he had suggested in a Clause which, however, he had had no chance of proposing. The visitatorial Clause set out the machinery which would have stopped extreme practices against the principles of the Church of England; but his hon. and gallant friend's machinery would not put an end to these practices at all. There were already several strong ritualist squires, and probably in the future there would be more; and was it to be supposed that the ritualist squire, together with the ritualist parson, would not prevail on the board of management, and have matters entirely their own way? If they were to deal with these extreme practices they would have to create some visitatorial authority.
  He would now pass to the other point he desired to make—the principle of the trust deeds. The foundation of the Bill, they had understood, was that the rights in the trust deeds were to be respected. The rights to the buildings were to be respected because they were rights of property, and those who erected the building and kept it up were to be allowed special rights with regard to the building. But among the rights of he trust deeds were the rights of the clergyman; what title had they to set aside one out of a bundle of rights, so to speak? He understood much better the point of view of the Opposition, who wished to put these schools under popular control. He appealed strongly to his hon. and gallant friend not to suppose that the violation of trust deeds was a light matter. A precedent was being set which would be used against them in future. A great many persons and institutions owned property under trust; he was not at all clear that all the endowments of

  693
  the Church of England might not be treated as property under trust. If they were to violate trust deeds in this instance, why not in other instances? Hon Members opposite were only too apt pupils in the art of predatory legislation; they had sat at the feet of his hon. and gallant friend, learning with quick attention the lesson he had taught them, and presently, no doubt, they would begin to lecture on their own account, and to set out new proposals, in which the value of trust deeds might be destroyed altogether. From these two points of view the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment was most ill-omened. That the reference to the Bishop destroyed the lay control altogether seemed to him a very extravagant proposition. The reference to the Bishop was a reference to an authorised expert in theology, who was to tell the teachers what was and what was not the teaching of the Church, which they were bound to give under the trust deed, as it were. He believed that in cases where the Bishop decided against the clergyman that would restrain him, because the other managers could turn the clergyman out without more ado, and that would be the proper method to adopt. But it was an extremely clumsy and ineffective method.
  His feeling of alarm at the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend was partly on account of its practical effects. In many cases there would be Nonconformist represertatives, who, as was said the other day by an hon. Member opposite, were only too likely, in some districts at any rate, to use this power as a weapon to break up the dual system to which hon. Members opposite objected. The representative put upon the board of managers by Nonconformists would keep it and open sore. There would be nothing more easy than for an intelligent Nonconformist who wished to do so to make the life of the clergyman or of the Church manager a burden by constantly raising questions as to what was or was not Church teaching, and under that pressure the teaching might be modified to suit the ideas of the Nonconformist minority, and be so worn-down, that in the end what was in truth a Church school would become just as undenominational as a board school. He did not think his hon. and gallant friend desired that there should be no distinction between church and undenominational
  694
  schools, but with a Nonconformist minority constantly objecting and criticising in this way it was only too likely to resuit. He felt another objection still more deeply; apart altogether from the practical effect, he did not believe that the settlement which his hon. and gallant friend was so painstakingly trying to make would be at all a lasting one. Therefore, so far as the schools went, whatever mischief would be done would probably be done only for a few years; but he did deprecate in the strongest way the tendency, which he had feared, and which had shown itself that night, to import this principle out of the management of a school into Church matters. It was no exaggeration to say that if the principle of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment were applied to the Church of England itself, that Church would be broken in twain instantly, and the more vital and living part of the Church would secede if Parliament insisted on such a principle. This matter went to the very root of the principles of the Church, and, doubtless his hon. and gallant friend would be found a truer prophet than he thought when he said that the disturbance arising out of such a struggle would lead all too quickly to disestablishment itself.
  (6.56.) COLONEL SAUNDERSON)said he would only occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes, but he thought he need make no excuse for saying a word or two on a matter which deeply interested his co-religionists in Ireland. The House had listened with great attention, as it always did, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth, who had voiced his case and the case of his co-religionists so temperately, and, if he would allow him to add, so eloquently before the House. Of course he understood, and they all understood, that the idea of laymen entering into matters connected with the Church at all was quite contrary to the religion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that no Roman Catholic layman would attempt to interfere with the religious teaching in his schools. This Clause would only interfere with the Roman Catholics in this country. He was not a member of the Church of

  695
  England, he was a member of a Church which was at one time connected with the Church of England—he meant the Church of Ireland—in which laymen and clergy collaborated together without any ill effects. He spoke also in the name of Irish Protestants on this matter, and "Protestant" was a word which he had not heard often enough in this debate to please him. If an intelligent pagan had been sitting up in the gallery and had listened to the course of the debate, he would have been led to believe that there were a vast number of different religions represented in the House. He should say, at the outside, there were only three different religions represented there. There were first of all, in overwhelming majority, Protestants, then Roman Catholics, and then there were Jews. There were certainly, he believed, some Unitarians, but he did not know what religion they belonged to. But the intelligent pagan in the gallery would make a great mistake if he imagined that the gentlemen who spoke as Presbyterians, as Methodists, as Churchmen, or as Quakers, belonged to different religions. One word covered them all, and that was the word "Protestant." Therefore, whatever affected, in their estimation, the welfare of the Protestant religion was of deep interest to the protestant Irishmen.
  He had approved very much of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, until he heard it explained by the Attorney General. After having sat in the House for many years he could say he had always been thrown into a state of mental confusion on hearing two distinguished lawyers speaking on the same subject against each other. They had heard two such men of great legal ability speaking tonight, the one holding views diametrically opposed to those of the other. Which was right? Possible neither. He should hope that before the debate closed the Prime Minister would state clearly to the House what the view of the Government was with regard to the meaning of the Clause. According to the Attorney General it did not mean anything at all. As far as he could make out, in a great number of schools the managers would be a body without any power at all. Now, what the Protestants wanted (he did not know about the noble Lord the Member of Greenwich) was
  696
  to give the managing bodies of the schools direct power over the religious instruction in those schools. Why? It was no use mincing matters. Anyone who had considered the present position of the Church of England must come to the conclusion that the teaching of some of the clergy was diametrically opposed to Protestantism and to the principles of the Reformation. He believed that his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects had just as much right to have their religion respected as he had himself, but he had no respect at all for the man who took Protestant pay and taught Roman Catholic doctrine, and he believed the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich made a great mistake if he thought that Protestant feeling had died away in the country. He had believed (until the Attorney General spoke) that the object of this Amendment was to effect what Protestants believed ought to be carried out, viz., to give the laity of the Church the power to prevent the inculcation of doctrines which, as Protestants of all ranks, they could not accept. It was because they thought and believed that the Amendment gave that power and authority that they cordially supported it. A question arose in his mind (after the Attorney General's speech) whether it did so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife appeared to think that it did, but the Attorney General thought it did not. He hoped the Prime Minister would get up and tell them what the Clause really did do. What the great majority of the House meant it to do was to give the managing bodies of the schools power over the religious instruction in those schools. To hear the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich speak, one would think that these schools were entirely full of Church children. He ought not to forget that there were included children of all denominations. It had been argued that it was was only the priest of the Church who had any right whatever to teach with authority the Christian truth. That was the doctrine of the hon. Member for Fife and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. That might be the doctrine of Anglicans—a word he hated—it used to be Church of England—Anglican was a new word brought in of late years; but it was that Anglican movement which to his mind had rendered this Clause an absolute necessity, unless,

  697
  they wanted the Protestantism (a word he was not ashamed of) of their children and those who came after to be upset by dishonest priests who wished to destroy the Protestantism which had been, to his mind, and to the minds, he believed, of the vast majority of the British people, the foundation of all their greatness and their freedom.
  MR. WANKLYN)said he desired to explain why he was opposed to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment and meant to vote against it. It seemed to him to be quite that unless the bishops would exercise their authority no body of managers could check extravagances, while if the bishops did exercise their authority the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment was unnecessary. But, while that Amendment was practically useless, it seemed to him to be positively mischievous, for it operated against a good understanding between men of different denominations. In his own constituency sectarian strife had largely died out. Every day a better understanding was being arrived at. The clergymen of the Church of England and the priests of the Roman Catholic of Bradford to appoint Nonconformists to sit on their boards of managers after this Bill became law. That was a very remarkable fact. It showed a good feeling between men of all denominations—a feeling which all men on both sides must hope to arrive at and do their best to approach. A formal invitation to this effect was sent to the Bradford City Council by Father Gosse, of St. Patrick's School, Bradford, and in the course of his letter the rev. gentleman said—
  "I do not anitcipate that there will be the slightest friction or want of harmony in the relations of the managers with the city representatives, but that all will work as one man for the benefit of our schools. In fact, I think I can say we would much prefer that the public representatives associated with us should not be our co-religionists. Such an arrangement might easily give ground for suspicion on a matter that ought to be conducted openly and above board. It is our wish that the affairs of our schools should be so conducted above board and without suspicion."
  That letter seemed to him to contain a most satisfactory statement that must rejoice the hearts of all who desired to see sectarian strife ended. But under the
  698
  Kenyon-Slaney Clause was it conceivable that Father Gosse would invite the City Council of Bradford to send two Nonconformists who would control the religious educatrion of his school? He held no brief for Father Gosse—he had not the honour of knowing him—but it seemed impossible if this Clause became law that Father Gosse could invite men of another denomination to assist him in the control of his schools. He hoped a modus vivendi might yet be arrived at which would enable the bringing together of members of different denominations in the management of these schools—which would permit a Wesleyan sitting on the board of a Church of England school, a member of the Church of England on the board of a Roman Catholic school, and of a Roman Catholic on the board of either. So far as the Roman Catholic schools were concerned, the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was distinctly unfair. The use of these schools for three nights a week as well as in the daytime was given to the State for the purpose of secular education, and the consideration was that those at the head of the denomination should be free to control the religious instruction to be given in the school. How could it be said that the priest was free and unfettered if he had associated with him five or six lay managers who under the Bill would have equal control over the instruction? It was, to his mind, clear that the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was a distinct departure from the understanding arrived at with regard to the voluntary schools was to be given in return for the unfettered right to teach the faith of the denomination. On that ground, but primarily because he felt that the Clause would in its working prevent the association on boards of management of men of different denominations, but would on the other hand lead to strife, he would vote for its deletion from the Bill.
  SIR RICHARD JEBB)suggested that in line 9, after the word "shall," the words "subject as aforesaid" should be inserted; that would mean subject to the tenour and conditions of the trust deed. Or a better from of the same suggestion would be to insert after "and" in line 9 the words "subject thereto."
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that the word "thereto" already occurred in the same line with an entirely different meaning, so that if the hon. Member's suggestion were acted upon there would be two "thereto's" in the same line meaning two entirely different things.
  SIR RICHARD JEBBsaw the purport of the objection. The point of his suggestion was to get rid of the words "the tenour of." He had never yet been able to learn what the word "tenour" in this Clause meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had suggested that it meant the general scope, so that if the teaching were in accordance with the general scope of the provisions of the trust deed it might be permitted to be out of accord with the details. In that case the objections of many of his friends to the Clause would be increased. If, however, the word "tenor" were omitted, and some such words as had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth inserted, many who did not like the sub-Section as it stood would be more inclined to support it.
  MAJOR JAMESON)desired to express his great hostility to the Clause. The subject had been treated from many points of view, but there had been no speech which he regretted more than that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, who had practically declared that the universal religion was that of Protestantism. Was he afraid of the meaning of "universal?" Was he afraid of the word "catholic?" "Catholic" meant the universal religion of the Church of England. Why should they object to the ministers appointed by the Church teaching the doctrines of that Church to the children? He deeply resented the idea that a committee of irresponsible laymen should have the control of this matter. It was a question not of distrust of the laity, but of distrust of the clergy, and of the doctrines they taught. It was true the church of Ireland had been disestablished, but if it produced the rancour between Roman Catholics and Protestants which he had seen in Ireland he was sufficiently imbued with the rights of the Church to say he was very glad that that Church had gone. The clergy, and the clergy alone, whether Roman
  700
  Catholics or Church of England, had the right to teach the dogmas of their Church to the young. The command to "go forth and preach" had never been taken back, and the day the Church refused to have her theology taught to the children, that day would her fate be sealed, and disestablishment would quickly follow. He should certainly endeavour by every means in his power to destroy the Clause.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned until this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  As amended, further considered.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [this day] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended.
  which Amendment was, in page 5, line 6, to leave out sub-section (4) of Clause 7.—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'religious instruction' stand part of the Bill."
  (9.0) MR. MILVAIN)said he did not think the existing law was interfered with in any way whatever. The existing state of things was that denominational schools were, generally speaking, founded upon trust deeds, which usually placed the direction or supervision of religious education in the hands of the incumbent, subject to an appeal to the bishop. By common consent religious education was left in the hands of the incumbent. That was common ground, and the appeal to the Bishop implied that a decision must have been arrived at previously by one of the parties to the appeal, and there could be no appeal unless there had been interference with the incumbent from laymen or managers. The Kenyon-Slaney Amendment laid down that there should be religious education in accordance with the tenour of the trust, and that it should be religious education in accordance with the tenour of the trust, and that it should be subject to the control of the managers.

  701
  So long as the majority on the board of management did their duty and assisted the clergyman in the direction of religious education, he saw no ground for fearing either the disestablishment of the Church or the difficulties which had been spoken of by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. As the existing law was not interfered with, he would, if the supporters of the Government were to vote as they pleased, vote for the deletion of the Clause; but if the matter were made one of confidence, he would be prepared to support the Clause. He wished to know what the intention of the Government was.
  MR. GUTHRIE)thought the question was one on which Members ought to be at liberty to take their own line He would be compelled to vote against the Clause, guided by a principle which was one of the foundations of belief of the Conservative Party, namely, the sanctity of property. The question of the rights of property seemed to have been too much neglected. To alter the trust deeds would be a serious breach of trust, and he regretted that the Government should have been the initiators of such a proposal. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that it was unfortunate that the Government should have given such a bad example to the Party opposite, whose instincts towards predatory legislation were quite keen enough.
  MR. MALCOLM)desired to associate himself with those who had spoken agaist the Clause, He thought the Government were making a grave mistake in violating the sanctity of trust deeds. It was not only a question of the rights of property, but it was an operation which would greatly interfere with voluntary effort in the future. In days to come, hospitals, infirmaries, and similar institutions, which held their moneys under trust deeds might be taken over by Governments and their trust deeds might be altered in accordance with the particular views obtaining at the moment, and in opposition to the desires of the benefactor. Under such circumstances it was not all likely that people would be inclined to make such deeds of gift in the future, and voluntary effort would thus be in peril of extinction.
  702
  A few days previously the House had been asked to consider the feelings of the teachers if they were not allowed to take part in the religious instruction. But what about the feelings of the clergy under this arrangement? They would be infinitely more deeply wounded than those of the teachers; and the feelings of the children, which had not been much considered in the matter, would be of great perplexity when they found that the gentleman to whom they looked on Sundays for their religious teaching was debarred by the action of a fortuitous concourse of managers from giving that instruction on weekdays. He asked whether the words "the tenour of" were not very peculiar words to insert in a legal document? He had never seen the phrase so used before, and would like to know whether it was one well recognised in courts of law, or one that had been invented for the purpose of this Bill. If it had been invented for the purpose of dealing with, and was to be confined to, the endowments of voluntary schools, he thought the action of the Government was going very far, and that in the future they would have cause to regret that they, as a Conservative Government had ever laid a finger on trust deeds which hitherto had always been respected.
  MR. DUKE)thought the practical effect of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment would not be great; but its possible effect, regarding it in its technical sense, was not satisfactory. He did not think that religious education, under the existing system of the Church of England, produced the alarming consequences in the working of schools which had been depicted. The one instance of abuse which, after years of search, had been brought to the notice of the House, was said to have occurred in the school of St. John's, Sutton-on-Plym, in his own constituency, and from his own knowledge he was satisfied that the hon. Member who brought that matter forward had alighted on a mare's nest. But the House was not legislating entirely in regard to probable consequences, and it ought not to leave an uncertainty in the Bill in reliance on the common sense which marked the working of English institutions. The House ought to provide safeguards which would be satisfactory to those concerned in religious education. He believed the Bill would secure the appointment of Christian

  703
  teachers in voluntary schools, which would be of great advantage, but the subscribers to and the trustees of Church schools were entitled to something more than was provided in this Clause. The Clause purported to put the control of religious education in the hands of a body of managers who might be laymen, where as the trust deeds of Church schools put the direction of religious education in the hands of the clergyman of the parish. The Attorney General had assured the House that the safeguards of the present system would still exist. If that was the case, and the intention of the Clause was to leave the direction of religious instruction in the hands where the trust deeds now reposed it, he could not see why it should have been moved. But what difficulty was there in embodying in the Clause words which would make its intention perfectly clear? Trustees of a school which was supposed to be maintained on Church of England principles, and in accordance with the terms of the trust deed, might have conscientious scruples against handing that school over to the control of a system set up by an Act of Parliament, the main Clause of which, in regard to religious education, was, on the face of it, absolutely contrary to the terms of the trust deed. In the West of England there was great anxiety among trustees as to whether the Clause would enable them to discharge the obligations which they, as conscientious men, felt they had undertaken, if they handed over the school or proceeded with it under the terms of the Bill. The Attorney General said the intention was embodied by implication that the appeal to the Bishops in matters of doctrine would be retained. And yet the Government would not risk putting it in plain words. That was a form of high obstinacy which he did not understand in matters of business. There were difficulties enough in the Bill, without complicating it unnecessarily.
  The course the Government were adopting was not that that might have been expected from a Government with an absolutely loyal majority behind them, or from a Government dealing with vital matters upon which many Members had been ready to risk the possibility of their continuance in public life. He hoped that a higher courage would take possession of the Government, and that they would not let a nervous apprehension as to the views of this or that
  704
  Party affect their conduct. Let them make the intention of the Clause clear, so that the trustees of Church schools might know that what was to be taught in Church schools was the doctrine of the Church of England ascertained by the Bishops of that Church, and not the doctrine of the Church of England according to the views of any casual body of laymen who might be collected from time to time. No other religious body, whether of Nonconformists or of Roman Catholics, would consent to have such matters so dealt with, and why in the single case of the Church of England was it to be said that these decisions should be given, not by the authority which could deal with the matters with the responsibility and the sense of duty arising out of long ages of usage, but by a tribunal consisting of a casually collected body of persons? There was a feeling in the country on this subject which he thought ought to be satisfied. For the sake of some technical punctilio as to the phrasing of the Amendment, or from some ungrounded apprehension of the loyalty of the Conservative Party or the common sense of the constituencies, the Government were running the risk of wrecking the future operation of their Bill in Church of England schools by refusing to insert in plain words in this Clause that which they confessedly believed to be implied.
  (9.34.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It has been said by the hon and learned Member for North Louth, and also by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, that this raises a very deep question, and that is perfectly true. It raises the question of the relation between the nation, who are the laity, and the clergy in respect of the religious education of the children. A greater question than that cannot be raised. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth, Speaking on behalf of the great communion to which he belongs, very fairly and clearly stated what their view is, that all questions of religion belong exclusively to the clergy, with an appeal to the Bishop of the Diocese, and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. That is an ecclesiastical constitution which is perfectly intelligible. But, as I understand it, the view of the noble Lord the

  705
  Member for Greenwich is precisely the same, only he does not go further than the Bishop of the Diocese. It is that all religious teaching belongs exclusively to the clergy.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: That all religious teaching given in the name and on behalf of the Church of England must be given by the ordained ministry.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; but I should like to know what the authority for that proposition is. IF true, it is wonderfully little observed, because part of the teaching is given by people who are not ordained—by lay teachers, who are not appointed under this Bill, not by the clergy or by the bishop, but by the managers; they are to be laymen appointed by laymen to give religious teaching in the denominational schools. I think that disposes of the ecclesiastical theory and the fundamental principle expounded by the noble Lord. I do not enter into the ecclesiastical controversy on that subject, I only deal with the practise which exists. I think the noble Lord said something about the canons of 1603. That is a long time ago, and in the 20th century the practise of the Church is not in accordance with the canons of 1603. So much for that. The real difference between the ecclesiastical system of the Church of England and that of the Church of Rome is that the Church of England was lay-established. it was enacted by the laity. I do not know whether the noble Lord is familiar with the preamble of the Act of Uniformity; that is the Act on which the Prayer-book depends.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the Prayer-book depends on it; the Prayer-book depends on the Act of Charles II. at far as it depends on anything.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There was an amendment in the reign of Charles II., but the Prayer-book was established by the Act of Elizabeth.
  LORD HUGH CECIL.No.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will not go into that any further with the noble Lord, except to say that the Prayer-book of the Church of England was established by the Act of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth, and in that Act the Lords Spiritual took no part; all the Bishops and Convocation voted against it. There is another difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; the appointments of Bishops is by the Crown, and whereas the ultimate appeal on matters of doctrine in the Church of Rome is to the Pope, in the Church of England it is to a lay tribunal, the Privy Council. I only mention those notorious facts as being a perfect refutation of the clerical theory of the noble Lord. Popular control is a thing not unknown to the Church of England, and it properly finds its place in this Bill. If you may have a lay school master appointed by lay managers to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, then you have a recognition of the right of laymen in the teaching of religion.
  I will not go any further into ecclesiastical theories. What I have risen specially for is, to ask what is the present position of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question. My hon. and gallant friend has shown the courage that belongs to his profession in bringing forward this question. He has told us of "the perils of the field" he has undergone. Sydney Smith once said that the greatest punishment that could be inflicted upon anybody is to be preached to death by wild curates, and that is what my hon. and gallant friend has experienced. He will go down to posterity, no doubt, with the crown of martyrdom; but I am very glad to think that, though we live in days of the wearing of various uniforms, we do not live in a time in which he would have appeared in an auto-da-fe, and, in a San Benito uniform, have been consigned to the flames; that we are not back in the days when clerical domination flourished in a form in which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would desire to see it.
  What, sir, is the history of this Amendment? It was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member, but

  707
  I think he is too prudent a man to have brought it forward without some idea of how it would be entertained. I did not think that the moment he sat down after moving an Amendment of this kind, the Secretary of the Education Department would have risen and embraced it at once, and that it would have received the confirmation of the First Lord of the Treasury. I suppose they knew then what it meant. I do not know whether they had a legal opinion on the subject. I should very much like to know whether this legal astute opinion of the Attorney General's was given before the Government assented to and accepted the Amendment in the House itself, or whether it was born immediately before the Albert Hall meeting. I should very much like to know what was the genesis of this remarkable theory of the difference between "tenour of doctrine" and "machinery of control." I do not think that even the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages could have devised a more elaborate and unsustainable theory. The hon. and gallant Member, not only with courage, but with frankness, told the House what his intention was. The object of his Motion was to give an authority which should restrain the clergy from irregular practices. There is no mention of the bishops at all. It is an extraordinary thing, that in an ecclesiastical discussion of this kind, I have not been able to find in the language of the Government at all, their recognition of the existence of such a person as a Bishop. The Secretary to the Board of Education at once followed and accepted the Amendment as expressing the views the Government had always entertained. And speaking of the operation of the Amendment, what it was intended to do and what it might do in rare cases when it was required, he said—
  "The clergyman, if he were a man of ordinary tact and good humour, would not find his special province invaded by the managers who worked on the board with him. There might be cases, no doubt, when a clergyman would find a restraint put upon his action if he insisted on observances which were not in accordance with the general desire of the community."
  That was the first acceptance of this Amendment. It was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for Tonbridge,
  708
  and then the Prime Minister got up and suggested what his view of the Amendment was, and why he accepted it. He said—
  "It comes upon them, apparently, with a shock of astonishments, and they seem to think that this is sprung upon the House without the smallest preface or preparation."
  It was a thing that had been carefully prepared in the speeches of the Prime Minister himslef. How often had he spoken on the subject, he asked, and then he goes on to quote from a speech which he delivered on July 21st, as follows—
  "After all, secular education had something to do with national education. It was, he might remark, the main subject of the Bill, and it should not be left absolutely out of account, as being wholly alien. Religious education would be under the control, not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a board of six. Of these, the parson would probably be the only minister of religion, and three would be managers representing the denomination." [(4)Debates, cxi., 867.]
  That was the view of the Government from the first. That is the thing which was bruited throughout the country to recommend the Bill There had been a suspicion that this was a Bill to give clerical control of schools sustained by public money. That was the first statement of the Prime Minister as to why he accepted this Amendment. Then he said—
  "It was never contemplated that the teaching in a Roman Catholic school be otherwise in a Roman Catholic, or that the teaching in a Wesleyan school be other than Wesleyan, or that the teaching in an Anglican school should be other than Anglican."
  That was, of course, accepted by my right hon. friend as meaning the tenour in the first part of the Clause. And then the Prime Minister goes on to say—
  "But I must traverse the contention of my noble friend that it was ever contemplated that the teaching should not be under the board of management. Surely it would be very inconsistent if that should be so, because what had been asked for all along was that a teacher should be elected with religious qualifications for carrying on denominational teaching."
  Well, it is the board of management who are to elect the religious teacher, and not the ordained minister. In the case put of this terrible, tyrannical. Ritualistic, Squire, if he comes across a Low Church minister, he and his subordinates will

  709
  appoint the schoolmaster, who will give the religious teaching. The whole thing is perfectly plain—that the Government had contemplated, and contemplated from the first, that against clerical control they should have the security of lay popular management, and it is in that way they justified the Bill to the country. and on that ground they accepted this Amendment as carrying out more distinctly the views they had always entertained. What does he say as to the bearing of this on the appeal to the Bishop? Does he say that the Bishop, and the Bishop alone, is to control religious teaching which is distasteful to the community? He says exactly the opposite. He speaks of the men whom he says are rare. I think they are increasing, and in my opinion they ought to be diminished, and that the people who ought to diminish them are the Bishops, and they have not done so. If they exist, what is to be done with them? The Prime Minister Says—
  "What is it, I put it to them, that has raised almost all the difficulties in the public mind connected with religious teaching in our schools? It is the abuse, here and there, very rarely, I admit, by the clergyman of the parish of the powers given him by the trust. Wherever that was done the harm that it has done to the whole cause of religious education in our public elementary schools is, in my mind, not to be measured by words. I meet it at every turn and on every occasion. The follies and indiscretions of a single individual are multiplied by public rumour till they almost stand up as a great public danger. Is it wise to leave a system in existence [that is the present system of the clergy being controlled by the bishop] which can but bring the whole of our scheme of national education into discredit?"
  Now mark this—
  "It is because I desire to see this danger removed forever from the path of religious denominational education that I am anxious to see the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend accepted."
  That is the Government view of the remedy for this state of things, which has done incalculable mischief to the cause of education. They say it ought to be removed. by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. That was the ground on which they accepted the Amendment three weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it is known that the Government—
  710
  "Have done nothing whatever to see that the wishes of the parents of the children have been considered, there would be a strong feeling aroused against the great reform we are suggesting."
  That is to say, that if this Bill provides no remedy for the mischeivous religious teaching which is offensive to the parents there would be a strong feeling aroused against the Bill. Therefore he accepts this Amendment as the proper remedy for that mischief. How will doubling the priest by the bishop satisfy the people? Then the First Lord continued—
  "I do not pretend to maintain that in an absolutely theoretic sense these managers necessarily represent the parents. They are not elected by them, and, therefore, they do not represent them in that sense. But they will represent, broadly speaking, the general opinion of the particular denomination in a parish, and I think that if this Amendment is carried there really will be no danger that Anglican children will be taught a form of religion to which their parents heartily object."
  In that sense the Amendment was accepted by the Government representing the wishes of the community, giving the laity a voice which would not protect them against the clerical disposition in any case to go contrary to the feelings of the community. That is the principle the Government said they had always contemplated in their Bill, and they accepted the Amendment in the form in which it stands, because it carried out the clear intention that three should be a lay voice in directing the character of the religious education to be given to the children. I do not think anything can be clearer than that.
  Of course, this was vehemently opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, as we can readily understand, as being contrary to the principles he sincerely holds and which he always very powerfully presents. The questions of trust deeds was raised, and the Secretary of the Education Department did not shrink from it. He said that trust deeds would have to be dealt with. But the Prime Minister dealt with the subject more directly. He said:
  "Trust deeds were necessarily dealt with and altered by the Bill."
  Of course, when you determine that there shall be six managers, two of whom shall not be existing managers of the schools, it is impossible more completely to recompose trust deeds. You cannot have a more distinct violation of the trust deeds then

  711
  the constitution of this Board of Management. It revolutionises the Board in all its most important particulars and that was pointed out by the Prime Minister most distinctly. He said:
  "We must all recognise that the Bill does involve some interference with trust deeds; some interference is inevitable. My noble friend has on the Paper words which, as I understand, preserve the control of the managers, but which would, as regards other powers, leave them subject to the trust deeds. If such an Amendment can be devised I have no objection to it. What I do object to is anything that interferes with the control of the managers. That is the essence of the Amendment. I do not think it is worth while persevering with anything short of that."
  That is the control of the managers over-rules the trust. There cannot be a doubt of that, because the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to the noble Lord the Amendment he would be disposed to accept—that any power as to religious instruction conferred by a trust deed on any minister of religion shall, subject to such control, remain vested in him. The proposal was at once rejected by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who said that it was worse than nothing I will not trouble the House with what followed. I wish the house to understand the position in which we stand.
  What is the position of the Government in reference to the Amendment? They accepted it and it was confirmed by an overwhelming majority as carrying out their views? As I understood the Amendment, and as the House understood, it was to give lay control which should enable parents of children in the parish to prevent the giving of religious teaching which is offensive to the people of the parish. Well, are the Government of the same opinion now? What is the real meaning of this Amendment? What is the meaning of saying there is a difference between the doctrine and the machinery? The noble Lord dealt with that very well. The Whole ecclesiastical system is a machine, and, therefore, to say that you are going to leave doctrine, and the character of the teaching dependent upon the doctrine, exclusively to the clergy with the bishops at their back is to run counter to the whole of the language hitherto held by the Prime Minister, and I think we have a right to ask what control the managers will have in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman said in this very speech that the
  712
  absurdity of opposing this Amendment was that the managers when they desired to interest themselves in the school and who were excluded from meddling with the secular teaching which was the function of the education authority, would have nothing whatever to do except in regard to the question of appointing the schoolmaster, and that it was intended to give the managers this interests in the work of the schools. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am not accurately representing him, I have a passage here in which he made it a great part of his argument that these managers would have nothing to do unless we give them the sort of power conferred on them in this Amendment. That being so, I think we have a right to ask the Prime Minister what is the nature of the control in this religious instruction which he desires to give, and for which he accepted this Amendment. If this Amendment is really to assume a form by which practically speaking, religious instruction is to remain solely with the parson and with the Bishop, then all the representations that have been made to the country that this is not to be a one-clergyman power goes for nothing at all. It is one-clergy-man power. You talk of appealing to the bishops. What the bishops will practically have is a veto upon the managers, and to suppose that is giving to the laity in these matters the protection which it was supposed that this Amendment would give is an entire delusion. I hope any idea of that sort—of having gone back upon the recognition of the right of the laity to protection against solely clerical control—will be dispelled by the explanation which I am sure the Prime Minister will give to the House.
  (10.10) MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down filled up so much of his speech by lengthy verbatim quotations from my own utterances on pervious occasions that I really am almost absolved from the necessity of making another oration upon this well-worn topic to the House. I have no change to suggest in anything that I have said before. The views that I entertained before I entertain now: the views that I expressed before I am ready to express again. I really think it was hardly worth while for the right hon.

  713
  Gentleman to occupy the House with these remains of previous speeches, and though I appreciate the compliment, I confess I think it might have been spared us on the present occasion.
  So far as I understand the arguments that have been urged against the Amendment, they fall into three categories. The first I will mention is, I personally think, the least controversial, and in some senses and from some points of view the least important. It is that based upon the violation or alteration of the trust deeds by the present Amendment. Now, Sir, I do not in the least deny, and I do not in the least wish to minimise, the fact that many trust deeds are altered by the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend; and I think among many of my friends on this side of the House and among many gentleman sitting on the other side of the House there is a genuine and well founded jealousy of any rash interference with trust deeds, which are so important a part of the basis upon which property rests in this country. But let it be remembered that some alteration in the trust deeds of the primary education schools in absolutely necessary if you are to have this Bill, or anything like this Bill, at all. And let me further remind those who take a strong view upon this subject that an alteration more important, in my judgment, than any which this Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend contemplates, is of the very essence of this Bill, because—as I think I have pointed out in one of the extracts which the tight hon. Gentleman has read—this Bill contemplates, and has from the first contemplated, that a third of the management of the voluntary schools should be appointed by outside authorities, and that, in regard to their appointment, there should be no limitation whatever as to the creed which they profess or the religious opinions which they hold. I cannot imagine a greater violation of the spirit of the original trust deeds in certain respects than this, and yet it is not only the principle of the Bill, but it is a principle of the Bill that has been endorsed by all the ecclesiastical associations—at least every Anglican, and, I rather think, every Roman Catholic association in England.
  714
  They have all said, "If certain advantages are given us, we are perfectly prepared to see one-third of our management transferred to persons who are not necessarily of our creed." Really, is it possible after that to say that the trust deeds of the voluntary schools are not to be modified in connection with this Bill? It is of the very essence of the measure, and if my noble friend or my learned friend behind me who moved this Amendment, is prepared to answer and say, "No doubt this change in the trust deed was suggested, but it was suggested by the beneficiaries of the trust,"—I do not know whether I am using the right technical term— "by those who have obtained rights under the trust deed, and have a right to suggest an alteration against their own interest," then I say these are the trust deeds of individual founders of individual schools, and it no more rests with diocesan associations to suggest that they should be altered than it rests with any other set of private individuals. Therefore, if I may, I will dismiss at once this argument from the sanctity of trust deeds. Trust deeds are things with which this House ought to be most reluctant to interfere, but when we are remodelling the system of elementary education in this country, and when we wish to bring into that system the voluntary elementary schools which have hitherto carried on so much of the education in this country, I say that such a process is absolutely impossible unless you remodel the trust deeds. And if you adhere with this rigid orthodoxy to the absolute letter of the trust deeds with which you have to deal, your only choice—
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Why do you respect them at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Your only choice is to leave the voluntary schools altogether outside your educational system, and leave my noble friend with the voluntary schools untouched, uncontaminated by any interference on the part of this House, and also without any part in the education of the youth of this country. My noble friend asks me why on this principle I respect any part of the trust deed. I utterly fail to understand him. He himself, I understand is an advocate of

  715
  this one-third of extraneous management. At all events, he has never uttered a word against it, and all his friends have been in favour of it. Why does he respect any other provision in the trust deeds? My noble friend has gone further. My noble friend put on the paper of the House yesterday an Amendment which he did not move, but it is there for anybody to see. And this Amendment, if I understand it—my noble friend never lacks perspicuity—this Amendment suggests that we should institute a visitatorial committee, or authority, to be appointed, not by a clerical body but by a body on which laymen are largely represented, and, I dare say, in many cases laymen are in a majority. Is that to be found in any trust deed of a voluntary school? I have no complaint to make against my hon. friend, but I do not say that we could have accepted that Amendment if it had been moved—
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Hear, hear!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Though I might have been persuaded by my noble friend's silver tongue. But, at all events, the author of that Amendment ought not to attack us because, in a respect which we deem to be essential to the general coherence and consistence of our measure, we have followed his example and suggested interference with existing trust deeds.
  Now I leave what I profess to regard as the least interesting part, though not the less an important part of the question, and I come now to the second argument which I have heard advanced, and which I will call the lawyers' argument. The lawyers have taken a great part in this discussion; but they have not altogether agreed. Some critics have been rash enough to say that the fact that they have disagreed proves that this sub-Section requires remodelling. [An HON. MEMBER on the Opposition Benches: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear!" Has he ever heard of any disputed sub-Section on which the lawyers have been agreed? I can truly assure the House that I never have; and the extraordinary thing is that the opinions of lawyers on the two sides of the House, with surprising regularity, coincide with the opinions generally held by their political friends.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Won't that be read by the the Irish Judges?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But may I be permitted to brush aside these legal subtleties, which are more appropriate to the discussion of Amendments to the sub-Section than of the sub-Section as a whole? It seems to me that the sub-Section as a whole is not difficult to understand, and the policy which has prompted our support of it is not difficult to explain. A great deal has been made in this debate of the fact that in the earlier controversies which we have had on this subject, very little was heard of the appeal to the Bishop. That is true. That is not what the House was interested in. In all these cases there must be a reference somewhere. In certain trust deeds it may be to the Bishop; in others, to another person; and where there are no trust deeds it must be to a court of law. But that is not the question in which the House was interested when we discussed the question before. The subject in which it was interested was whether the clergymen of the parish should have the sole control of the teaching in that parish, or whether that control should be shared by his colleagues on the managing body. That alone was the question before us, and on that I hope the Government gave no uncertain sound as to what their views were then and what they are now. There must be a reference somewhere, and personally I am distinctly of opinion that it is a very convenient course that the reference, in the case of the Anglican schools, should be to the Bishop. It saves a reference to a Court of Law, which is a very clumsy method. But the question is whether you should or should not put the management of religious teaching in these schools in the hands of the whole body of managers, or whether you should allow the management to remain in the hands of a single individual. I need not go further into the legal question. That will have to be discussed in detail no doubt, on the Amendments. But it will be open to those who have an opportunity of speaking to point out wherein the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend falls short of or exceeds the explanations of his object,

  717
  which we accepted when that Amendment was first brought forward, and which we are prepared to support now.
  I now leave the second subject which has been in dispute tonight, and I come, with considerable searchings of heart and sinking of spirit, to the third subject, which I must regard as the theological branch of the inquiry. This is more difficult and serious. It touches finer issues than the subjects with which I have been dealing so far. I am bound first to refer to a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. He made a very interesting, touching, and eloquent address upon the aspect of this Amendment as it affects his coreligionists, and the substance of his argument amounted to this—that it was directly contrary to his faith that laymen should have any concern whatever in the settlement of matters pertaining to religion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I said that the clergy of our Church have a Divine commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My statement was not inconsistent with that. The hon. and learned Member thinks that the clergy alone should be entrusted with anything connected with the teaching of his faith. I have to admit that in theory the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend does run counter to that. It is perfectly true that if the managers, of whom a large number will be laymen, are given the control of religious education in the schools, the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member is departed from. That I do not minimise; nor is it for me to dispute the absolute accuracy with which the learned Gentleman has stated the beliefs of those who agree with him. But I do not think that in practice he will find that any damage or injury is done to those of his community in this country. He seemed to fear that Town Councils would be found which would endeavour in Roman Catholic schools, through the intervention of the representative managers, and possibly through the action of the foundation managers, to interfere with what was regarded as sound teaching. I think he need be under no alarm of that kind. I do not believe that there
  718
  will be the smallest attempt on the part of Town or County Councils to do any injury to those of the hon. and learned Gentlemen's creed any more than I believe the Roman Catholic laymen foundation managers on the board of management will for a moment interfere with the supremacy—that being part of their creed — of the bishops and the clergy of their Church. I do not know that what I have said will entirely remove the hon. Member's objections to the Clause as it stands, but I hope he will believe that, as far as the Government are concerned, and I believe as far as every man in the House is concerned, no matter on which side he sits, the last thing they desire is to use the machinery of the Bill to interfere with the teaching which the bishops and the clergy of the Church desire to give to their denomination in the schools.
  I now come to the difficulties which have been felt, not by Roman Catholics, but by Anglicans, chiefly by friends of my own, as to the provisions inserted in the Bill. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich complained of the Attorney General because he distinguished in this Amendment between the Clause as it dealt with doctrine and with the Clause as it dealt with machinery, and he reproached the Attorney General with a great ignorance of ecclesiastical history in that in the first place he used such a word as machinery and in supposing that there was truly theological machinery except in Church administration.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: No, I did not say that. I certainly said that what the Attorney General called machinery involves theological questions of the highest importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree that questions of Church constitution involve questions of Church doctrine, but I thought he went further. But I do not wish to break a lance with my noble friend on the subject of Church history. I mention this sentence in order to notice what I think is the main fallacy of his contention. He has regarded this throughout as a strictly ecclesiastical question, and he has treated these denominational schools of the Church of England as if they were

  719
  indistinguishable from the churches, as if they were as much an integral part of the ecclesiastical machinery of the Church of England as the cathedrals and the churches and the chapels which belong to that Church. I think my noble friend went the length of saying that as far as this Amendment was concerned he would have been content to consider that the schools were State schools and not Church schools, if the epithet applied to them by the late Home Secretary was accurate. It is not clear that the name makes a great change in the ecclesiastical aspect of this subject because my noble friend has mistaken the true root of the matter.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: My objection was to calling the buildings State schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think these schools are neither State nor are they, in my noble friend's acceptation of the word, Church schools. They are public elementary schools belonging to the Church of England; that is their full style and title. I think my noble friend is making a profound mistake theologically, if he will allow me to say so, practically without admission, when he tries to sustain in this House the proposition that these schools, at all events as far as the religious hours of education are concerned, must be regarded as mere annexes or parts of the ecclesiastical fabrie of the Church. I do not think so. I take a different view. I regard these schools not as annexes of the fabric of the Church, but as extensions, so to speak, of one aspect of the fabric. A most interesting speech was made earlier in the evening by my hon. friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who reminded the House, what every one knows, that Members of this House, to whatever denomination they belong, in educating their children do not think it necessary that the whole of the education should be carried on under the control of the parson of the parish. That is, I think, the real key of the situation. The poorer members of the community cannot command either the time or the assistance which the richer members of the community can command.
  720
  They have not, unfortunately, the opportunity of teaching religion in the nursery, and in later life they have not governesses or tutors to teach them religion. They are obliged to send their children to school, and the school from the secular point of view is undoubtedly an annexe of the fabric, as I think it is also in point of religious teaching. That does not mean, of course, that the clergyman is not the natural adviser; it does not mean that it is not to him you would first go for assistance in dealing with these difficult and delicate questions. But it does mean that the clergyman is not supreme either in the family or in the school in the same sense as he is rightly supreme in the fabric of the Church. I venture to suggest most respectfully to those who take a different view whether they are not advancing a very dangerous doctrine if they try to persuade laymen of this country that, as regards their own co-religionists, they have the same kind of supremacy outside the Church as they have inside. Will not people say: "Ought they to have more supremacy in the Church than we are prepared to give them outside the Church?" I am not sure whether it is wise in the interests of the Church—I am sure it is not wise in the interests of the Church—that the doctrine of my noble friend and those who agree with him should be driven it. After all, have the clergy of the Church of England endeavoured to drive it to that point? My noble friend appears to draw no distinction between the Church and the school. What would be thought in the Church of a parson who merely gave a general superintendence, and the Church was represented by persons elected by a body in which laymen were in a majority, and the clergymen only had a right of general supervision and of preaching when he chose? That is what is done in schools. Remember, that in the Church of England schools at this moment, to an increasing degree, the teaching is carried on by the teachers of the schools, not because the clergyman of the parish is oblivious of his duty, not because he does not take the keenest interest in the welfare of the young members of his flock, but because as education becomes more specialised and more difficult the professional teacher

  721
  gets an advantage, and the clergyman finds that the very doctrines which he desires to instil into the child are better instilled, on account of experience and the general discipline carried on in the school, by the lay teacher of the school. My noble friend must remember that an arrangement like that is subversive of the strictly ecclesiastical theory which he has desired to defend, and I do not think he is doing good service to the very cause he pleads by driving too far his speculative theories on this point. And may I remind the House that by the consent of everybody concerned—and I may include the learned Gentleman and his co-religionists in this country—the selection of the teacher has been committed, not to clerical, but to a lay body, a body predominantly lay? We are told quite rightly that from the point of view of teaching in the school, it is the character of the teacher more than anything else that is important. When you have given the appointment of the teacher over to a body predominantly lay, how can you come down to this House and say that your ecclesiastical theories make it absolutely necessary that the clergyman of the parish or somebody in holy orders should have full control of your education?
  Now, Sir, I must conclude, but I will conclude by making an appeal, not to this House, and not to the laymen in the country, but to that great body of clergy to whom the debt of every educationist is so immeasurably great. I know and I regret the pain which this Amendment has given to many of the most hard-working clergy of the Church of England, and to the priests of the Church of Rome. I know it, and I grieve over it. But surely, when they come to think of it, they will recognise that the wrongs of the Government towards them are small indeed. May I remind them—I can assure them and the House that I do not do so to get a merely argumentative advantage—of the kind of Resolution which they passed two years ago and three years ago on the subject of the controlling authority of the school? I am going to read a single paragraph from the Resolution of a joint conference of Convocation of Canterbury and York sitting in committee. The third paragraph runs as follows:—
  722
  "That the government of every school, and especially the appointment and dismissal of the teacher, be left in the hands of the present committee of management, with the addition of certain members appointed by, or under rule made by, the local authority, such additional members not to exceed one-third of the whole number."
  I do put it to all concerned if the clergy—the clergy, mark you, of the two great provinces—in passing that Resolution, reserved to themselves the right to object to such an intrenchment on this management as is involved by the rejection of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, if they had up their sleeve any reservation of that kind, if they were subsequently coming down and saying,—"It is quite true we did propose to hand over the management of the school and selection of the teacher to the denominational body, with a third added to it, but all the time we meant that if the trust deed was of a different tenour the whole education should be kept in the hands of one man," I think if they had done that deliberately, which I am sure they did not, we should have reason to complain. I believe they passed that Resolution absolutely in good faith. Certainly, when I introduced this Bill with Resolutions of that character before me, it never occurred to me, I can most truly say, although these controversies were very far advanced, that any objections would be raised from the side of the clergy to leaving to this mixed body, one-third external to the denomination, two-thirds belonging to the denomination — it never occurred to me that this mixed body, competent to elect teachers, was incompetent to deal with the religious education. I think we should have great reason to complain of the ecclesiastical, authorities themselves, who, if they held these views at the time, did not give us some warning that it was in their mind.
  LORD HUGH CECLE: No one so much as suggested at that time that the trust deeds would be altered. No one dreamt that the right of a clergyman to teach in his own school was to be removed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I should not have thought that a body of men, who by their profession probably

  723
  looked as much at the religious and ecclesiastical side of education as any other side, could pass this Resolution without knowing what it meant. My noble friend may have had the reservation in his mind at the time, but I had not any evidence of it. I can only say it never occurred to me. I did not hear a whisper of this difficulty until the end of July, after I had made a speech in this House in which I stated what my view of the Bill was. I am not accusing any human being of bad faith, I am only saying it is difficult to understand the ecclesiastical mind in defence of that position. But I have something much more to do than defend the Government. I have to say that in my judgment, thinking over this question and giving it the most serious consideration in my power, I am now more convinced than ever that the future of religious education in this country, so far, at least, as the voluntary schools of the Church of England are concerned, lies in the future, as it has lain in the past, with the clergy. If they refuse to work this Bill, as I have always conceived this Bill to be, and as I hope it will be when it is passed into law, then I admit that though this measure will in any circumstances do, I believe, an enormous service to the cause of general education in this country, it will not do all that I had dreamt it was capable of doing in the cause and interests of religious education. If the clergy take the view of my noble friend and the Bishop of Worcester and say, "This Clause interferes with the theory of episcopacy, and therefore we will not touch it," they have it absolutely in their power, in my judgment, to destroy the future of religious instruction, certainly religious instruction
  in the tenets of the Church of England, in our public elementary schools. But I believe more firmly in their devotion to religion and their public sprit. I am not going to pretend that this Bill will relieve— as was sometimes said in controversial moments by hon. Gentlemen opposite—the clergy of a great burden of labour, of troubles in respect to the collection of money, and other burdens, which they have borne during many years past. It will not remove that burden though I trust it will alleviate it. I admit that in parishes where the clergy and laity cannot work harmoniously together, scandals and difficulties may arise, though not of a character surpassing those which we have seen in certain cases under the existing system. I admit, also, that the clergy may feel that in a region in which they have hitherto regarded themselves supreme they may now have to share their powers, technically, and in some cases really, with a great body of laymen. But I am perfectly confident that in every parish where the clergyman shows that tact and moderation of which I believe the great majority of the clergy are capable and have given ample proofs, the system will work as smoothly and without friction in the future as it has done in the past; and that in the future, as in the past, those schools—infinitely better equipped in all secular matters—will not be less zealously concerned in the cause of those great religious truths for which the clergy of all denominations ought to, and, as I believe, do, earnestly strive.
  (10.53.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 589.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Black, Alexander William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Allen, CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Brasssey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brigg, John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Bell, Richard

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bentinck Lord Henry C.

  Burns, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Butcher, John George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bignold, Arthur

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

  Caldwell, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Murray, Col. Wyndham

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norman, Henry

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A(Worc.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Clive, Captain Percy A

  Helder, Augustus

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E

  Price, Robert John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Priesley, Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cremer, William Randal

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Crombie, John William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rea, Russell

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, James (Greennock)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kemp, George

  Renwick, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham

  Keswick, William

  Rigg, Richard

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dix'n

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Royos, Clement Molyneux

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lecky, RtHon. WilliamEdw. H.

  Rutherford, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hams, Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Limehouse)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Finch, George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spear, John Ward

  Forster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stewart, SirMarkJ. M'Taggart

  Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriessh.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Grant, Corrie

  Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederick G.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan Gower

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Tomkinson, James

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morley, Rt. HnJohn(Montrose

  Toulmin, George

  Hain, Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  726

  727

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Younger, William

  Wason, Eugene

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Austin, Sir John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Tully, Jasper

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Malcolm, Ian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

  Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shrepshire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  O'Doherty, William

  Mr. Cripps and Sir James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Fergusson.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end, add as a new sub-Section—'(5) The managers of a school maintained but not provided by the local education authority shall have all powers of management required for the purpose of carrying out this Act, and shall (subject to the powers of the local education authority under this Section) have the exclusive power of appointing and dismissing teachers.' "—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 11th instant, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions
  on the Amendments proposed by the Government to Part III. of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 22, at end to insert as a fresh sub-Section the Words—'(2) If, in the opinion of the Board of Education, any enlargement of a public elementary school is such as to amount to the provision of a new school, that enlargement shall be so treated for the purposes of this Section.' "—(Sir William Anson.)
  (11.10.) Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 590.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carew, James Laurence

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Chamberlain, RtHonJ A (Worc.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Austin, Sir John

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bousfield, William Robert

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Renwick, George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ritchie, RtHon. Chas. Thomson

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Kemp, George

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDix'n

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lecky, RtHon William Edw. H.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fellowes, Hon. Aliwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ (Manch'r

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Stewart, SirMark J. M.'Taggart

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurt

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. Cumb (Eskdale)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macartney, RtHon W. GEllison

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N)

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Garfit, William

  Massey-Mainwarning, Hon. W. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire)

  Tully, Jasper

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG

  Vincent, Sir Edger (Exeter)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  More, Robt. Jasper Shropshire)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w)

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morton, Arhtur H. Aylmer

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, RtHn. AGraham(Bute)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hain, Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

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

  Hamilton, RtHn. Robert Wm.

  O'Doherty, William

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wodehose, Rt. Hon. E. R.(Bath)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hon Wm Robert Wellesley

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Percy, Earl

  Wylie, Alexander

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgns, Frederick

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Purvis. Robert

  Younger, William

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somers't, E.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Hood and Mr. Austruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Asquith, RtHon Herbert Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, CharlesP(Glaouc.,Stroud

  Atherley-Jones L.

  Black, Alexander William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  730

  731

  Brigg, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arhtur C.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Carmeron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan Gower

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomkinson, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wallace, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds. S.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wason, Eugene

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morley, RtHon John (Montrose

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T(Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arhtur

  Grant, Corrie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Whitley and Mr.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Rea.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 10, page 6, line 4, at end, insert 'which, in cases where part only of a parish is situated in the area of the local education authority, shall be apportioned in such manner as the Board of Education think just.' "
  "In Clause 10, page 6, line 15, after 'elementary,' insert 'day.' "
  Amendment agrees to.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 226. (Division List No. 591.)

  AYES.

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stround

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Burns, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bell. Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Black, Alexander William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, John Edward

  Brigg, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Emmott, Alfred

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randall

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crombie, John William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 33, to leave out the words 'Before such order is made, reasonable.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  (11.23.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendments proposed—
  "In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, leave out 'thereof,' and insert 'of any such application."
  "In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, after 'draft,' insert 'final.' "
  "In Clause 11, page 6, line 34, after 'order, insert 'proposed to be made thereon.' "
  "In Clause 11, page 6, line 36, leave out 'or,' and insert 'and' "
  "In Clause 11, page 6, line 38, at end of line, insert 'and the final order shall not be made until six weeks after notice has been so given' "—(Sir W. Anson).
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 16, at end, to add as a new sub-section the words—'(6) The Board of Education may, on the application of the managers
  736
  of the school, the local education authority, or any person appearing to them to be interested in the school, revoke, vary or amend any order made under this section by an order made in a similar manner; but before making any such order the draft there of shall, as soon as may be, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if within thirty days, being days on which Parliament has sat, after the draft has been so laid before Parliament, either House revolves that the draft, or any part thereof, should not be proceeded with, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order,' "—(Sir Wiliam Anson.)
  (11.38). Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 91. (Division List No. 592.)

  AYES.

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stround

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Burns, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bell. Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Black, Alexander William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, John Edward

  Brigg, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Emmott, Alfred

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randall

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crombie, John William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Newnes, Sir George

  Tomkinson, James

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wallace, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wason, Eugene

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rigg, Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk Mid.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsfi'ld

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. Charles Morley and

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. Lough.

  M'Arhtur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Northants)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Groves, James Grimble

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hain, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Austin, Sir John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Asf'rd

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Doughty, George

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bigwood, James

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Howard, John(Kent, Fav'rsham)

  Bousfiled, William Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kemp, George

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Keswick, William

  Chapman, Edward

  Garfit, William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Godson, SirAngustusFrederick

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lawson, John Grant

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Farcham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Colomb, SirJohnCharles Ready

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Leveson-Glower, Frederick N. S.

  734

  735

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Rasch, Major Frederic carne

  Tully, Jasper

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lytteleton, Hon. Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison

  Renwick, George

  Walround, Rt Hn. Sir WilliamH.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Arhtur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Massey-Mainwarning, Hn. W. F.

  Roberts, Samuel (sheffield)

  Welby, SirCharles G. E.(Notts.

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd)

  Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Rutherford, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Col. Whyndham (Bath

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Shackleton, David James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Herford, East)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Younger, William

  O'Doherty, William

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Spear, John Ward

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Arnold-Forster, Huge O.

  Garfit, William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walth'mstow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  O'Doherty, William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hain, Edward

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bigwood, James

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, John George

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Purvis, Robert

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hermon. Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Crane

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Hobhouse, RtHnH(Somerset, E)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Renwick, George.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen)

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Kemp, George

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. JohnH.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kennedy, Partick James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Rutherford, John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

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

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Douglas, Sir William Theodore

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam Hart

  Lockwood, Lt.-col. A. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. GEllison

  Tomlinson, Sir William Edw. M

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tully, Jasper

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  738

  739

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

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

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E.(Notts.

  Worsley-Taylor, HenryWilson

  Younger, William

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue.,Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Rea, Russell

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robson, William (Snowdon)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Burns, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R.(Northants.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Cremer, William Randall

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, JA.(Glamorgan, Gower

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Toulmin, George

  Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, Eugene

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whiley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfold, Mid

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Hudd'rsfi'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Faller, J. M. F.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Mr. Warner and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price, Robert John

  George White.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In Clause 14, page 8, line 14, leave out local,' and insert 'public.' "
  "In Clause 14, page 8, line 16, leave out a local,' and insert 'such an.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Further consideration, as amended, adjourned till Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.