§ Considered in Committee—
§ (In the Commiltee.)
§ Clause 4:—
§ (9.0.) MR. WHITLEY
, resuming his speech, said that since the Amendment 1148 was placed on the Paper its purport had received very striking confirmation in the case of the King's College tests. These tests, against which many Members of the House had been agitating for a long period, had at last been removed, on the definite ground that King's College was going now to take its place under a system of national secondary education, and it was just on these very grounds that he made the plea for the Amendment that stood in his name. It was very necessary, if the scheme which this Bill propounded was to be a real national scheme of secondary education, that these tests, which had long been out of date, should at once and for all be removed while they were dealing this question. In the case of King's College the tests were applied to every teacher, whatever subject he wished to teach in the scheme of that college. They had been removed now by the action of the governors of that college in every department except that of theology, and he would point out that they were not requiring that in the case of a college or school which was of a distinctly Anglican character they should not make such inquiries as they might think necessary in order that their theology teaching might be of that stamp which that college had been created to teach. But that, even if his Amendment were carried, would be legitimately within the power of the governors of such a school or college. What he asked the Committee to declare was that these tests were pernicious in themselves. Tests of this kind, which were a premium on dishonesty, which discouraged the conscientious man and encouraged hypocrisy, should of all things be the very last that they should provide for or encourage when they were formulating a great new scheme of secondary education. Tests in such cases wore an encouragement to insincerity, and they had the worst possible effect on the teacher at the outset of his professional career and on the 1149 pupils. In some minds they produced the habit of thought termed Jesuitry, and in others free-thinking; they acted as a discouragement to the conscientious man; they encouraged hyprocrisy. He was glad to think that there were not many colleges where tests obtained, arid opportunity should be taken on the initiation of this great national reform to deal a final blow at the system. He trusted that the Government would see their way to follow the example of the governors of King's College, and in the foundation of this great new scheme of secondary education clear away once and for all the mere possibility of the imposition of these tests as a condition of the appointment of teachers in our secondary schools.
Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 20, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'no teacher shall, as a condition of employment, be required to make a declaration of religious belief.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said that the hon. Member had delivered an interesting address on the subject of religious tests, and probably the great majority of Members present shared his view. Certainly he would not attempt to defend the system. But the question for the Committee was not whether they approved or disapproved of such tests, but whether it was expedient to insert in this part of the Bill a provision that no college subjecting its teachers to such tests should receive assistance from public funds. lie should have thought that the example of King's College was a strong argument in favour of letting things alone and trusting, not to a provision in an Act of Parliament, but to the general good sense of governing bodies and the progress of enlightenment as a sufficient force to secure the disappearance of all such tests. It was clearly not an inconvenience which appeared to him to require the intervention of Parliament at all. If the Amendment were passed, it would cut off from aid institutions which were doing excellent educational work. He might instance the case of a Roman Catholic institution, the students in which were subjected to extremely rigid tests, and had to take solemn vows. The body 1150 to which he referred had a most excellent secondary school, attended by Protestants as well as Catholics. The Technical Instruction Board of the London County Council had provided it with the means of establishing a chemical laboratory, and good work was being done by it. Was it desirable to put a stop to work of that kind? On the ground, first, that the system of tests was generally a system which was dying out and did not. require to be killed by an Act of Parliament, and, secondly, because there were cases in which, notwithstanding the existence of religious tests, it was most desirable to promote the spread of real secular, education by means of persons who were subject to such tests, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment, and if he did, that the Committee would support the Government in resisting it.
§ MR. ROBERT SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid)
said he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his declaration that he was in favour of the abolition, or at least of the reduction, of religious tests.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
I did not say that. What I said was that I was not in favour of religious tests, but that I thought it was a pity to make an attempt to abolish them, as they are dying out of their own accord.
§ MR. ROBERT SPENCER
said that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman was not in favour of religious tests, and he was glad to think that the Minister for Education in that House was aware that they were dying out of their own accord. No doubt the governing bodies of many institutions did display good sense and toleration, but speaking for himself, he thought it was the duty of that House to safeguard, as far as legislation could safeguard, any test from being imposed on members of the community who might not profess the same religious views as some of the governing bodies. Religious tests were an anachronism which ought to be done away with. He trusted that the Amendment would be pressed, and that the right hon. Gentleman in his individual capacity would go into the lobby in support of it.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said that, taking the country all over, probably the feeling against religious tests was rapidly growing, and what they were asking the Committee to do was to use Parliamentary power to hasten the tendency which practically everybody agreed was desirable. A generation ago nobody would have dreamt of appointing as head master of a public school any one who was not a clergyman, but now a very different view prevailed.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
deplored the attitude taken up by the Vice President in suggesting it was not the business of Parliament to express approval or disapproval of religious tests. Unfortunately the Bill, if passed in its present form, would stamp their approval of such tests, and he thought it was really regrettable, when they were trying to put their secondary education on a satisfactory basis, that this system of tests should be allowed to continue. Schools which insisted on retaining such tests for their masters ought not to receive financial support from public funds. No doubt if they were left to chance such tests would die out, but this Clause declined to leave them to chance. Although this might be a direction or merely a piece of advice, it was extremely mandatory in its terms, and no Town Council could fail to consider the wording of the sub-section. It was an extraordinary thing that while the new and the old universities had gradually abolished these tests, the Committee should be asked, when overhauling the secondary education system of the country, to pass this provision.
(9.32.) MR. GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
said the speech of the Vice President was characteristic of most of his deliverances upon education: he was in favour of the principles advocated by the Opposition, but he always voted against them. So far as the right hon. Gentleman was personally concerned, he was in favour of the abolition of tests; here was an opportunity to give practical effect to that view. The Amendment was said to be unnecessary because the tests were dying a natural death. The object of the Amendment was to give thorn the happy despatch, and ought, therefore, to be supported by those who 1152 favoured the abolition of tests. Every denominational school or college was at liberty to impose any tests it pleased upon its teachers or pupils as long as it was carried on exclusively out of the funds of that denomination, but the moment State aid was accepted it lost the privilege of denominationalism and ought to open its doors freely to every citizen of the country. Oxford and Cambridge wore open to Nonconformists; why not the secondary schools? This was a matter which might very well be settled apart from Party issues, and he felt confident that if the First Lord would allow the Committee a free hand the Amendment would be carried. What would the Vice President or the Duke of Devonshire say if they had to sign a declaration of religious belief before taking office? But while those two great men wore free from theological restrictions, a teacher in one of these schools would be bound to say that he believed in this, that, or the other, before he could secure his position. That was a gross injustice, and he hoped the Committee would take this opportunity of removing it.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the Committee had heard the view of the Vice President on this point, and it was now time for them to hear what the First Lord thought on the matter. The debate had proceeded mainly on two points. It had been urged that when these schools came forward for an additional amount of State aid, it was only fair that that aid should be conditional upon no religious tests being imposed upon teachers. To that no answer had been given. The second point was oven more important, and would appeal to those who had had experience of this question in the universities. The great objection to these tests was that they were absolutely useless for the purpose for which they were intended. He could cite the highest authority in his own university in support of that statement. Such tests produced insincere professions of belief in men in whom sincerity was the first essential.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
admitted that the assertion of the Vice President that this question of tests was a dying and diminishing one might have boon true prior to the introduction of the I present Bill, because many of the schools 1153 were dying schools, and were being crushed out of existence, by the superior intellectual teaching given in the higher grade schools, to which many scholars wore sent in preference to the secondary or grammar schools. Some of the higher grade schools earned from '20 to 30 per cent, more in Government grants than the grammar schools.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said that was exactly what numbers of them had done, and, in consequence of the competition of the higher grade schools, the grammar schools had materially improved their own teaching capacity. Under this Bill many of those dying institutions would be resuscitated by public money, and their influence revived. It was, therefore, highly important that the Amendment should be carried.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said he had never known a Nonconformist master of a grammar school. Whether the lost was by law or not, it existed, in so far as only one particular religions section obtained the appointments. If an instance to the contrary could be given, his case would fall to the ground.
AN HON. MEMBER
pointed out that at Newcastle-on-Tyne there was a Wesleyan head master of the grammar school.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said that was the one swallow, but it did not make a summer; and that if an inquiry was made into the circumstances, probably good reasons would be found for the exception. Why should the possibility of a religious test be maintained in these institutions when there was no test of efficiency or fitness as regards teaching capacity? None of the masters in these schools held certificates of efficiency. The agitation of the Association of Head Masters of recent years against the higher grade schools had been because the latter had beaten them in open competition in their capacity to 1154 teach and fit boys for the life of commerce or trade, and the burden of their song was that no educational certificate was required from their masters. Why should there not be imposed upon every school receiving aid from public funds the necessity of each master therein having a parchment certificate of efficiency? To satisfy a religions test was one of the easiest things in the world for a man with an elastic conscience. There were many men in the House of Commons, as in every other Assembly, who, although they could pass a religious examination without difficulty, would be unable to pass a higher grade examination. The religious examination in the institutions ought to be abolished.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said that earlier in the afternoon the First Lord delivered a splendid lecture on the difference between theory and practice. This test might not exist in the book, but it certainly obtained in practice. Many of these ancient, rusty, and fossilised grammar schools would be revived under this Bill; and, with them, all their bad old practices, and it was necessary to ensure that they should not have the opportunity of putting those practices into operation.
§ * MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)
said that this was a very reasonable Amendment, and one which it was the duty of all who were opposed to sectarian tests to support. He thought the country did not yet appreciate that one of the main objects of this Bill was to subsidise denominational middle - class schools all over the country. He did not agree that the practice of applying sectarian tests was quite as moribund as had been suggested. An accomplished friend of his, who was the head master of one of London's most famous schools, and one of the few who were laymen, had told him that two of the tests or qualifications of a modern head master were that he must be in holy orders and slightly bald. Another friend of his, a Balliol scholar, who had failed to obtain a head mastership, told him a few years ago that he should enter holy orders in order to comply with the religious 1155 tests imposed in these institutions. He did not think that was satisfactory for the progress of true religion in this country. The other day he noticed an advertisement from a little town to which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had addressed his attention, the town of Sandhurst. It was issued by a colonel, and it was stated in the advertisement that a head master was wanted who must be a "determined Churchman." He thought it was far better that these tests should not be imposed at all. They had in connection with the Wesleyan Methodist Church a large number of middle class schools, and he might be asked, "Do you propose that the great Methodist middle class schools at Folkestone, Canterbury, Har-rowgate, and elsewhere shall be relieved from any religious test?" He should be very glad indeed to remove those tests imposed on teachers in all the denominational schools of the Church to which he belonged. Probably, consideration might be paid—indeed, it would certainly be paid—to the theological tenets of the applicants in the selection of teachers for the schools connected with his Church, but he preferred to have no tests, and even run the risk of having an Anglican head master or one connected with some other denomination. Having regard to the risks they would run of having the practice of imposing religious tests developed all through the country, he thought it far better that they should put on the face of the Bill a direct prohibition against exacting religious tests from head masters and other masters of public schools aided under this Clause.
§ *(10.0.) MR. LEVY
said that the Vice President of the Council had, against all reason, decided not to accept the Amendment, arid had given four reasons for so doing. The first reason adduced by the right hen. Gentleman was that religious tests were dying out. That proved that these tests were not in harmony with the wishes of the people, and was surely a reason why the Government should accept the Amendment. The second reason was that King's College had abandoned tests. But why? Because there had been twenty-two years agitation, during which time the Member for Islington had 1156 resigned his scat on the Council in consequence of the Governors maintaining religious tests. Another reason advanced was that one institution in London would be deprived of some benefit or aid or grant. That might be an injustice to one particular institution, but, after all, was it not a greater injustice to the great body of Nonconformists of this country that they should, for the purpose of maintaining aid to one institution, impose this test? Of the two evils, they should certainly choose the lesser. Auother reason advanced against the Amendment was that this was not the time or stage of the Bill to insert it. The self-same argument was used when the previous Amendment was before the House. These reasons, put forth by the Vice-President were arguments in favour of the Amendment, and, he submitted, went to show that the great majority of the people of this country, and, he believed, the majority of the House, were in favour of the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)
said that in his opinion these tests were absolutely contrary to public policy. The man who would subscribe to them would be of a feeble, vacillating, character, whereas the man who would stand out would be a man of firm and sterling character.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said there were two classes of schools which would be affected by this Amendment. First of all there were the old endowed schools, which were to a certain extent under public management from one point of view, and under private management from another point of view, and they were not established by the County Council. What was the position of those schools now? When his hon. friend the Member for Leicester stated that there were a great number of grammar schools where there were theological tests, he was met with contradiction by several hon. Gentlemen opposite, but his hon. friend was perfectly right. Ther6 were many of these grammar schools where there were tests, and they were exempted from the Act of 1869, because the Liberal Government of that time was met with strong opposition, and they had to make exceptions in order to pass the 1157 Bill through Parliament. Since 1869 there had boon a great advance in Liberal ideas in the Church party, and there had occurred the famous instance of King's College. Therefore, to say that the grammar schools were entirely undenominational in regard to the tests supplied to the teachers was to say something which was entirely incorrect. It was only because this point, which was raised by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, had been met with a flat contradiction that he had deemed it right to state exactly how the matter stood. He wished to remind the Committee that they had to consider not only the old endowed schools but also the case of the new schools. In regard to these schools he claimed that they had an unanswerable case, and the local education authority ought not to be able to hand over money to institutions of this kind unless they were willing to throw open their doors to all who wished to undertake the honourable post of teachers. This contention was the same as that which was put foward by the Liberal Party in 1869 in regard to the ancient endowments. It might be argued that those endowments were given by persons who lived long ago, and that from their point of view it was right to maintain those trusts, but that was not the case in regard to the now schools, and if these schools desired to receive assistance from the rates and taxes, they ought to be obliged to throw open their doors, and all tests should be abolished.
§ * MR. MOSS
said that he had heard no argument from the other side which appealed to reason or common sense against this Amendment. Was it not light that where a grant was made for educational purposes they should at any rate take steps to secure the best men for teaching in those schools? No one could say that in the past education had been the loser by the abolition of religious tests. He did not think Oxford or Cambridge was any worse today for the Act of 1871, from whatever standpoint they cared to look at it. He was quite sure that the concensus of opinion was that both Oxford and Cambridge had gained from an educational standpoint by the passing of that Act. Let the Committee consider what the effect of the Act of 1889 had been in. Wales. Ill the Welsh 1158 schemes there were no religious tests at all, and the money was distributed in various ways amongst all the schools in the different counties established under the scheme. He defied any one to show that the provisions of the Act of 1889, which instituted the schemes in the different counties of Wales had not met with the most remarkable success. Education in Wales had suffered nothing by the abolition of tests, and they were now doing remarkably good work, the quality of which no one, either inside or outside the House, could challenge. They were told that this system was dying out, but did that fact not condemn the existence of the system? If so, why did they want to perpetuate such a system? Why did they not boldly say that this system should terminate, and be made impossible in all schools assisted by the State under the provisions of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that there was no grievance to relieve; but was it not a grievance that in a college one of the qualifications was not an educational but a religious one? Was it not a grievance that Nonconformists should have to pay towards the salary of a headmaster in an institution where it was made a test that he should belong to some other religious persuasion He held that that was a grievance which Nonconformists would have to contend with if this Bill became law. He contested the assertion that there was no grievance to relieve, and maintained that one exceptional instance in which difficulty had been avoided by a display of high - mindedness and liberality did not exonerate the Government from the duty of applying all round a sound general principle. It appeared to him that there was a grievance in this matter which the right hon. Gentleman, with all propriety, might relieve. If the grievance was dying out then the insertion of this provision could do no harm, and he hoped that before the end of this debate the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept, in some form or other, the principle of this Amendment.
§ MR. DILLON
said he did not see why the Government objected to this Amendment. Upon this point 1159 he could speak from their own experience in Ireland, for when a demand was put forward in Ireland for a denominational university the representatives of the Government insisted as a primary condition of discussing the matter that there should not be any test. Anyone who would take the trouble to read the extraordinary and interesting evidence given before the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland would find there some singular and interesting facts highly creditable to the Irish Catholics. Those facts were given before the Royal Commission in order to support the claim of the Irish people to have a university for Irish Catholics. He would take as an illustration the Blackrock University College. A professor from that college gave most interesting evidence before the Royal Commission, in which he stated that although he was a Unitarian from Belfast he had been the senior professor of classics in the Blackrock Catholic College, which was under the control of Catholic priests, and to which not one penny of public money was contributed. That gentleman was now the President of the Unitarian University College in Belfast, and for seven or eight years he held the position of Professor of Classics in the Blackrock Catholic College. He wanted to know why, if a Catholic College in Ireland which had never got a single penny of public money, did not find it difficult to entrust the teaching of its pupils to a Protestant, there should be such a difficulty in abolishing the test in Church colleges in this country. He instanced the case of the college in St. Stephen's Green in connection with the Jesuit Order, where several of the professors had always been Protestants. As he understood the Amendment there was no compulsion put on the governing bodies of the colleges to appoint any particular man. They would still have absolute power, if they were so disposed and were so intolerant, to appoint nobody but men of their own religion. He should be astonished if they were to be told that in Protestant England the governing bodies of colleges which received support from public money were not to be left free to appoint men of great ability to be masters because they 1160 were of a different complexion of Protestantism from the governing bodies. The situations appeared to him to be an extraordinary one, and so far as the Irish Party were concerned, they would heartily support the Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCE
confirmed the statement of the hon. Member as to the attitude of the Roman Catholic church by quoting a similar case from the United States. Hon. Members on this side were surprised that no argument against the Amendment had come from the Ministerial side of the House. It was not easy at this time to get up an argument in favour of theological tests. It was not easy, above all, to get up an argument against an Amendment which did not perhaps abolish all theological tests, but only proposed that public money should not be paid where theological tests existed. They fought and won this battle in 1871. The university tests were a superannuated absurdity, which narrowed the field of choice of competent men, laid a trap for weak consciences, and gave no guarantee that after all the choice made would be the man wanted. The Opposition would certainly renew this contest on every occasion, because nothing would do more for secondary education than the extinction of these tests.
§ * MR. MANSFIELD
said that on the Opposition side of the House they had reason to complain that, notwithstanding the unanswerable case they had made out for this Amendment, they had practically attempted no answer to it. The Vice-President of the Council had said that he did not believe in religious tests, but he was going to vote for their continuance.
§ * MR. MANSFIELD
said he was glad to hear that, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be found in the lobby in favour of the Amendment. If the Government attitude was that they did not like religious tests, it was hardly consistent that they should continue them. The question was whether these tests existed or not. They had heard that there was one grammar school in 1161 which a Nonconformist had been appointed as headmaster, but that was one of the reformed grammar schools which did not come in the category referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester. He knew a case in which a young man who had all the educational qualifications necessary for an appointment was told that he could not have the post because he was not a clerk in holy orders. If there was only that case in the country, he considered a case was made out for passing the Amendment.
§ (10.30.) MR. EDWARDS (Radnorshire)
said he thought the Government had no objection to the principle of the Amendment, but he was sorry to say that they were inconsistent in not accepting it, inasmuch as the Bill provided that no scholars in these schools were to be liable to tests. How, then, could they subject the masters who were to teach in the schools to tests? If the scholars were to be free from tests the masters ought to be in the same position.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said this was really a very important Amendment. The principle of the Amendment had not been assailed at all by those who refused to accept it. The Government did not defend the principle of tests; on the contrary they deprecated it. The only speech made on the Amendment from the Ministerial side had thrown over tests. The Vice President had declared that he was opposed to the imposition of these tests. Then why on earth did the Government not accept the Amendment, and so save any further waste of time? He would like to ask the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich whether, if he were the manager of a school, he would not prefer a competent teacher who might not be a Member of the Church of England to an incapable teacher who was a Member of that Church?
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
asked the hon. Member whether in any circumstances he would appoint a Roman Catholic teacher in a Nonconformist school.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said
Certainly, if he were the better man; and if the noble Lord only knew what was happening in Wales he would never have asked 1162 that question. In the very parish in which he (the hon. Member) lived, the whole of the members of the School Board were Nonconformists until recently, when one Churchman was elected, and yet the whole of the head teachers in the schools were members of the Church of England. Why were they appointed? For the simple reason that when the applications came before the Board it was found that the Anglican applicants were by far and away the best equipped, and no one asked a question about their creed or faith. It had strengthened the undenominational system there, and he ventured to say the same thing would happen in the denominational colleges if tests were abolished.
§ MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)
said he heartily hoped that this Amendment, which had nothing whatever dangerous about it, would be accepted. No compulsion was proposed, no one's hands were to be tied, no one was to be compelled to go in a given direction, and perfect freedom was to remain with the managers and trustees of these schools. It seemed to him that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were frightened of a shadow. He should vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
really hoped they might not have to go to a division on this question. It was not a tolerable position to maintain that the heads of schools should not be free, on a question of educational efficiency, to choose the best candidates irrespective of creed. There were certain subjects on which it was desirable that the teachers should be of the same creed as the heads of the school. If he were at the head of a Roman Catholic college he would not be inclined to give the professorship of history to a non-Catholic, but in the appointment of teachers of mathematics, French, and many other subjects, he would choose efficient Protestants as against inefficient Catholics. He could not understand why the hon. Member for Oxford University did not get up and say that, after all, there were some other sections besides the bigoted obscurantist section 1163 who seemed to wish to keep everything in the hands of one branch of the Christian Church.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley)
said he had waited to hear from the Leader of the House the reasons against the arguments which had been advanced on the opposite side. So far he had waited in vain, and his object in rising was to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, should state the ground on which the Amendment was opposed. He sat for many years on a Board of Guardians, and he regretted to say that a certain section of the Board introduced religious tests in an illegal and improper way Anyone who applied for an office of any kind had to undergo a certain amount of questioning as to the particular section of the Christian Church to which he belonged, and according to the answers he gave, his candidature was supported or opposed by those particular members. It was useless to deny that religious tests were not so completely abolished as had been suggested. There had been many instances where these practices had been carried on, and which would be stopped by the adoption of this Amendment. Unless he heard better reasons advanced against the Amendment he should feel himself compelled, however reluctantly, to vote in its favour.
§ * SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)
said he believed that almost the whole of the Conservative Party would vote in favour of the Amendment if they were allowed to do so; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would gage thoroughly the spirit of the Committee on both sides of the House In a matter of this kind educational efficiency should first of all be considered. The object of those who supported the Amendment was to emancipate education from the thraldom of the old worn-out system of test, which struck at the root of educational efficiency. When by this Bill they were, for the first time, establishing a system of secondary education, it was important that there should be removed from it all those remnants of a dead past; and he ventured to hope the First Lord of the 1164 Treasury would give way and accept the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he had been reluctant to speak on this Amendment, not because his opinions were not perfectly clear on the subject, but because he was sorry to say that he felt, after some of the proceedings of the afternoon, there was such a desire to prolong the discussion —[HoN. MEMBERS on the Opposition Benches: Oh, oh!]—that any intervention on his part really made matters worse. What the House desired was not argument, but to find in anything said from the Government Front Bench the subject of further debate. As he had been challenged from his own side, he thought it necessary to state what his view was and to support his right hon. friend the Vice President, who had already expressed the view of the Government on the subject. There appeared to be a profound misconception of what this Amendment, if carried, would effect. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had both appealed to the Government in behalf of their co-regilionists, to accept this Amendment. If it were accepted it would at a stroke of the pen deprive a great many Roman Catholic and other denominational schools of the assistance which they now got from public funds. No school in which a teacher was required to make a declaration of religious opinion would be eligible for assistance from public funds. And that was the Amendment actually supported by the hon. Members for East Mayo and the Scotland Division on behalf of their co-religionists? After all, they must regard the affairs of their own Church in such manner as they pleased, and he was not more interested in theirs than in any other form of religious education, denominational or undenominational, which was to be given in schools aided by the public authority. Several Members had told them that no business firm would think of imposing a religious test upon any business man whom they were asking to become a partner in the concern. Of course that was true. There was no relation, so far as he knew, between theological belief and business ability. Was that the case with teaching in schools where, among other things, 1165 religion was taught—not necessarily; denominational religion, but some religion where Bible teaching took place, where what was called the general truths of Christianity were taught? Were those schools, or were they not, to be excluded from any assistance from public funds? He believed the whole House was of opinion that they ought not. He believed it would be perfect madness to lay down a rule that a school in which religion of any kind was taught was a school which ought not to receive any assistance from public funds. He maintained that there was no body of opinion in this House which would say that no public funds should be given to schools in which the beliefs of the Roman Catholics, the Wesleyans, Bible Christians, or Jews were taught. If they once admitted that the teaching of religious matters was to be allowed, were they to deprive those who had got to select the teachers of the right of saying whether those teachers could teach the religion they were expected to teach? They talked of business. Was that business? Was it not raving lunacy? The truth was that the House in this Amendment as in many others oscillated inconsistently between two different ideals, one of which was gradually led up to by a certain section, but when the House came face to face with it it shrank back in horror. If they chose to have secular education, and nothing but secular education, then of course this Amendment would be accepted unanimously; but directly they admitted, as they must, that religious education was to have a place in these secondary schools, then he did not use too strong an expression in describing the folly of those who said that these things were to be taught, and that they were not to inquire in the competency of the people who were to teach them. He did not say that any teacher should be required to sign the thirty-nine articles or any other articles, but it would be right to find out whether he was not only an extremely competent teacher to teach secular matters, but also competent to teach religious duty. He earnestly hoped the House would not commit itself to an Amendment which made this part of the scheme utterly ridiculous.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said the First Lord of the Treasury had nothing to regret in the proceedings of that afternoon. On the contrary, all that had happened that afternoon had greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been amazed that his hon. friends the Members for East Mayo and the Scotland Division had announced that they were in favour of the Amendment. But why were they in favour of the Amendment? It was because they had some belief in the doctrines they held and that these doctrines could hold their own in spite of all tests. But in resisting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had fallen back upon all the old arguments which had been used again and again long ago against the abolition of tests in the universities. To listen to the right hon. Gentleman one would think that we were living thirty or forty years ago. He not only suspected, but he knew very well, that the right hon. Gentleman did not believe in the efficacy of tests, and was well aware of the benefits which had accrued to the country by the abolition of tests; and yet the right hon. Gentleman wished to continue the tests in the case of those schools. They on that side of the House wished to remove them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if a master was to be appointed for the purpose of instructing in religious doctrine, there ought to be some check on the religious views which he held. Without assenting even to that theory, he admitted that in the universities where tests had been abolished the theological faculties had been exempted; and if it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's scruples, perhaps his hon. friend would agree to alter his Amendment so that it might run that no teacher of a secular subject should be required as a condition of employment to make a declaration of his religious beliefs. It appeared to him that those words met all the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the Committee on the subject. For his part he objected to religious tests for whatever purpose they were employed. They were futile, insulting, and useless for the purpose. The very latest instance they had was King's College, which, finding what harm tests were 1167 doing to the institution, had voluntarily abolished them. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman a golden bridge, viz., that tests should not be required on all subjects in which there was no flavour of religion about them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that that compromise, if he might say so with all respect, was utterly illusory. What value was there in it? All the manager of a school would have to say was that the
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Helme, Norval Watson||Perks, Robert William|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Ambrose, Robert.||Horniman, Frederick John||Price, Robert John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Rea, Russell|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire||Reddy, M.|
|Black, Alexander William||Lambert, George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Boland, John||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Law, Hugh Alex. (Denegal, W.||Rigg, Richard|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Lay land-Barratt, Francis||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Brigg, John||Leamy, Edmund||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Runciman, Walter|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Russell, T. W.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Leng, Sir John||Sandys, Lieut.'Col. Thos. Myles|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Levy, Maurice||Sehwann, Charles E.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Lewis, John Herbert||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Caldwell, James||Lloyd-George, David||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cameron, Robert||Lough, Thomas||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Macnanmara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Cremer, William Randal||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah||Spear, John Ward|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Govern, T.||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants|
|Davies, M Vanghon-(Cardigan||M'Kean, John||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Delany, William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Dillon, John||Mather, Sir William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Middlemore. Jno. Throgmorton||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Duncan, J. Edwards||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Moss, Samuel||Toulmin, George|
|Ellis, John Edward||Moulton, John Fletcher||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Murphy, John||Tully, Jasper|
|Fenwick, Charles||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds. S)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith||Norman, Henry||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nussey, Thomas Willans||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk. Mid.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Malley, William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||O'Mara, James||Young, Samuel|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Shee, James John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)|
|Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil||Parkes, Ebenezer||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Partington, Oswald||Mr. William M'Arthur|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||and Mr. Canston.|
§ subject for which the teacher was about to be appointed had something to do with religion. Then they would have to settle and define all subjects in which religion arose, and they had only to remember that the hon. Gentleman tin Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had declared that history was one of those subjects in which theology was involved, to guess what a mess that would land them in.
§ (11.8.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 275.)
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fisher, William Hayes||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fison, Frederick William||Myers, William Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Nicol, Donal Ninian|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Flower, Ernest||Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Galloway, William Johnson||Percy, Earl|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Garfit, William||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Godson Sir Augustus Frederick||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon, A. J. (Manch'r||Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Randles, John S.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Rankin, Sir James|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Gretton, John||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Bentinek, Lord Henry C.||Groves, James Grimble||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hall, Edward Marshall||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bigwood, James||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Renwick, George|
|Bill, Charles||Hamilion, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Bond, Edward||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Tnomson|
|Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Higginbottom, S. W.||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Bull, William James||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Butcher, John George||Hogg, Lindsay||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside||Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wor'er||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Chapman, Edward||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Kennedy, Patrick James||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W. (Salop.||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Knowles, Lees||Stock, James Henry|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cranborne, Lord||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|Crossley. Sir Savile||Macdona, John Cumming||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C.E (Taunton|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Welby, SirCharles G. E, (Notts.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Majendie, James A. H.||Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Max well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Milvain, Thomas||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Duke, Henry Edward||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Morrell, George Herbert||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sir William Walrond and|
|Finch, George H.||Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute||Mr. Anstruther.|
* THE CHAIRMAN
I do not quite understand the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He uses the words "where authorised." By whom?
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
said authorised by the manager in charge of a school. The object of his Amendment was to make it clear to managers of schools that they would not be obliged 1171 either to authorise, or to refuse to authorise, religious instruction. As the Amendment stood, however, he admitted it was somewhat unnecessary; but if Amendments which had been rejected by the Committee had been carried, the words would then have a meaning which they did not now possess. He only wished to make it clear to managers of schools, that they had the option of authorising or refusing to authorise religious instruction. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 22, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'where authorised.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said he gathered from the hon. Member that the Amendment was conceived in view of previous Amendments which had not been accepted by the Committee. He did not think that the Amendment was one which would add anything to the meaning of the Clause. The language of the section made it clear that religious instruction was to be so arranged that any pupil could withdraw.
Question put and negatived.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT
said the Amendment he proposed to move was a matter of machinery. The Clause provided that the time for religious worship should be arranged conveniently to allow the withdrawal of any scholar. His Amendment was that religious instruction should be given either at the beginning or at the end of the lessons for the morning or the afternoon, except in cases of special difficulty. The most convenient time for giving religious instruction was obviously at the beginning or at the end of the school period; and, therefore, it was desirable that Parliament should state what was generally found to be the most convenient time. It was not desirable to make arrangements for a convenient time which would not result in that convenience. The words in the Clause were doubtful, and might give rise to a great deal of discussion; whereas, if the matter were defined in 1172 the Bill itself, it would relieve managers of a great deal of difficulty and trouble. There was an admirable precedent for the Amendment in the Elementary Education Act of 1870. Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 of that Act enacted that the time or times during which any religious observance was practised or religious instruction given should be either at the beginning or at the end of any school period. That arrangement had existed for over thirty years, and it seemed to him very desirable that it should obtain in secondary schools which would be largely made up of children who had been educated in the elementary schools, and who had been in the habit of observing it. He suggested that machinery which had worked well for thirty years in the elementary schools might also be adopted in the secondary schools.
Amendment proposed—In page 2, line 22, after the words 'shall be,' to insert the words 'either at the beginning or at the end of the lessons for the morning or the afternoon, except in eases of special difficulty, when they shall be.'"—(Mr. Carrie Grant.)Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he confessed he did not think the words of the Amendment were an improvement; but he did not attach much importance to them one way or the other. They were now dealing, not with elementary schools, but with schools which might be residential; and he did not see why the time should not be left to be conveniently arranged without any limitation. That would be the better plan.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said he toped the Amendment would be accepted, because it was of considerable importance that the ordinary curriculum of a school should not be interrupted by any religious ceremony or service, or even by religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was not of any importance; but he hoped the Amendment would be accepted as it would tend to improve secular education without injuring religious instruction.
§ (11.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the arrangement proposed in the Amendment was in operation in two or three of the Colonies where there were denominational schools, and also in Holland.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he could not say that; but the principle was really the same. It was a matter for the convenience of the pupils. Suppose a school opened at nine o'clock, and that religious instruction was given for half an hour, why should the pupils who did not wish to participate in religious instruction be asked to attend before half-past nine o'clock? Again, suppose that religious instruction was taken at half-past three o'clock, why should the children who did not wish to attend it not be allowed to go home. What his hon. friend wished to avoid was the giving of religious instruction in the middle of the school period, which would necessitate children who did not wish to participate walking out in the presence of the other scholars. That would be an offensive thing to compel them to do, and it would subject them to the jeers of their schoolmates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept what was a very fair and convenient arrangement.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said a great deal had been said in these discussions about the Welsh Intermediate Act, and he would therefore point out that the words of the Clause were taken from that excellent Act. Sub-section 3 of Clause 4 said that the times for prayer or religious worship, or for any lesson or series of lessons in religious subjects, should be conveniently arranged for the purpose of allowing the withdrawal of any pupil. They, therefore, had the authority of the Welsh Intermediate Act in favour of the particular form of the words in the Clause.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the whole of the Clause. He wished he had, as it would, make all the difference in the world. Under the Welsh Intermediate Act no sectarian school could be 1174 endowed at all, and, therefore, there was no objection to religions teaching in such a school.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
asked why the right hon. Gentleman, having cited the Welsh Act, did not follow it all through. His hon. friend quoted a precedent from the Elementary Education Act or 1870. Surely the two things ran side by side. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there might be a difficulty as regarded residential colleges, but the Committee should remember that the number of such colleges would be very small indeed. If they wanted religious instruction to be conveniently arranged it ought to be either at the beginning or at the end of the school period, unless there was some special difficulty in the way, in which case the Education Department would decide. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, which was taken absolutely from the Elementary Education Act which had worked so well. They had all the argument on their side during the evening; and in the last division they had nearly a majority of the votes as well. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to decide the matter in freedom, they would win hands down. It was quite plain that the beginning or the end of a sitting was the most convenient time. Otherwise children who did not wish to attend religious instruction would have to go out to the playground and waste their time, an arrangement which would cast a slur upon them.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said he thought that they might fairly trust those who would be responsible for the administration of the Act, and who would have a knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, to deal with the matter in a sensible manner. In Germany, religious teaching was ordinarily given at the beginning or the end of a sitting; but it was not an inflexible rule, as it was governed by circumstances. All they asked was that the same amount of freedom should be given under the Act. The managers were instructed to make such arrangements as would be most convenient; and he was perfectly sure that 1175 if they were left liberty, they would carry out their mandate in such a way as would best servo the interests of education.
SIR WALTER FOSTER
said that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the matter was a comparatively small one, and he himself did not think that it was a very large matter. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Committee was dealing with secondary schools, but he thought that they should be even more careful that nothing was done to offend the susceptibilities of pupils in secondary schools than in primary schools. It would be generous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment which he admitted did not raise a serious point. Surely the object of the secondary schools was secondary education; and, therefore, if religious teaching were to be added on, the better plan would be to take it at the beginning or the end of the main object for which the schools existed. If it were put into the middle, it would be like saying grace in the middle of a meal. The commonsense plan would be to have religious instruction either at the beginning or the end; and if the right hon. Gentleman assented to that arrangement, it would lessen, to some degree, the opposition to the Bill.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said it was not a very large matter, but he thought it was of some importance that they should not arrange time tables by Act of Parliament. What was good for elementary schools which wore day schools, might not be good for secondary schools, which wore very different. Moreover 1176 there was a reason for putting in a compulsory time table as regarded elementary schools, because every child was bound to attend. The secondary schools would be anxious to obtain as many pupils as they could, and with that object they would arrange their time tables to suit the convenience of their pupils. That being so, there was every reason to suppose that a manager of a school would not expose a pupil of an exceptional denomination in that school to the necessity of having to walk out when religious instruction was taken.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)
said that if everyone would show as reasonable a spirit as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, there would be no occasion to put in a time table in the Bill. What they desired to prevent was that a time table should be framed to the disadvantage of pupils who did not wish to attend religious instruction. The concession asked for was a very small one, and he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have preferred to concede it, rather than prolong the discussion.
§ MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)
said the principal argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Amendment might affect residential students, but it should be remembered that the Bill provided for a number of new schools which would not be residential schools. Many of those schools would be more in the nature of elementary schools than secondary schools; and surely the right hon. Gentleman might well accept such a reasonable Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
said he would oppose the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place it would fetter the discretion of the managers; and, secondly, it would impose a rigid rule upon all secondary schools where there was no necessity for such a restriction; and would interfere with their elasticity. A uniform system such as that proposed was very valuable in primary schools, but as regarded secondary schools, he thought the managers would be the best judges.
said he did not appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member. The Amendment would not impose a rigid rule. There would be a general rule, but in a case of any special difficulty another arrangement might be adopted by the managers. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other objection, that the Amendment would interfere with the discretion of the managers, every rule must to a certain extent do that. As the Committee was well aware, three out of every four hon. Members were in favour of a general rule; and he wished to ask why the precedent in the Act of 1870, which had worked well for thirty years, should ' not be followed now. He could not appreciate the distinction drawn by the First Lord of the Treasury between primary and secondary education so far
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stroud||Caldwell, James||Edwards, Frank|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Elibank, Master of|
|Black, Alexander William||Causton, Richard Knight||Fergussson, R. C. Munro (Leith|
|Brigg, John||Channing, Francis Allston||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Cremer, William Randal||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil|
§ as the Clause was concerned. Even in the House of Commons they prayed at the beginning of the business, and how very inconvenient it would be, if after an Amendment were disposed of the House proceeded to pray. They were asking very little, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment.
§ * MR. MOSS
said that they were accused of having all the talk, and none of the arguments on that side; but they did not forget that the right hon. Gentleman broke the contemptible conspiracy of silence on the other side, some time previously, by referring to those who differed from him as raving lunatics. Hon. Members who opposed the Amendment argued that in all cases the most convenient time would be adopted; but that was exactly what the Amendment provided for. It said that the morning or the evening was the most convenient time, and that if that were not found to be so, some other arrangement would, of course, be arrived at. He did not see what harshness or injustice could arise if the Amendment were accepted.
(11.48.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85 Noes, 213. (Division List No. 276.)
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Moulton, John Fletcher||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Palmer George Wm. (Reading)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Partington, Oswald||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Philipps, John Wynford||Toulmin, George|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Pirie, Duncan V.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire||Price, Robert John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lambert, George||Priestley, Arthur||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rea, Russell||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Rickett, J. Compton||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Rigg, Richard||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Levy, Maurice||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robson, William Snowdon||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Lloyd-George, David||Russell, T. W.||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr.|
|Mather, Sir William||Soares, Ernest J.||Goddard.|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants|
|Moss, Samuel||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Cranborne, Lord||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Crossley, Sir Savile||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cust, Henry John C.||Hoult, Joseph|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dalkeith, Earl of||Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham|
|Ambrose, Robert||Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Delany, William||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Denny, Colonel||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Dickson, Charles Scott||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Dillon, John||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Doogan, P. C.||Law, HughAlex.(Donegal, W.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dorington, Sir John Edward||Leamy, Edmund|
|Balcarres, Lord||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J.(Manch'r||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Legge, Col. Hon. Henage|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Durnings Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Loder, Gerald Water Erskine|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants W.||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Faber, George Denison (York)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)|
|Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bill, Charles||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Finch, George H.||Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Boland, John||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Bond, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Fison, Frederick William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Brassey, Albert||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||M'Govern, T.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Kean, John|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Bull, William James||Flynn, James Christopher||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W.||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Butcher, John George||Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W. J.H (Dumfriessh.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn||Milvain, Thomas|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Moore, William (Antrim N.)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Morgan, David J.(Walth'mstow|
|Chapman, Edward||Groves, James Grimble||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Charrington, Spencer||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rdG (Midd'x||Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mount, William Arthur|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hayden, John Patrick||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||Murphy, John|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Higginbottom, S. W.||Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Myers, William Henry|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Renwick, George||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Redley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Ridley, S. Forde (B thnalGreen)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louch, South)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Tully, Jasper|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Valentia, Viscount|
|O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|O'Malley, William||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Welby, Lt.-Col A. C.E (Taunton|
|O'Mara, James||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|O'Shee, James John||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Lof Wight)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Percy, Earl||Shaw-Stewart, M. H (Renfrew||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside||Wylie, Alexander|
|Randles, John S.||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Rankin, John S.||Spear, John Ward||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Reddy, M.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Stock, James Henry||Sir William Walrond and|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Sullivan, Donal|
§ It being after midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
§ Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
On a point of order, I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, whether the closure can be moved on a Question which has not been put from the Chair before 12 o'clock? It was after 12 o'clock when you put the Question, and I submit that no closure can be moved in regard to any Question not put from the Chair and not consequential on the Amendment which has been disposed of.
* THE HAIRMAN
I do not think that the hon. Member is correct. The closure can always be moved on the I interruption of business.
§ MR. DILLON
I desire to ask you Sir, if it is not the fact that the closure can only be moved after 12 o'clock for the purpose of bringing to a decision a Question already put from the Chair?
* THE CHAIRMAN
The Rule does not say so. Clearly on the interruption of business the closure may be moved. If the hon. Member will turn to the Closure Rule he will find that a Motion can be made that the Question that a Clause be added to or stand part of the Bill be now put. That is one of the forms of the closure.
* THE CHAIRMAN
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Rule he will see it is not so. The Clause is under consideration.
§ (11.59.) Question put, "That the Question, 'That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
|Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fisher, William Bayes||Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fison, Frederick William||Percy, Earl|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Galloway, William Johnson||Randles, John S.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bailey James (Walworth)||Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Renwick, George|
|Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Groves, James Grimble||Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Bill, Charles||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Bond, Edward||Higginbottom, S. W.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Brassey, Albert||Hogg, Lindsay||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hoult, Joseph||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Bull, William James||Howard, John(Kent Faversham||Seely, Maj. J. E.B. (I. of Wight)|
|Butcher, John George||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Johnston, William Belfast||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Johnston Heywood (Sussex)||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Smith James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)||Spear John Ward|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lee, ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc.||Leigh-Bennett Henry Currie||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Chapman, Edward||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stock, James Henry|
|Charrington, Spencer||Long, Col. CharlesW (Evesham)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Colston Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Macdona, John Cumming||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Majendie, James A. H.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Crossley, Sir Saville||Martin Richard Biddulph||Walker Col. William Hall|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Maxwell, W. JH (Dumfriesshire||Warde Colonel C. E.|
|Dalkeith Earl of||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E (Taunton|
|Davies SirHoratioD.(Chatham||Milvain, Thomas||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Denny, Colonel||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.||Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Wilson John (Glasgow)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Morgan, David J.(W'lthamstow||Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R.(Bath|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Morrell, George Herbert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Morrison, James Archibald||Wylie, Alexander|
|Mount, William Arthur||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(B'te|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Sir William Walrond and|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Nicholson, William Graham||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Finch, George H.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 277.)
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Partington, Oswald|
|Allen, Charles P.(Gloue Stroud||Holme, Norval Watson||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Black, Alexander William||Price, Robert John|
|Boland, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Kennedy, Patrick James||Rea, Russell|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Reddy, M.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Lambert, George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rigg, Richard|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leamy, Edmund||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Leese, SirJoseph F.(Aeerrngt'n||Russell T. W.|
|Caldwell, James||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Levy, Maurice||Scott, Chas. (Prestwich, Leigh)|
|Channing Francis Allston||Lewis, John Herbert||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lloyd-George, David||Soares, Ernest J.|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Govern, T.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dillon, John||M'Kean, John||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Markham, Arthur Basil||Toulmin, George|
|Mather, Sir William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Frank||Moss, Samuel||Tully, Jasper|
|Elibank, Master of||Murphy, John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Norman, Henry||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'r'ry, Mid.||Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Malley, William||Mr. Causton and Mr.|
|Hardie, JKeir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Mara, James||William M'Arthur.|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Shee, James John|
§ (12.13.) Question put accordingly, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
|Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.||Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Banbury, Frederick George||Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bill, Charles||Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chapman, Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bond, Edward||Charrington, Spencer|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brassey, Albert||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Balcarres, Lord||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Bull, William James||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Butcher, John George||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 278.)
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cranborne, Lord||Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)||Renwick, George|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge)|
|Cust, Henry John C||Kennedy, Patrick James||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Denny, Colonel||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Seely, Maj. J. E.B (Isle of Wight|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Macdona, John Cumming||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, H. C.(N'th'mb. Tyneside|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Majendie, James A. H.||Spear, John Ward|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Finch, George H.||Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriessh.||Stewait, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Milvain, Thomas||Stock, James Henry|
|Fison, Frederick William||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S W.||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Morrell, George Herbert||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Morrison, James Archibald||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn||Mount, William Arthur|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Welby, Lt.-ColA. C.E(Taunton|
|Groves, James Grimble||Nicholson, William Graham||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Percy, Earl||Worley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hoult, Joseph||Randles, John S.|
|Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham||Rankin, Sir James|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Sir William Walrond and|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Brigg, John||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Priestley, Arthur|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Caldwell, James||Toulmin, George|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil|
|Cremer, William Randal||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Partington, Oswald||Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr.|
|Elibank, Master of||Pirie, Duncan V.||Philipps.|
§ It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.