asked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will hold out any inducement to MR. Hertslet, Librarian of the Foreign Office, to publish a Collection of Treaties respecting non-European Countries on the same plan as his recent work entitled "The Map of Europe by Treaty?"

in reply, said, the Government highly appreciated the work alluded to, and he believed it would be a useful thing if a similar book respecting Treaties affecting non-European countries was published. No representation had, however, been made to the Treasury by the Foreign Office.

said, he would repeat the Question to-morrow to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any reply has yet been made to the letter of His Excellency the Commander in Chief in India, dated Head Quarters, Simla, 9th August, 1875, addressed to the Adjutant General to the Forces, Horse Guards, War Office, London, respecting arrears of pay due to certain officers of Her Majesty's British troops by the Government of India, and as such letter refers to previous communications and concerns a number of officers of high standing in the service, he can explain the cause of so unusual a delay; and, whether he is aware that His Excellency the Commander in Chief in India, by letter dated Simla, 1st April, 1875, Deputy Adjutant General's, Royal Artillery, directed the Commander in Chief of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras not to forward any further applications, as a reply was shortly expected on the subject from the Horse Guards?

said, that no reply had been made to the letter dated 9th August, 1875, as no decision had yet been received from the India Office to the references made to that Department on the subject of the claims put forward in that letter. Nothing was known in the War Office of the letter dated Simla, April 1, 1875.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter written by the Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Bucks Yeomanry on January 1st, 1876, to the Inspector of Auxiliary Cavalry, acknowledging the letter of the War Office 0070 734, which not only ordered the guns attached to the Regiment to be returned to store, but disbanded the men and Serjeants of the two troops of Artillery themselves; and, whether, in view of the testimony of the Commanding Officer to the efficiency of these two Troops as Yeomen, and to the great sacrifice of time and money made by both officers and men in learning the additional duties of artillerymen, he would think it right to accept the offer of their continued service in the Regiment as Light Cavalry, with some acknowledgment of the services they have already rendered?

said, his attention was drawn to the letter in question, which was duly replied to. In communicating to the Officer Commanding the Bucks Yeomanry on the 15th December, 1875, that the two Artillery troops could no longer be permitted to form part of the establishment of the regiment, and that they must be disbanded; it was not the intention that these troops should be necessarily disbanded in the literal sense, but that they should be discontinued as Artillery and their guns withdrawn, the troops remaining in the regiment as Cavalry, and retaining with their officers their regimental positions. This was subsequently explained to the Officer Commanding by letter dated the 26th of January last. The services rendered by the Artillery troops and their efficiency were fully appreciated, and an expression of the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government of their efficiency was made to the Officer Commanding on the 15th December last.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a map has been prepared and laid upon the Table of the House, showing that the site of the present Mint comprised in the gross 203,624 superficial feet, or a little more than four acres of ground, of which 13,775 superficial feet, are now let on an unexpired term of six and a quarter years, and that the ground required for the Mint which it was proposed in 1871 to build on the Thames Embankment was only 123,174 superficial feet, thus showing that a new Mint could be erected on the present site, and leave 66,675 superficial feet, or about one and a-half acres to spare, and which could be sold in part payment of the cost of a new Mint on the present site?

said, that the figures which the hon. Member had given were accurately quoted from the map in the Library. The frontage of the Mint was very narrow, and a new Mint could not be erected on a part of the present site without pulling down the main building and incurring enormous expense. There was only one Mint in this country, and the coinage could not be carried on during the reconstruction of the building, nor could it be suspended. Owing to the shape of the existing site the back part of the premises could not be sold with advantage, as there would be great difficulty in obtaining access to it. It would be much cheaper, even if it were not absolutely necessary, to sell the present unwieldly site and place a new Mint, properly arranged and concentrated, on a new and more convenient one.

asked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the coupons and drawings of 1855 Turkish Guaranteed Loan, due on the 1st August, have been paid; if so, whether the funds out of which such payments have been made were deposited in the Bank of England or France on the Egyptain Tribute Account, under the Third Article of the Convention between England and the Sublime Porte, by which these payments form a special charge on the annual amount of the Tribute of Egypt "which, remains over and above the part thereof appropriated to the 1854 Loan;" or, whether the money has been paid or supplemented by the Governments of England and France, or from any other source?

The best answer I can give to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member will be to mention the facts. On Saturday, the 29th of July, the Bank of England wrote to the Treasury that the necessary funds had not been provided to meet the charge of the Imperial Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855, falling due on the 1st of August. On the 31st of July, the Treasury communicated this information to the Foreign Office, in order that a proper representation of the circumstances might be made to the Turkish Government. On the same day the Treasury informed the Bank that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to fulfil the guarantee which they had given jointly with the French Government and severally; but they (the Treasury) asked the Bank to advance the amount of the dividend in the first instance. This was an act of courtesy to the Turkish Government in order to afford them the opportunity of acting on the representation which had been made to them. On the 1st of August the Bank paid the dividend as requested by the Treasury. On the 2nd of August the Foreign Office forwarded to the Treasury a copy of a letter from the Turkish Ambassador, saying that he was in communication with his Government. Up to the present time no further information has been received. The facts have been made known to Lord Lyons for communication to the French Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Return respecting cases of Extradition between Great Britain and the United States, ordered several weeks ago, will be presented?

said, the Government were anxious to make a Return as soon as possible, but the facts with regard to Canada had not yet arrived in this country. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult with him he would endeavour to meet his wishes on the subject.

Sir, I have given Notice of my intention to move the adjournment of the Orders preceding that of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. But, Sir, as you have been good enough to inform me that I have not put down my Notice of Motion in a manner exactly in accordance with the Forms of the House, I hope hon. Members will allow me to make a short statement in moving the Adjournment of the House. I have never moved the Adjournment of the House before, and I hope never to move it again, in similar circumstances. I should have no other opportunity of explaining what has occurred; but I feel that I ought to apologize to the House for doing anything to prolong the most dreary, weary, dismal, doleful, and dispiriting Session that I have ever known. I must also apologize to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for coming in his way, and I certainly should not have done it at any other time, or in any other circumstances. If the Education Bill is so important, we surely should remember that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (MR. Smyth) is also an Education Bill; and being so, I think it ought to have the support of the Representatives of the brewery trade in this House, from whom we have had three Motions in favour of religious education. I wish seriously to say that I do not think the Government have acted—I will use as mild a word as I can—quite justifiably in regard to the Bill of my hon. Friend. I do not think they have acted quite fairly to the House, to Ireland, or to their own Party. Now, let us look at the history of my hon. Friend's Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] It will not take long to tell. This Parliament is not a very old one, and I shall not go further back. The Resolution, founded on the Motion brought in in 1874, and in favour of which the Irish vote was 4 to 1, was defeated by a course not creditable to the opponents of the measure. I am not blaming the Government very strongly for opposing the Resolution then, because they had just then come into office on the appeal to the country; and the instructions the country gave them were that they were to promote the sale of intoxicating drinks in every possible way. ["Oh!"] If these were not the instructions why did they do it? We could not expect that in 1874 the Government would try to put a stop to the sale of drink in Ireland when they were promoting it in England. ["Order!"]

I must remind the hon. Baronet that he is not at liberty, under cover of a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, to discuss the merits of a Bill which is on the Orders of the House.

May I ask whether I am empowered to allude to the conduct of the Government with respect to the Bill, keeping in my remarks clear of the merits of the measure?

The hon. Baronet would be quite in Order in asking the Government to give him a day for the discussion of the Bill which is in charge of the hon. Member for Londonderry; but to discuss the merits of the Bill upon the present occasion would be quite out of Order.

In that case I will merely discuss the conduct of the Government in reference to the Bill. In 1875 a scene occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry brought in a Bill which must be fresh in the recollection of hon. Members. There was a majority expected in favour of the Bill; but a short time before the hour for adjournment the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (MR. Wheelhouse) rose, and amid loud cries of anguish from all sides of the House, said it was too late then to proceed further with a measure of such importance, and moved the Adjournment of the House. I say he did that with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government. I have heard it stated in the North, where the hon. and learned Member came from, that there was an intention to make him a Baronet by way of reward for his service. More than that, I have been told, under no seal of secrecy, that when the Prime Minister called together his Supporters shortly after to discuss the political situation of the day, he made the strongest appeal to them to assist him in getting rid of the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. That appeal was successful. This year my hon. Friend obtained a majority of 57 in favour of his Resolution, comprising 5 to 1 of the Irish Members and 10 to 1 of the Scotch. Upwards of 40 Tory Members preferred their principles and the good of their country to Party ties, and I honour them for it. A remarkable event happened on that occasion. Three Gentlemen officially connected with the Government, and representing Irish constituencies, walked out of the House without voting—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who represents the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor), the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, who sits for Dublin University, and the noble Lord who represents Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton). We know what the noble Lord said when he went down to his constituents. He said that no personal considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of duty, and that his joining the Government might give him an opportunity of serving his countrymen. "For instance," he added, "there was the Sunday Closing Bill, and in regard to that subject he would be able to bring public opinion before the Government in an authoritative manner." That is what was said by one of the most respected officials of the Government. It has been said that in the last debate Cork was against the Bill; but there has been an election in Cork since that time, and the result has been the return of a Tory Member, whose first speech was in favour of the measure. If a Resolution on an English question was supported by 5 to 1 of the English Members, would a day, would an hour have been lost before the Government brought in a Bill to give effect to that Resolution? Especially if public opinion had been in favour of it, as you know it is in Ireland—["No!"]—where it is as near unanimity as anything can be in Ireland. What is the use of crying, "No," when the facts are before us? It is not only the magistrates and the clergy, but even the publicans are in favour of it, and this is a fact that should carry weight with hon. Gentleman opposite. Although there was such a great majority, however, the Government would give no facilities for getting on with the Bill. The Prime Minister gave the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (MR. Butt) facilities for the discussion of his Land Bill, which was not supported by anything like the unanimity in favour of this Bill, and I cannot understand why the same facilities should not be given to this Bill. My hon. Friend, however, got a day in spite of them, and he got it on a day when there were three Motions before his. Those Motions were by a Home Ruler, an English Liberal, and a Scotch Tory, and they all made way for my hon. Friend. No one dared to divide against the Bill on the second reading, and the consequence of a speech then made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the Government was complimented by a distinguished speaker on their entire good faith in removing this matter from the stage of Parliamentary discussion and putting an end to contention. In spite of all that complimenting, a fortnight elapsed before they could extract from the Chief Secretary the Amendments he was to propose in the Bill. It was like drawing teeth to get them out of him. I have the fear of you in my eye, Sir, and so will not discuss those Amendments; but, whether they are good or bad, the Government should have seen that an opportunity was given for discussing them. But after the Prime Minister gave the promoters of the Bill a Wednesday's sitting, the Chairman of Ways and Means brought on a discussion, which lasted an hour and a-half, on a Resolution which was subsequently withdrawn, and which prevented that full discussion of the Bill which was anticipated. The Mover said that it was not his purpose to prevent the discussion of the Bill, which was no doubt very true. I put it to the Government if it is really too late to save this Bill from the Massacre of the Innocents, and I am sure there is not a more innocent Bill in the whole lot. In any case, be it understood that it is not the machinations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (MR. Callan), and his little band of heroes who count out and talk out on every possible occasion, but the action of the Government to which the defeat of the Bill is due. It has been argued that the Session is too far advanced to get the Bill through; but it should not be forgotten that last year at this very time they were engaged in discussing a very important Bill—the Merchant Shipping Bill. That Bill was read a second time on the 30th of July, and a third time on the 6th of August, and was subsequently passed by the House of Lords. The Prime Minister, it is true, attributed the passing of that Bill to a dramatic incident; but it was not so important as this Bill, because a distinguished Member of the Government—the Judge Advocate General—was down in the country lately, and spoke about it as rather a miserable affair which would only affect some 700,000 persons. There is plenty of time to pass the measure, to which the Government has given its assent on the principle through an Amendment that has been proposed. Let us proceed with the debate, and come to a decision on a question which has secured an amount of unusual unanimity in Ireland. We have been told that we can do nothing, as the Session is too far advanced. It is quite possible to get this Bill through yet if anybody is in earnest about it. In the case of the Merchant Shipping Bill, to which I have referred, I think it is a folly that the Government will not carry a Bill through this House unless some one stands on one leg and shakes his fist at the Prime Minister. There is time. Do not talk to me about the House of Lords not passing it. I know as much about the House of Lords as anybody else, and I do not think that any House of Lords could nail its colours to the mast and say that it is desirable to make Irishmen drunk on Sundays. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter, and give us some little assistance. It may be true, or it may be not, that the Government do not mean to offend English publicans. I have told you before that Irish publicans do not care much about it. I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he has not said a single word that could commit him to the publicans. He might throw them over to-morrow, and he would be quite consistent. I hope he will. With one word he could carry the Bill now. ["No, no!"] Yes, he has plenty of time to put it down and the same evening to get it through. But I say that if he refuses this almost unanimous, this earnest, this constitutional demand from the Irish people, he is the greatest upholder of Home Rule that is to be found, and he will perpetuate Irish dissatisfaction and discontent. I think the House is entitled to have more facilities given to it for carrying the Bill. If the Government persists in the dead weight of opposition, my hon. Friend has no chance; but I would appeal to the Government, even now at the eleventh hour, to give this House an opportunity of maintaining its own decisions, and, at the same time, do an act of justice which is demanded by the almost unanimous voice of the Irish people. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

I cannot help feeling, Sir, that the exhaustion of the Session is to some degree evidenced by the remarks of the hon. Baronet, as they lacked that vivacity which has so often amused us; but what has struck me as remarkable in his speech is that I could not gather from it what his complaint really is. The hon. Baronet regrets that a Bill in which he is deeply interested has not passed, and that is a regret with regard to other measures that I can share with him. But that justifies the remarks the hon. Baronet has made. Now, without going into any long story as to the history of the Bill to which he refers, let us look at its course during the present Session. There was a division called for in a very full House upon a Resolution which was to be the foundation of the Bill. The Government opposed the Resolution, and were defeated by a considerable majority in a full House. Well, what was the course we took? I do not think 24 hours elapsed—certainly a very short time did—before we communicated with the promoters of the Bill, and stated that we should look upon that majority in favour of the Resolution as equivalent to a vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill. Is that conduct of which anyone can complain, or make the foundation of a charge against the Government that they have been extending to this Bill an unfair opposition? Well, that being the case, the hon. Baronet proceeds with his complaint, and says that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was a fortnight in preparing his Amendments. I am not aware that a fortnight is a long time to take in a work of the kind when you are attempting to reconcile the passing oaf Bill, the principle of which you have opposed, with circumstances which you think may be attended with inconvenience and injury to the public. After the lapse of a fortnight, then, the Amendments were laid on the Table, and the time arrived at which the fate of the Bill might have been decided, and, had the Amendments been accepted, the stage of the Bill would have been passed. Who refused to accept the Amendments? Why, the promoters of the Bill. ["No!"] No, then I have been entirely misinformed as to what occurred yesterday. If the promoters of the Bill accepted the Amendments, I believe it was unknown to us. Then we hear it said this Bill is one that has been supported unanimously by the Irish Mem- bers. [An hon. Member: Almost.] Almost! Almost is a very ambiguous word. I must look to facts in attempting to guide the House in the management of their Business. What are the facts of yesterday? There was a debate on this Bill. A great many Irish Members spoke. Ten Irish Members spoke, and they all spoke against the Bill. What evidence was that of almost unanimity on both sides? We can only draw from that circumstance that this Bill, which might have been passed if the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had been accepted, was, in fact, defeated by the continuous speaking of Irish Members on both sides of the House. It has been said that hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill spoke against time, and that may be true; but, if it is true, why did not hon. Members who desired that the Bill should pass denounce the practice, or answer the arguments adduced, instead of remaining perfectly silent during the whole debate. All we know is that the whole morning was taken up by Irish Members speaking, and speaking against the Bill. The hon. Baronet has complained that the Chairman of Ways and Means wasted a considerable portion of the Sitting before this Bill was reached by speaking on another question. With regard to that matter, I can only say that the hon. Gentleman, as an independent officer of the House over whom I have no control, spoke in the fulfilment of a most important duty. He rose to move Resolutions founded on the Report of what is rarely heard of, a united Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. That certainly was a duty which he was called upon to fulfil, but what did the Government do even under those circumstances? Why, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary absolutely rose and prevented discussion. Instead of inviting discussion, instead of occupying the greater part of the morning, which he might have done, on a matter which all must acknowledge was of grave interest, my right hon. Friend absolutely suppressed discussion to give a fair opportunity to Irish Members to advance this measure in which they are so deeply interested, and of which all the English public know is that 10 Irish Members each, one after another, opposed it. However mortifying, therefore, the result of the discussion may have been to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, I think the House and the country will agree with me when I say that he has no shadow of a claim to object to the conduct of the Government on the occasion. It must be the memory of some previous mortification in connection with a congenial subject that has induced the hon. Baronet to charge upon an innocent Administration a desire to impede the progress of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Londonderry. I trust, under these circumstances, that the House will not assent to the Motion, but will proceed with the Business on the Paper.

I do not, Sir, rise under any feeling of mortification, such as has been curiously ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson), nor do I intend to utter any words of complaint. A complaining man is usually taken to be a beaten man, and I do not acknowledge myself to be in that condition at all, having in my mind the experiences of the present Session. There was at least one statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government which came upon me with considerable surprise, to the effect that, after the carrying of the Resolution on the 12th of May, the Government did not allow 24 hours to pass until the promoters were made acquainted with their intention to accept the decision of the House as equivalent to a vote on the second reading of the Bill. Now, all I can say is that no such communication ever reached me. On the evening before the second reading of the Bill there were vague rumours through the Lobby that the Government did not intend to oppose the second reading; but until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland rose in his place to announce the intention of the Government, I had no idea whatever, founded on authentic information, what these intentions were. I think it extraordinary that a message should have been sent to those hon. Members whom the right hon. Gentleman has designated the promoters of the Bill, and that this message failed to reach me who had mainly the charge of the measure. If I may be allowed to allude to the events of yesterday, I shall do so in no spirit of bitterness, or of complaint at all. I beg to assure the House that when, we pressed forward the consideration of the Bill, we had no other motive or expectation than the bringing about a moderately satisfactory settlement this year. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (MR. Maurice Brooks), who moved the Amendment, know, and they knew yesterday, that if we had got into Committee I was prepared to make a statement which might have facilitated the progress of the measure. So anxious were the friends of the Bill to get into Committee, that we agreed among ourselves to observe a strict silence, in order that there might be no excuse for wasting time in the discussion of a principle which had been so thoroughly considered in a previous debate; and so strictly was that covenant observed that out of the 61 Irish Members who voted or paired for the principle of the Bill not one man opened his lips yesterday. The whole of the speaking was confined to the 11, or a portion of the 11 Irish Members who voted against it, reinforced by some two or three neutrals, whose opinions appear to be as yet unformed and of a somewhat flabby character. I deny in the most emphatic manner that we had any purpose before our mind except a settlement of the question—and such a settlement as, preserving our own consistency and liberty of future action, would have taken into account any reasonable wishes of the Government. That was perfectly well known to the right hon. Baronet opposite; but I suppose it was not considered necessary to communicate it to the head of the Government. If I may express an opinion which I profoundly entertain, I will say that the waste of time which occurred at the commencement of the Sitting yesterday contributed largely to bring us into that condition of dead-lock in which we are now unhappily placed. I do not for one moment intend to convey to the House that the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means was in concert or had any understanding with the hon. Member for Dundalk, but the fact is, that to all appearance, the expenditure of time was deliberately wasteful, for the Chairman of Ways and Means said at the opening of his speech that the conversation upon his Resolutions was not likely to come to any definite issue. ["Order!"]

said, the hon. Gentleman could not refer to former debates.

Well, then, that which occurred yesterday at the commencement of the Sitting, unwittingly on the part of the hon. Gentleman, afforded substantial aid and comfort to the hon. Member for Dundalk to fight this Bill, not by argument, but by the hands of the clock. And now what is to be done? If we made no declaration yesterday with reference to the Amendments of the Government, the reasons of that silence on our part are perfectly obvious. We had no certainty as to the issue of the measure this Session. It might not pass after all, and I may as well candidly say, that if the war is to be carried on in Ireland throughout the Recess, it will be a much simpler thing for the people of Ireland to continue it on the old lines, and not in any way embarrassed by premature compromises. But I think the time has come when the Ministry, as such, ought to take this subject earnestly in hand. I suppose I have done all that can reasonably be expected of a private Member. I am perfectly well aware, as every hon. Gentleman in this House is aware, that no Bill vigorously opposed can be carried by a private Member without the co-operation of the Government. But if it is still the opinion of the Government that this question, which has now become one of undoubted importance, should be left in private hands, all that remains for me is to move that the Order for going into Committee be discharged for the present, and to give Notice that at the earliest moment next Session I shall ask leave to introduce the Bill exactly as it stands, and I will make my appeal once more to the judgment of the House of Commons.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), by what was no doubt a slip of the tongue, has imputed to me purposes which it is not customary in Parliament for one Member to impute to other Members. I feel sure, from what I know of the hon. Baronet, that on reflection he will be the first to regret that he should have imputed to any Member purposes which he would have resented if they had been imputed to himself. I do not care to defend myself against any insinuations thrown out by the hon. Member for Londonderry (MR. R. Smyth). His natural feeling of disappointment at the loss of his Bill may be held an entire excuse for anything he may care to say about me; but I feel it only right to this House, of which I am an officer, and to the Government, of which I am not a Member, to say that the course I took yesterday—certainly a deliberate course on my part—was taken in concert with nobody, without any communication passing between me and the Government, or between me and the hon. Member who opposed the Bill. That course was taken by me simply because yesterday appeared to me to be the best occasion I could take during the few remaining days of the Session for the discussion of a matter which I regarded as one of great public importance. The hon. Members who have objected to the course I took know very well—or if they do not I hope there are few Members of the House who do not know—that I have carefully studied to avoid any imputation of being a partizan ever since I have had the honour of having a seat at this Table; and it has been simply as the mouthpiece, as the very humble mouthpiece, of a very important body—the joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, dealing with a question of very great importance—that I ventured to trouble the House yesterday. I may have been right or I may have been wrong in thinking that the conduct of the Private Business of this House is of more importance than the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. I tell him, however, plainly and frankly that I think it infinitely more important. The Private Business of this House is a matter that affects millions of property; it affects the interests of great municipalities and of large populations, and it is of the highest importance, in my opinion, that the business should be conducted in a proper and becoming manner; and I venture to think a question touching upon that was more important than the prospects of a moribund Bill at the end of a moribund Session. I freely excuse the observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. I have too high an admiration for his public character to think that he could have willingly intended to wound me or to impute tome anything unworthy; but in the course I have marked out for myself as an officer of this House, I am not going to be deterred by any criticism from any individual Member, or by any fear of displeasing any one, no matter on what side of the House he may sit, from performing the duty that I think devolves upon me.

said, that he had been from the first a cordial supporter of the Bill for closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays, as it appeared to represent the almost unanimous wishes and sentiments of the people of Ireland; but, at the same time, he could not help giving his equally cordial testimony, having sat through the whole of the debate on the Wednesday in question, from 12 o'clock till the Bill was talked out at a quarter to 6 p.m., to the straightforward, honourable and manly conduct of the Government in regard to the Bill. When the Government found the strong feeling in its favour which existed on both sides of the House, and had listened to the representations on its behalf from all parts of Ireland, they had abstained from all further opposition, though the Chief Secretary had on more than one occasion expressed his own sentiments objecting to it. The Bill had therefore passed its second reading without any division, and the Prime Minister had even gone so far as to fix a day for going into Committee upon it, which actually was the Wednesday in question: nay, more, the right hon. Gentleman when appealing to the House a few days previously to have the two remaining Wednesdays during the Session surrendered to the Government for Public Business, when he found that there was an earnest desire that the hon. Member for Londonderry's (MR. R. Smyth's) Bill should go into Committee and undergo consideration, at the same time, as the new clauses proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he at once most courteously withdrew the request he had made. It was not fair, now, to taunt the Government with interposing any obstacle in the way of the further progress of the Bill, for they had really done all in their power to expedite its progress, and even during the protracted discussion on Wednesday the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had earnestly appealed to the Irish Members to allow the Bill (it being then 3 o'clock in the afternoon) to go into Committee and allow the clauses to be considered. The fact was that the Government were not at all to blame, but it wag the determined hostility of certain Irish Members which barred all attempts at progress. He had waited himself for an opportunity to say a few words in favour of the Bill, and to deprecate further delay; but the hon. Member for Dundalk (MR. Callan) had got possession of the House at half-past 4 p.m., and what did he do? He did not mate a speech, but he actually continued reading extracts from Irish newspapers till the clock pointed to a quarter to 6, and the Bill was thus talked out after a tedious and protracted discussion of several hours, during which they had not advanced a single inch. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) could not help saying that after the large majority by which the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Derry had been originally carried early in the Session, and after the second reading of the Bill, afterwards introduced, without a division being challenged by those hon. Members for Ireland who opposed it, the conduct of the hon. Member for Dundalk was most unwarrantable. ["Order!"]

said, that on reflection the hon. and learned Baronet would see that he was applying motives to the conduct of an hon. Member of that House which were not admissible.

I am sorry for having made an imputation on the hon. Member for Chester (MR. Raikes) which was not well founded. I thought he was acting in concert with the Government; but I was wrong in making that statement, and I withdraw it and apologize for having made it. The hon. Member for Chester acted on his own responsibility, and said he did not make his Motion, with any intention of delaying the Bill. My own impression is that it did delay the Bill. With the permission of the House I beg to withdraw the Motion.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, principles have been introduced into this Bill since its Second Reading which were not then either mentioned to or contemplated by the House, which tend to disturb the basis on which Elementary Education now rests, to impede the formation of new schools, to introduce discord and confusion into the election of School Boards, and to place the management of schools in the hands of persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers,"

said: I hope the House will, in the first place, allow me to make a few words of explanation as to the exact form in which the Motion I am about to submit to it stands upon the Paper. My wish, of course, was, if the Forms of the House would permit, to place on the Paper a Resolution which would not in appearance have been so hostile to the whole progress of the Bill as that which now stands in my name. What I desired to do was to move the re-committal of the Bill, in order that certain clauses and provisions which were not in the Bill at the second reading might be considered and omitted, and I wished to place before the House the reasons why I desired to make that Motion. But on consultation with the authorities of the House I found that though it would be in my power to move the re-committal of the Bill, it would not be in my power to do so accompanied by a statement of the reasons which induced me to take that course, and I therefore was constrained to place on the Paper the Resolution which stands in my name. The Resolution which I have placed on the Paper, though undoubtedly hostile to the Bill, is, at the same time, not necessarily fatal to the progress of the Bill. If the Resolution were agreed to, the consideration of the Report would only be delayed, and it would be possible to move again that the Bill be re-considered. I admit in form it appears hostile to the Bill, and I have ventured, therefore, to offer to the House an explanation of the exact form in which it now stands. I need hardly tell the House I take that course with no intention of delaying the progress of the Bill. I do not think it necessary, and it is not my desire, that this Motion should lead to protracted debate. It would have been better if the principle of the Bill had been more fully and clearly debated, and if that course had been taken, I think the time of the House would have been saved. I know it is the opinion of hon. Members opposite that a great deal of time has been wasted in the discussion of the clause of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (MR. Pell). I cannot agree in that opinion, because, though I think the clause to be most objectionable, I also think that the protracted discussion to which it was subjected, if it has not modified the spirit of the proposal, has to a great extent taken away its power of mischief—and I feel that time will not be wasted if I now ask the House at this stage of the progress of the measure to consider the changes which have been introduced since the Bill received the assent of the House on the second reading. This Bill was introduced, not as a change in the policy of the Education Act of 1870, but as an extension of the principles of that Act. The noble Lord, in the very moderate and judicious speech in which he introduced the Bill, dwelt chiefly upon the fact that under the Act of 1870 efficient schools had been provided almost over the whole country, that the advance in public opinion which had been made since 1870 had now rendered the country ripe for some further measures to enforce upon parents the undoubted duty of taking care that their children were educated, and that all that remained to be done was to proceed as we had begun. The country was now ripe for a system of universal compulsion of some kind or another. It is true they differed as to the direction in which that system of universal compulsion was to proceed. Many of us on this side of the House thought it would be a simpler and more efficient mode of proceeding if we advocated a system of direct compulsion, by making it the duty of every parent to educate his child, inflicting a moderate penalty to enforce this duty. That points of difference existed among us there can be no doubt; but at the time of the second reading we were almost unanimous in accepting the principle of the Bill, believing that principle to be the adoption of some system of universal compulsion in education. We were aware at the time that the Bill was to be for denominational schools, but we did not complain of this. I do not think it would be reasonable of us to expect the Government to throw away the great advantages which denominational schools had acquired by the legislation of 1870. I do not think it would have been reasonable to expect that they should not have taken care that the denominational schools, for which it is well known they entertain a decided preference, should receive their full share, and perhaps something more than their full share, of the advantages which would be gained by all schools. But I ask the House to consider the effect of the changes subsequently introduced in the Bill on the position of denominational schools and of Nonconformists who were in favour rather of unsectarian than the denominational system of education. Under the Act of 1870 denominational schools have been to a very great extent established all over the country, especially in the rural districts. These denominational schools were in many instances a heavy burden on their managers, because they had not the means of obtaining the payment of fees, or of enforcing the payment of fees. By this Bill the managers will be relieved of a great portion of the burden hitherto cast upon them, because they will be in a position to exact payment of such fees as it may be in the power of parents to pay, and also because of the number of children who will be compelled to attend school. What is the position of Nonconformists under the Bill as introduced? They were forced for the first time to send their children to schools of the character of which they did not altogether approve; they were forced by the provisions of this Bill to contribute to the prosperity and success of schools of a character they considered objectionable, but which they hoped might in the course of time disappear, not by the action of any violent change, but by the gradual change in the public opinion of the country, and give place to a system which in their opinion was vastly superior. This is the position of Nonconformists under this Bill. They were called upon to submit to these disadvantages in the name of educational progress, and, as the logical consequence of the legislation of 1870, passed by their own friends, and I think the House will admit that these circumstances do not make the grievance any less than it was before. Who are the persons to whom I have been referring? Are they persons of whose feelings, sympathies, and prejudices, the House ought to be negligent? Are they persons as to whose interests no respect ought to be entertained in this House? I will not go into religious topics. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know, have a monopoly of regard for religious education. But I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard) said on this subject. The Nonconformists are the descendants of those men who formed their congregations, not out of the ranks of the Established Church, but by going into the haunts of ignorance, poverty, and crime in times when the Church Establishment was less careful of religious instruction and education than it is now. But if I may not speak of religion, I may speak of liberty. I say these Nonconformists are men to whom, in this country, we owe a great deal politically. Almost every advance in liberty, from the time of the Stuarts to the time of the Reform Act of 1832, has been in a great degree promoted and assisted by the exertions of the Nonconformists. Its to them, as much, if not more, than to any other body in the country, that we owe the blessings of that free Constitution which, on both sides of the House, we prize so highly. These are men whose feelings and prejudices cannot be safely neglected by either side of the House. I should have thought, if not justice, at all events generosity would have led those having at their command a powerful majority in both Houses of Parliament to consider carefully the feelings, and even the prejudices, of these men, and when they knew that a measure would be distasteful to them they would have imposed it with the greatest consideration and forbearance. The Act of 1870 was in the nature of a compromise between the advocates of denominational and national, education. That Act contained much that Nonconformists disliked exceedingly, but it contained two provisions or principles, one of which was a palliative of the essential and inherent vice of the measure, and the other was undoubtedly a redeeming element. The two principles are these: The Act of 1870 proceeded on the principle that denominational education should only be established in those districts where the existence of a certain amount of voluntary effort in support of schools showed that the feeling of the locality was in favour of the system. That was not by any means an exhaustive, it certainly was not an adequate test; but to a certain extent the existence of voluntary effort in support of denominational schools was a test of the character of the school, and that it was not in that district opposed to the feelings of the community. The second principle was the establishment of school boards. It was declared by Parliament that in districts where the community was not willing to come forward and make voluntary contributions in favour of denominational schools the management of the school should be not in the hands of magistrates or ministers of any denomination, but in the hands of representatives directly elected by the people. The principle, I say, was one which was, in the eyes of many, a redeeming feature of the Act of 1870. There are many of us—and I do not scruple to say I was one of them—who believe that the principle of school boards is the right and true principle in this matter. We believe that being the right and true principle, it will in the end prevail. We believe that when once the time has arrived that Parliament has declared the education of the country is the business, not, as formerly, of individuals, but is the business of the State itself, it becomes inevitable that, sooner or later, State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of representatives of the people. I think we have been in the habit of looking a little too much at the circumstances of the pecuniary support of schools as being the only element in the matter. No doubt schools cannot be supported without pecuniary contributions, and no doubt the making of those contributions gives to the contributors some right to interfere in the management of the schools. But pecuniary support is not the only element of the schools. The parents and the children are also important elements for consideration in the schools; and I do not know that we are to assume it as a settled principle that the pecuniary supporters of the schools alone are to be consulted about the management, and that the parents and the children are not to be allowed, unless under certain circumstances, to have any share in the management of the schools. Both the principle of voluntary denominational education and the principle of school boards have been attacked—not by the Bill introduced by the Government, but by measures which have since been introduced. It is quite true that the noble Lord, when he introduced the Bill, explained that there would be a provision in it which would relax in certain cases the existing rules as to the term of existence of schools in rural districts; but the provision was not a very clear one, and the House had no conception how it would work or the extent of its operation. Since the second reading that clause has been withdrawn, and it has been replaced by a clause which altogether abandons the principle hitherto adopted by Parliament—that assistance should be given to denominational schools only in proportion to the voluntary contributions. Is it now no longer a necessary condition that that voluntary support should be given. In fact, the word voluntary ought in this matter now to disappear altogether. These schools may be maintained entirely through the fees paid by parents, or by Parliamentary grants. They are denominational schools, but they are not voluntary schools with the provision which has hitherto existed. I need hardly say, after the lengthy debate on the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), that the school boards are attacked by the Bill. It is all very well to say that it is unnecessary school boards that have been attacked; but that adjective will not be any great comfort to those school boards that are in danger. What is the moment chosen by the Government and the Party opposite to attack the school boards? They have selected a most injudicious moment. At the very moment that the necessary work of the school boards has been, to a great extent, completed, and at a moment when, under the circumstances of the case, the school boards are most unpopular, that very moment is selected by the Party opposite to make this attack on the school boards. We know there is nothing in this country more unpopular than increasing the rates. We know that in many districts of this country the school boards must have caused a considerable increase of the rates. Compulsion, direct compulsion, too, may not in all cases be very popular—at all events, until its beneficial operations are made apparent. Whatever unpopularity may spring from these causes has full effect now, and this is the time selected by the Party opposite in making their attack on the system. Neither can we pass by the language used by the Government in speaking of school boards. I admit that in his opening statement the noble Lord spoke without disparagement of school boards; but in the course of the discussion in the Committee we have heard the noble Lord utter threats and hints—and they were terrible hints—respecting the unpopularity of school boards; and the language of some of the supporters of the Government, as we all know, has been more open and more decided. They have not taken the trouble to veil under any hints whatever their uncompromising hostility to school boards, whether in the case of necessary or unnecessary school boards. Now, I believe the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper makes certain assertions, and I venture to say none of them are capable of contradiction. I wish to go over those assertions one by one; I say that "principles have been introduced, into this Bill since its second reading which were not then either mentioned to or contemplated by the House. "The principle to which I refer is doing away with the condition of voluntary support to denominational schools. There was nothing said by the Government to induce any one to believe that the attack on the school boards would have received their support. I say further that this principle "tends to disturb the basis on which elementary education now rests," and I have endeavoured to explain to the House what, in my opinion, is the basis on which education now rests. The basis of the school-board system has undoubtedly been disturbed. I go on to say that this measure will "impede the formation of new schools." That statement cannot be contradicted. I say that "discord and confusion have been introduced into the election of school boards," because where before the question before the electors would be mainly educational, now you introduce a new element—whether the school board is to be allowed to exist any longer or not. Although the Amendment refers only to school boards which have no schools, all that a school board will have to do in certain cases will be to transfer its schools to denominational managers, and then they can get rid of the school board al- together. The concluding clause of my Resolution—namely, "that the Bill will place the management of schools in the hands of persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers," is a proposition which is self-evident, and upon which I need not dwell any further. Nothing is more frequently said than that education ought not to be made the subject of political debate. Nothing is more assented to, but nothing I think is more generally disregarded. My opinion is that that is inevitably so. I, for one, am unable to see how questions which affect the mind and conscience of men can be removed altogether from the arena of politics, and however much we may wish it, I do not think it is in our power to remove them from the political arena. I am of opinion that it would be well in the interest of education that a truce, and as long a truce as possible, should be secured between the contending Parties in educational politics. I believe that previously to the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell) being introduced in Committee, it was possible that such a truce had commenced, and might have been extended to an indefinite period. I know very well that in many towns there are persons who are extremely anxious to re-open the war on all controverted questions. But I do not believe that the public opinion of the country was with them, and I think they felt themselves that the time had not arrived when the agitation upon the education question could be re-opened. But I must say that the action of the Government has gone very far towards re-opening the whole question. I cannot see on what ground of political justice it can be contended that if the Party in power has the right, and exercises the right, of altering the settlement made in 1870, the other Party will not be justified when they have the opportunity, in re-opening the question. Therefore, I think it is right that we should take this opportunity of placing upon record our opinion, and I for one, most distinctly and decidedly hold that if these educational controversies are to be re-opened, it is due not to the Party on this side of the House, but to the action of the Party that sits on the other side. It is for these reasons—because I think the changes introduced are educationally inexpedient, and some of them politically unjust, and because they tend to re-open questions and divisions amongst us, which might otherwise have been settled or remained quiet—that I have ventured to place this Amendment upon the Paper, and I ask the House, at all events, in dealing with this Resolution, to allow me, and those who agree with me, to thus place upon record the objections we entertain to this Bill.

The noble Lord has told the House that he would be glad to establish a truce on educational subjects, and, at the same time, has not hesitated to inform the House very plainly that, in his opinion, educational matters can hardly help being treated politically. Now, I confess that this remark is calculated to increase the satisfaction with which I listened to the noble Lord's opening words, when he said that, looking at the Government Bill, and, putting aside two or three clauses, he could not avoid paying a tribute to the measure as a whole; for it is, indeed, considerable praise to the Government Bill that it should obtain so high a meed of approval from the Leader of the Opposition at the very moment when he states that education can hardly help being treated as a Party subject. Gratified though I am at the noble Lord's approbation of the Bill as a whole, which makes me feel that when he has more fully considered the Amendments to which he now objects he will not find them of the serious nature he apprehends, I was rather astonished, I must acknowledge, at some of his criticisms upon the conduct of the Government respecting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), because I cannot but remember that the Committee has not, during the prolonged discussions on the Bill, received that active assistance from the noble Lord which, if he felt so keenly on the subject, they had a right to expect; and I, for one, must honestly say that when the noble Lord is not here it is always a great loss to the sense and wisdom of the House. I will not follow the noble Lord into a discussion of the old issue between direct and indirect compulsion, as, surely, we have amply discussed this question, and the opinion of the House, at least, may now be considered on that point to be virtually settled. When, however, the noble Lord speaks of the general assent which has been given to the principle of the Government Bill and pointedly charges this side of the House with the responsibility of any interruption of that harmony, I must remind the noble Lord that the Government has had to run the gauntlet of two set debates, and of three formal Divisions, any one of which, if successful against the Government, would have been, of course, fatal to the Bill. There has not, therefore, been that lying down of the lamb with the lion which might be supposed from the noble Lord's speech. First, the hon. Member for Sheffield (MR. Mundella) moved a Resolution in favour of direct compulsion, which was rejected by a considerable majority. Had this been successful, of course the Bill would have been lost, as the Government measure was framed on quite a different principle. The second reading was also divided against, though it was carried by a great majority. Further, the Bill had again to fight its way against another great obstacle. There was the important proposal moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard), on going into Committee, that all schools should be put under public management. The noble Lord, with great consistency and courage, had opposed that Motion; but I think I have showed that, independently of various attacks in Committee on vital points, the earlier progress of the Bill has not been conducted through that calm and sunshine to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord's remarks simply come to this, that formal attacks from his side of the House are not to be considered as interruptions of harmony, that the Government is to be applauded, as we have been, for assenting to many Amendments coming from his side—and almost all, and very important ones too, we have accepted from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—but that if hon. Members make Amendments on this side, and the Government, having refused the greater number of them, accept at last some few which they consider improvements, and which do not affect the principles on which they announced their measure to be based, then we are all to be taunted with destroying the harmony of our proceedings and being the causes of the violent, unusual, and prolonged opposition which the noble Lord's Friends have lately displayed. I must be allowed once more to remind the noble Lord that, in my opening speech, I invited Amendments, provided they were within the principles of the Bill, feeling anxious, on a subject of such importance and complexity, to get the advantage to the country of all the experience of the House; and also, that when on going into Committee I announced certain changes which, after the second reading debates, Government proposed to make in the earlier parts of the Bill, I expressly reserved to myself the right to propose or accept other Amendments—and this announcement of my reserve was warmly cheered by the noble Lord's Friends. But I pass on to further points in the noble Lord's speech. He was certainly quite right in saying that Members on the Ministerial side could not be expected to interfere with voluntary schools, as certainly he might have said the same of the Government. But more, I had assuredly hoped that he would also have said it of himself and of those with whom he now acts. For surely, neither he nor the Committee have forgotten that in 1870 the Leaders of the Party opposite declared that this Bill was not intended to interfere with voluntary schools at all; but now the noble Lord appears to be in favour of a universal school board system, the adoption of which would give the death-blow to voluntary schools. Unless the noble Lord and the Party opposite have changed their platform, he ought to have said boldly—"We do not wish or intend now, any more than when we assured the country of this in 1870, to attack or destroy voluntary schools." But the case seems now to be different. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (MR. W. E. Forster) then said that his object was only "to fill up the gaps," and "not to supplant," but to complete the voluntary system. Now the noble Lord has raised a suspicion that if he could he would attack voluntary schools, though, I must say, I shall no longer be able to compliment the noble Lord on his wisdom, to say the very least of the proposal, if he intends, as his speech to-day would lead us to suppose, using a common phrase, to "run a rig" against the 12,000 voluntary schools all over the country. The noble Lord's speech has placed this matter in so serious a light, that I must beg the House to listen to the assurances of the then Prime Minister, on the faith of which the country accepted the Education Bill of 1870. After the right hon. Member for Bradford had assured the House—"Our object is to complete the present voluntary system and to fill up gaps," the right hon. Member for Greenwich (MR. Gladstone) said, on the third reading of the Bill of 1870—

"It was impossible for us to join in the language or to adopt the tone which was conscientiously and consistently taken by some Members of the House who look upon these voluntary schools, having generally a denominational character, as admirable passing expedients, fit indeed to be tolerated for a time, deserving all credit on account of the motives which led to their foundation, but wholly unsatisfactory as to their main purpose, and, therefore, to be supplanted by something they think better…..I am quite sure it will be felt that it has never been the theory of the Government."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 746.]

I cannot, however, bring myself to think that there is real cause for alarm, for the voluntary system has been built up gradually by our people themselves, and is in harmony with our habits and institutions, and I have a conviction that, as a matter of fact, the voluntary system is so deeply seated in the hearts of the people of England that even if it encounters the opposition of the noble Lord I believe it will survive his hostility. But I must now allude to an extraordinary assertion of the noble Lord's. He says that this Bill will for the first time force Nonconformists to send their children to denominational schools, of which they disapprove; but at this moment, wherever you have bye-laws for compulsion this may easily happen under the Act of 1870, for that Act does not allow the fact of there being only denominational schools available for a child to be a reasonable excuse, but only when they have no conscience clause would such a plea hold good. Further, however, the noble Lord must have forgotten or overlooked the fact that MR. Dixon's Bill for universal compulsion and universal school boards in every town and village of the land, for which the right hon. Member for Bradford, I believe the noble Lord himself, and many of his friends, on various pleas, in concert with the hon. Members for Merthyr, Nottingham, Leicester, and other leading opponents of this Bill, voted earlier in this very Session, would have swept the Nonconformist children into denominational schools, for MR. Dixon repeatedly said that under his Bill the school boards would have no power to interfere with voluntary schools or to build any where they were not wanted, any more than under the Act of 1870. Yet that Bill established compulsory school attendance everywhere. [MR. W. E. FORSTER: By school boards.] Yes, but that did not alter the thing in the least, for no option was given to these universal school boards under MR. Dixon's Bill, and whether there was only one school or many, they were to be bound to pass bye-laws to compel the attendance of children at school if they were not otherwise instructed, provided there was a Conscience Clause. Thus it was indisputable that Nonconformists' children would be just as much swept into denominational schools under the Bill brought forward by MR. Dixon in three successive Sessions, and receiving the whole Nonconformist support on the side opposite, as under this Bill of the Government. If the noble Lord would examine the speeches made by MR. Dixon and the right hon. Member for Bradford, they would put the matter beyond all shadow of doubt. The noble Lord said the Nonconformists had hoped that the voluntary schools would disappear. I did not think it possible that any legislator could take his stand in an argument merely upon the unsupported hopes of any Party. I want to know what reason had the Nonconformists for entertaining more than a a vague hope that the voluntary schools would disappear? During the discussions on the Act of 1870 the Noncon- formists were told repeatedly by the Leaders of the Liberal Party in Parliament, the authors of the measure, that these schools were not intended to disappear. It seems then that they had no solid ground for considering the overthrow of the great voluntary school system of England as a part of the scheme of the Act of 1870; they had perhaps general, and perhaps not unnatural, aspirations that these schools to which they were opposed might perish under the new Act; but surely the noble Lord cannot seriously take up these vague hopes, which his own Government said at the time were not justified by their measure, as an element which ought to be taken into consideration by the House on the present occasion. The noble Lord has made so much of his attack depend upon the supposed fact that Nonconformists will be grievously wronged by the Bill owing to its driving Nonconformist children into denominational schools, that I must endeavour to show him that he is really mistaken as to its operation. I must therefore again quote the printed Circular issued from Birmingham after I introduced the Bill, by the Central Nonconformist Committee, which represents, I believe, the whole Liberal Party in the Nonconformist Bodies. I will ask leave to read the principal passage—

"The effect of these proposals will be to introduce both direct and indirect compulsion into many parts of the country where Nonconformists are numerous, but where the only schools in existence are schools connected with the Established Church. The Committee feel strongly the injustice which is involved in compelling the children of Nonconformists to attend schools which are established with the avowed intention of educating children in the principles of the Church of England, and which are under the almost irresponsible control of the clergy. But practically the injustice already exists. It is one of the inevitable evils resulting from the denominational system. Nonconformists of every description are anxious to give their children as good an education as possible; but in many parts of England they have no choice of schools. They are obliged to send their children to the schools of the clergy or to leave them uneducated. We believe, therefore, that the number of Nonconformist children who are not actually at school, and who would be driven into Church schools by Lord Sandon's Bill is extremely few. The children whom the Bill would reach are for the most part the children of ignorant or careless parents, and it is better that they should be driven into the schools of the Church than that they should receive no education at all. While, therefore, we recognize the strength of the abstract objection to the compulsory proposal of the measure, we cannot recommend that these proposals should be resisted. In the interest of the neglected children and of the country at large, we think that they should be accepted.—Signed by W. Middlemore, J.P., chairman; R. W. Dale, H. W. Crosskey, J. Jenkyn Brown, hon. secs.; F. Schnadhorst, secretary.

It is signed, as the House has heard, by the well-known leaders of this party, and surely the House could not have better or less prejudiced evidence on this point than this testimony of the members of the Birmingham League. Some hon. Members had ventured to say that the Government had no care for the Nonconformists of this country. This was a very serious accusation to make, and should not be rashly made. I deny it entirely, and it is certainly a strange and unfortunate time to make such an assertion, seeing that the Government has within the last day or two willingly accepted a clause of no slight importance, which makes it the duty of the local school attendance authority in every town and village to report to the Education Department any infraction of the Conscience Clause. The noble Lord, according to the statements made by the public Press, mentioned this yesterday as an important clause, and I was publicly thanked in this House by the hon. Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard) for the cordiality with which the Government had accepted it. This one fact is worth many pounds of sentiment, and it shows the anxiety of the Government that no real grievance should be imposed under this Bill upon the Nonconformists. The noble Lord has gone over the different points in his somewhat remarkable Resolution. The first point was that the Government had introduced into the Bill since its second reading "principles which were not then either mentioned to, or contemplated by, the House." Does the noble Lord remember what passed with regard to the Act of 1870? I have never heard that it is wrong to introduce after the second reading very considerable Amendments into a Bill, and I imagine that older Members of the House would say that frequently large Amendments have been accepted by the Government after second reading, when a Government has had the advantage of hearing the criticism of Parliament and the country during the usual debates on introduction and second reading. I find, with reference to the Act of 1870, that many great alterations were accepted by the Government of that day, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished Member, at a very late stage. For example, the school boards were, in the Bill as read a second time, to have power to allot rates to voluntary schools. That was a most important feature of the measure, yet it was swept away after the second reading, and thus the whole character of the Bill was altered by the action of the Government which introduced it. There was then a Conscience Clause, but not a Time-table Conscience Clause; and the whole character of that Conscience Clause was changed by making it necessary that the religious teaching, &c, should only be at the beginning and end of the teaching. That change again was made after the second reading. Then they all remembered the famous "Cowper-Temple Clause," which was not even foreshadowed in the early part of the debates on the Education Bill of 1870. That clause, as its title indicated—the "Cowper-Temple Clause"—came from an independent Member, and altered very materially the whole colour of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced we heard that there was to be perfect freedom of religious teaching; but by the adoption of that clause, religious teaching was shackled, and formularies distinctive of a particular denomination were forbidden in board schools. Again, the cumulative vote was accepted at the hands of a private Member after the second reading—a very considerable change both in principle and practice, and acknowledged to be a most important experiment in election arrangements by leading politicians all over the world. Again, have hon. Gentlemen opposite forgotten that vote by ballot was dragged in after the second reading of the Bill? The ballot was then one of the most hotly-disputed matters in politics; but it was foisted in, in obedience to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), at the end of the debates on the Bill. The country, I think, will surely feel that, in view of those great changes, the mouths of hon. Members opposite ought to be closed in respect of the two or three small changes which had been made in the present Bill, which did not exactly coincide with their views, but which were not for a moment to be compared in magnitude or wide-extended effect with those which the late Government introduced into their Education Bill of 1870—changes which were mostly exceedingly distasteful to hon. Members on the Conservative side, and of which no hint was given when they were invited, with success, to support that Bill in its earlier stages. But, next, in this famous Resolution it is said that these changes in our measure disturbed the basis on which elementary education in this country now rests. This is a very grave and a high-sounding sentence. I quite acknowledge, as the noble Lord has said, that the Government announced they were against any great reversals of policy, unless the country generally, and beyond a doubt, declared such reversals necessary, and I gladly again repeat what I said on this subject on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. But I must frankly say that beyond this general principle which affects all past legislation, I am not aware of any great compact such as the noble Lord alludes to, having been made by the Act of 1870. Hon. Members on the Conservative side gave, I must say, a very generous support to that measure, without which I do not believe it could have been carried, and being anxious primarily to secure the education of the whole people they made many sacrifices of matters connected with schools which were very distasteful to them, and I am sure they received very slight concessions to their views in return; but, to grant for one moment, only for the sake of argument, that some compact was made—which, however, Idol not assent to—how have hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench, how has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, how have hon. Members below the Gangway, kept that supposed compact? Has the compact remained up to this time unbroken? If the Government were to be told that they were culpable for having departed from that compact, why did hon. Members opposite vote for MR. Dixon's Bill for the establishment of universal school boards, and for universal direct compulsion, involving a change of the general basis on which education rested? And why but a year or two ago did hon. Gentlemen opposite vote for abolishing the 25th clause, which was one of the essential arrangements of the famous Bill of 1870? I cannot, then, under- stand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can, with any feeling of propriety, throw into the teeth of the Government the charge that they were disturbing the basis on which the system of elementary education rests, when early this very Session, as before, they themselves had tried to disturb it still more. Further, how does the change as to the 17s. 6d. disturb this basis? Of course, as the House is well aware all State aid to schools is now made by Government upon the principle of payment by results. But Her Majesty's Government felt that this principle was not fully and fairly carried out, as deductions were now made from such earnings, unless half the expenses were met locally by fees or subscriptions. The change, therefore, which the Government had lately proposed was, that the State should hereafter ask no questions as to whence a school was supported, but should contribute up to 17s. 6d. per head, if the children earned it by their intellectual acquirements, a payment which would represent a simple solid education, but no more. This change, I must remind the House, had been urged upon the Government by such a concurrence of good educational opinion of various sorts that they felt convinced that it was the best course to pursue in the interests of the country. I trust the House has not forgotten the very earnest appeal which was made on this subject to the Government by the London School Board, one of the best education authorities in the land, who represented that the promise made in 1870 had been really broken, because the average increase in the Government grant had not risen to more than 25 per cent, whereas expectations were held out in Parliament when MR. Gladstone's Government decided that the provision should be taken out of the Bill by which school boards might aid voluntary schools out of the rates, that an increase of something like 50 per cent would be made in the State grant to all schools. Now, the figures quoted by the London School Board and elsewhere showed an enormous increase in the cost per child. Appeals from various quarters showed that owing to the conditions imposed by the Government the burdens were becoming almost intolerable to the schools both board and voluntary. The London School Board entreated the Government to interfere, on the ground that public injury of a very serious character would accrue to education if any large proportion of good elementary schools now under Government inspection were closed, or were transferred to the board, and that the destruction of these schools, independently of the educational loss, would entail such an enormous increased charge on the rates as could not be contemplated without apprehension; so that, for the sake both of the voluntary and board schools, the Government were strongly urged to do something in the direction of what had been promised in 1870. The state of the case was this—The average cost per child was now 32s., and the average Government grant was 13s. 8d., which still left 18s. 4d. to be supplied locally; so that, taking the average of fees at the high figure of 10s. per annum, a considerable sum was still left to be supplied by voluntary subscriptions. I do not deny that the scheme, proposed principally for the sake of the poorer districts—and they were very numerous in both town and country—is not a small matter, but the object in view is to meet and remove a grievous injustice. That injustice is not disputed. The more it is examined the greater it will appear to be. The burden of keeping up a school in Bethnal Green, or in poor country village, is far greater in proportion than it is in more prosperous districts; but in proportion to the poverty of the school, the Government grant dwindles. I feel sure that so great a grievance cannot be left unredressed, and we have endeavoured to meet it in the broad way which the Committee has now approved, and I ask whether in the change we have made there is not complete security that, as a matter of fact, the rich districts would have, in most cases, considering the figures I have just quoted, to supply still a large amount of local subscription? It was a mistake on the part of the noble Lord to say that this was a complete change as compared with the Act of 1870. The noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that under that Act schools were obliged to have subscriptions to meet the Government grant. That is not so, and I have before shown in detail, during these discussions, that a considerable number of schools are self-supporting, that is to say, are maintained wholly by the children's fees and the Government grant without any sub- scriptions, and a larger number probably almost self-supporting, of which the great proportion belong to the Nonconformist bodies. So far, therefore, as principle is concerned, there is no change whatever. We have been boldly told, as if it was an indisputable fact, that the schools could no longer be considered voluntary schools. I deny altogether the soundness of the basis, and the supposed facts upon which the argument is rested. I have shown already, taking the high average all round of a payment per child in fees of 10s. per annum, that owing to the great increase of the cost of schools, even where the children do well at the inspection, there must remain a very considerable margin of money in the great majority of cases to be supplied by voluntary subscriptions. But even supposing there was not, do hon. Gentlemen forget, and count for nought, the invaluable personal services of the promoters and managers of voluntary schools? Do they think the annual maintenance and reforms of the schools are nothing? Further, still, do they overlook the enormous amount of capital that has been sunk in the schools—£13,500,000 spent voluntarily on the school buildings, to which the State had added only some £1,735,000? Of the entire £15,250,000, no less than £13,500,000 had come out of the pockets of the volunteers! Surely the possessors of those valuable schools have a right to be considered in this matter, and also in virtue of these invaluable contributions to the education of the people. Surely they have a most valid claim to have these schools accounted as voluntary schools, ranking in a different category from those bought or built and maintained by the rates alone? I will not now allude to the special moral and social advantages of these schools, as well as to the gain to the community of having a variety in their schools, besides the healthy competition which is kept up by these different sorts of schools. Upon all these points, if the question of the voluntary system is really raised, a great deal will be found to be said of a very weighty character. But, considering the light and jaunty way in which some hon. Members treat the question of the maintenance of our great system of voluntary schools, I should like to call attention to the serious pecuniary difficulty in which, the House would find itself if they were to get rid of this system, which now was, as a matter of fact, part of the national life. The school board schools, numbering nearly 2,000, had involved an expenditure of £6,500,000, and they afforded accommodation for 550,000 children, being an expenditure of £11 10s. per head, as against £5 10s. in the case of the voluntary schools now numbering some 17,300, with accommodation for over 2,772,000 children. If by sane legislation voluntary schools were destroyed, I want to know what the noble Lord proposes to do to find school houses for the 2,772,000 children now accommodated in the voluntary schools. Does he propose to confiscate these buildings to the State? He cannot, for no private property would then be safe. Does he propose a forced sale? Is he prepared to oblige the ratepayers to supply the £13,500,000, which the volunteers have spent upon them? in addition to the £6,500,000 already imposed upon them by board schools? or would he charge thorn on the Imperial funds? but surely the £13,500,000 required would rather upset the Budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. All this goes to prove, I think it must be now agreed, that every consideration both economical, educational, and social, shows that the State ought to show every regard for the managers who possess this great body of voluntary schools, who keep them up, and give in many cases, from their personal interest in, and knowledge of, education, what no merely State system can secure, their time and their care—more valuable than any money. This management would be valued every day more by the parents, as it became known more and more by experience that the weak point of the rate-supported board schools is, and is likely to be, the management of their schools. Then, to go on with the Resolution, it proceeds to connect in some mysterious way the clause of the hon. Member for South. Leicestershire, accepted by the Government and the Committee, which provides for the dissolution of unnecessary school boards, with a check to schools themselves—it says it will "impede the formation of new schools!" How, I cannot make out. Really, as in the former parts of the Resolution, the noble Lord is very much astray on this matter also. The noble Lord says that everybody will represent school boards as unnecessary; but he could not have read the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), for if he had he would have seen that it referred to school boards which had no schools and no sites, and these boards could only possibly be 500, but it was more likely the number would be under 200. The real position of the Government as to that clause was this—they did not feel bound to make the proposal if the subject was not mooted, as they did not think it necessary to put in their Bill all the various improvements into our education system, however desirable they might be in themselves; but the moment they were brought face to face with it—and it was brought before them from various parts of the country as well as in the House—they saw they could not decline to consider it, and on considering it their opinion was that there was no tenable argument which could be urged against it. The noble Lord had said that the Amendments which the Government had adopted would impede the formation of new schools; but here, again, a little more consideration would have shown the mistake into which he had fallen. As the law stood at present, no school board could build a school unless it was needed in the locality; so that, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, no alteration which impeded the formation of new schools was made, because, although the school board might have been dissolved, the Department would retain and exercise the power exactly the same as before, and as at this moment under the Act of 1870 to order the erection of schools in all places where it could be shown that they were needed. With regard to the transference of schools, the course was equally clear. If any governing body of a private school wished to hand over their school to a public body, they had only to close the school, and if the necessary accommodation was not supplied forthwith a school board would and must be established by the Education Department to supply the want. I think then I have shown that this part of the Resolution has as little foundation in fact as the preceding portions. The noble Lord goes on to urge in his Resolution that the changes made in the Bill will introduce discord and confusion into the elec- tion of school boards. How the possible dissolution of unnecessary and inefficient boards can effect this result I cannot imagine, nor has the noble Lord enlightened us in his speech—and no other change we have accepted can even, remotely affect elections of boards. On the contrary, the only change as to the election of school boards which we ourselves proposed is the one by which bye vacancies are to be filled up by the boards themselves—a great boon to large towns specially, as saving them unnecessary expense and election excitements. If we had accepted the proposals coming from the right hon. Member for Birmingham (MR. John Bright) and from others of the noble Lord's Friends, who desired to place the management of schools in the hands of Town Councils and Boards of Guardians and to give them all the powers of school boards, we should indeed have introduced discord and confusion with all the religious difficulty into the elections, not of school boards, but of every leading municipal and local authority in the Kingdom. Happily, however, the Government and the Committee refused to entertain these disastrous suggestions—so I think this part of the attack also falls to the ground. The noble Lord, in conclusion, had laid great stress upon the point that by changes in the Bill, the management of the schools was allowed to be in the hands of persons who did not contribute to the maintenance of the schools, and were not elected to the positions of governors; but this might and did occur under the Act of 1870, and I do not think the state of things will be much altered by the provisions of the present Bill. And as to these schools not being under public control, they were under a much greater control than mere local control—their whole curriculum of study, the whole of their arrangements were, in fact, under the control of the Education Department—and they could hardly stir to the right hand or to the left without the assent of the Code or of one of Her Majesty's Inspectors. The State certainly had full control over all the schools, voluntary and board just alike, which received her grants, and took good care at this moment that the money was spent for purposes she desired. It is a mistake to suppose that the present Bill will prevent the establishment of school boards in localities where they are desired by the inhabitants, or that the Government had done anything to prevent them—and I must remind the noble Lord that he entirely refused to countenance or accept the Amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury and Newcastle, which proposed to prevent localities which had sufficient schools from having boards if they desired. I have been so frequently taxed of late with being hostile to school boards, because when hon. Members chose to say that they were so generally liked by the country, and were so excellent, and that therefore it was a kind of sacrilege to allow localities to get rid of unnecessary ones, I felt bound to say that the printed official Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors and other public documents, if I was obliged to quote them, would show that not a few boards were not efficient instruments for education, and that the feeling of the country was, in many parts, against them. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that I have no desire to run down school boards as an institution, and I have, as the House remembers, on many occasions defended them here against attacks from various quarters. But as my position towards, and opinion of, school boards has been so much misrepresented and has been alluded to by the noble Lord, I had, perhaps, better frankly state what my views are respecting them after the official knowledge of the last two years and a-half. I believe that in the large towns the school boards are generally doing an admirable work, and that they are mostly free from that sectarian atmosphere of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (MR. Bright) has spoken so bitterly as pervading school boards in general, and in which he said, as I formerly quoted, no good thing could thrive. In towns of medium size the school boards are frequently doing good work; but it must be admitted that in these places cases occurred, more often than they could have hoped, in which the board seemed to think more of sectarian differences than of the education of the people. As far as school boards in small rural districts are concerned, the system has, to a considerable extent, broken down, partly owing to the fact that the smallness of the areas made it impossible to get fitting people to act as members of the boards. This, then, is my opinion of the working of school boards, which I think it only right, after the noble Lord's remarks, that I should place at the disposal of the Committee. I believe now I have gone over all the points of the attack of the noble Lord, and I flatter myself that the Committee will agree with me that the matters in which the noble Lord blamed the Government have been fairly proved to be without foundation—so that nothing remains now but to accept the more agreeable part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he gave an evidently sincere approval of the Bill as a whole. The Government has throughout endeavoured to look at the question from the point of view of the interests of the children of this country, and I have a full confidence that those who look at it in this way, and not with a view to any bye objects, will give it an increasingly hearty approval. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite choose to take up the position of being the advocates of universal school boards, the Government will be glad to meet them on that issue before the country, and will willingly await the general judgment on this ground. If, further, they wish to stand forward before England as those who insist upon retaining school boards in places where two-thirds of the inhabitants have stated, and the Education Department has affirmed, that no board is any longer wished for or is necessary for purposes of education, I certainly will not grudge them this strange satisfaction. If they wish to appear as the opponents of that relief to the poorer schools, and that impulse to education generally, which our removal of the present vexatious restrictions upon the Government grant will afford, at the entreaty of many of the most experienced friends of education, it is not for me to ask them to forbear. And if, beyond all this, the noble Lord thinks it wise that his Party should be considered the enemies and assailants of a great national institution like the voluntary school system, which has struck its roots deep in every community, I cannot interfere with, nor do I apprehend the results of, their policy. We shall leave them willingly to settle these matters with the schools, with the ratepayers, and with their countrymen generally, and can only trust for their sakes they will find their self-chosen position a useful and beneficial one. For my own part, I sincerely believe and earnestly hope that the action of the Government has been that which is best calculated to promote the sound education of the whole country. We have kept steadily in view the great and important object of maintaining the freedom and responsibility of the parents as much as is consistent with the welfare of the children, and of interfering as little as possible with the habits and necessities of honest industry; and I can truly say that, in all the dealings of the Government with this great and most important but difficult question, we have looked principally to what was, to the best of our belief, for the good of the children, and for the continued honour, happiness, and welfare of our common country.

said, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was altogether wrong in supposing that after a Bill had passed the second reading, no Amendments, except such as referred to points of detail, could be introduced in it. The Amendment, therefore, of the noble Marquess must be rejected, for if such a doctrine were once allowed to prevail all proceedings in Committee upon Bills would become practically useless. Why did not the Nonconformists do as the Roman Catholics did? The Roman Catholics built schools for their own children; why did not the Nonconformists, who were a more wealthy body, do the same? The Roman Catholics considered the Conscience Clause a sufficient protection, and he was at a loss to conceive why it was not so considered by the Nonconformists. ["Divide!"] He considered that to compel children to learn by forbidding them to work was a mistake. Children should before all be educated to be useful and earn something for the family. This was even better than the three R's. It would be wiser to provide that children shall go to school at certain hours and under certain conditions, and interfere as little as possible with their useful employment. The education of the poorer classes ought to have reference to their useful employment and earning a living. But education—especially of girls—was now sometimes calculated to make them too proud to work. Thus it was very difficult to obtain domestic servants. How would it be under this Bill? It would be easy to provide for children of decided talent a higher education. With regard to school boards, the Department would not allow any school board to be dissolved which it might be necessary for the cause of education to maintain. Now, he wished to say nothing against school boards, for there was no doubt however they might have worked in some cases, in others they had done well. At the same time, he could not understand the indignation felt by hon. Members at the idea of touching a school board as if it were a sacrilege to do so. It was not zeal for education, but for education without religion, which animated the strong opposition which was now given. The question with those Gentlemen was not whether school boards were or were not the best means of educating the country, but whether secular education was to be indefinitely extended. The country, however, had come to the conclusion that denominational education was best, and it was for giving children that education which would make them when they grew up useful citizens and loyal subjects of the Crown.

said, the House was very anxious to divide, and he would not detain them more than two or three minutes; but so many allusions had been made by hon. Members in the course of these discussions and by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council that evening to the Act of 1870, that he might be pardoned for saying that it was distinctly on account of the relations of this Bill to that Act, and of the changes made in it, that he felt called upon to vote for the protest made by his noble Friend. He would not for a moment attempt to give a history of all the controverted questions raised at the passing of the Act of 1870; but he thought it would be acknowledged by both Parties that the Government of that day had, along with a sincere desire, a difficult task in hand—to do all they could for the improvement of education. In doing that they acknowledged the existing schools, and while saying that they were not sufficient to meet the educational want, they proposed the system of rate-aided schools. Consequently, when the Bill of 1870 became an Act of Parliament it had two systems; it worked with the voluntary system, supported by denominational energy; and with the rate system, re- lying on the principle of elected bodies taking care of the education of the locality. No one could doubt, and he was himself perfectly aware, that it was a difficult matter to get these two systems worked together. He would not detain the House with reasons for that; but they had passed an Act which, after much discussion, kept these two principles side by side as it were to take care of themselves. On one hand, the denominational school had denominational zeal to support it; on the other hand, there was the possibility that a rate would be a danger to voluntary schools, because a man disliked giving a subscription to relieve another man's rates. Every one who remembered the discussions must be aware of the forces and principles brought into action. Parliament passed the Bill with the understanding that each of these forces and principles was to take care of itself and do what it could in the matter of education, and he thought it was a mistake of the Government now to introduce any change which would supply to any extent the want of denominational energy and zeal by any additional State aid. The noble Lord in his opening speech stated—and he had not the slightest doubt of the fact—that the object of his Bill was to meet the attendance difficulty and get the children into school. On that side of the House he (MR. Forster) and those who were with him had differed to some extent with the noble Lord in his mode of meeting the difficulty; but, at the same time, they fully acknowledged and appreciated his intentions. He would not go through the differences which existed between the advocates of direct and of indirect compulsion, but he was free to admit that the Bill in its progress had been very much changed, and changed for the better, so far as regarded the educational part of it. They had made several important changes in it. The noble Lord said that there had been three important debates on the subject; but there were only two, because he did not think the debate on the second reading lasted three minutes. There were great changes which he considered were to the advantage of the measure. It had been declared legally to be the duty of the parent to educate his child, and the 7th, now the 8th, clause as altered was almost as powerful as the bye-laws of the Lon- don School Board, inasmuch as it enabled work and school to go on well together. But all these changes, although they were, as he had said, for the better, appeared to him to be strong arguments why the Government should not have altered the relations between the school-board system, the rate system, and the voluntary system. There was no doubt that in order to meet the educational difficulty something had to be done by the Government which was a blow at the rate system. Many hon. Members on that side of the House would have preferred to meet the attendance difficulty by universal school boards, but even those who were most strongly in favour of that mode of meeting it were aware that it was hardly possible for the Government, after the debates and divisions of the last two years, to have made that proposition. At the same time there could be no doubt that while the establishment of new authorities and school boards, and giving them the power to sweep the children into the schools, was very necessary for the cause of education, and could not perhaps be avoided, yet in itself it was a great blow to the rate system as compared with the voluntary system, and a great boon to the denominational system. This was not because it was intended to confer an advantage upon denominational schools, but because they could not make progress in education without it. But the Government ought to have recollected that there were very many persons who would consider the step they took in the interests of education was disadvantageous to them. They ought not, therefore, to have altered the settlement of 1870 as between the two classes of schools. He would not for a moment say that there was anything in the Act of 1870 that ought never to be changed, but he did say that the compromise, or the relations between the two systems and the two principles, had been arrived at after very great discussion and difficulty, and it was most unwise on the part of the Government in any way to change it. The changes introduced by the Government, in his opinion, had this effect. One of them discouraged school boards, and the other encouraged denominational schools. The clause which looked forward to the dissolution of school boards, although minimized and frittered down by the week's debate, was, he thought, still a discouragement to school boards, and he thought that the clause which enabled a large number of schools to be conducted without voluntary subscriptions was a great encouragement to denominational schools. He believed it was unwise for the Government to have made that change, and although he agreed with the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council in his opening remarks, and although he would not have voted positively against the third reading, so as to get rid of the Bill entirely, because he believed that it was an educational step in advance, yet he did think it was their duty to put on record their protest against the change being introduced at this time. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He believed that this was a great encouragement to voluntary schools; but he thought it would eventually do them more harm than good. The noble Lord said there were schools in this particular position under the Act of 1870. It was quite true, but there were very few of them. Under the present Bill there would be a great many more, and especially in those places where there was likely to be most opposition to having voluntary schools without voluntary subscriptions. He was quite sure that the Government and their Supporters would one day regret that they had put denominational schools in the position of being sham denominational, instead of real denominational schools. He could not do otherwise than vote for the Motion of his noble Friend.

thought the conclusions advanced by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had been so satisfactorily met by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council that the House might without difficulty have proceeded at once to a division. Replying to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford, he would admit, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that he found himself in great difficulties in 1870 with respect to the conflicting claims of the voluntary and national systems, but those who then sat on the front Opposition Bench did all they could to enable him to get over those difficulties, and the course pursued on some occasions by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues was not altogether a fair return for the facilities that were then afforded to him. If there were difficulties in passing the Bill of 1870 were there no difficulties six years afterwards in endeavouring to cure the defects and supply the wants in the practical operation of that Act? These difficulties they had to encounter during the present Session of Parliament, and he thought they might have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends for a little more consideration and aptitude to assist them during these protracted debates. His noble Friend had to meet the great attendance difficulty, and the right hon. Gentleman must admit that that difficulty had been met in a manner to which little objection could be made. It was said that changes had been made, one of which would have a tendency to discourage school boards in general, but it was only where the facts of the case proved that school boards were unnecessary for the purposes of education that the clause of his hon. Friend would apply. The other change, it was said, would have the effect of encouraging denominational schools. He had yet to learn that such a charge should be fatal to any measure that it would encourage a system of education in the country which by every test that could be applied had proved to be the system which most accommodated itself to the feelings, wishes, and convictions of the people. It was very much on that ground that he hoped the House of Commons would ratify by no inconsiderable majority the stage at which the Bill had now arrived.

moved to insert the following clause after Clause 48:—

said, that the proposal was a very reasonable one, and the Government had great pleasure in accepting it. Scotland had a right to be placed in the same position—mutatis mutandis—as England.

moved the following new clause:—

(No prosecutions to be undertaken except with the authority of at least two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee.)

"No legal proceedings for non-attendance, or irregular attendance at school, shall be com- menced in a court of summary jurisdiction, by any person appointed to carry out the compulsory bye-laws of a School Board or Local Authority, except by the direction of not less than two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee, who shall have previously investigated the circumstances under which it is proposed to take such action."

He said that its sole object was to provide that due care should be exercised in dealing with defaulting parents under the stringent powers conferred by the Education Acts. The clause was in perfect harmony with the intention of the Act of 1870, and of the Bill at present before the House. It was also in accord with the professed policy of the London School Board, but unfortunately that policy, as expressed in a resolution passed in June, 1872, had not been acted upon. He wished again to disclaim any prejudice or opposition to school boards; as such, they had done good work, and he contended that, by the passing of this clause, their hands would be strengthened, and they would be enabled to recover some of the popularity they had notoriously lost in many places owing to the manner in which the compulsory bye-laws were enforced. He would remind the House that compulsion was new to Englishmen and opposed to their national instincts, besides which it was an interference with parental responsibility and the liberty of the subject; therefore, there was the more reason why, when justified by State necessity, it should be applied with moderation and discretion. It should also be borne in mind that recent educational legislation had completely inverted the traditions of our law in one important particular. Contrary to all precedent and practice in other matters, the person accused of a breach of the bye-laws of a school board was required to prove his innocence, an innovation that should be surrounded with safeguards to prevent injustice being done. Relying on the support he had already received, and feeling confident of the beneficial effect the clause would have, he begged now to propose it for the acceptance of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council.

said, it was impossible to shut his eyes to the fact that the feeling of the Committee had been in favour of some such instruction. After much consideration the Government had determined to accept the clause with an Amendment. It would be necessary to insert the word "or" before "School Attendance Committee," and then let the clause stop there. He must decline to make it a condition that the members should themselves investigate the circumstances.

did not think the clause necessary, because it represented the usual practice of the school boards. There had certainly been no dereliction of duty on the part of the London School Board, the members of which had, at a great sacrifice of time, personally examined into the circumstances before prosecutions were instituted.

proposed the following new Clause:—

"The managers of any school which is in receipt of an annual grant from the Education Department shall once in each year prepare an account in a form to be approved by the Education Department, showing in detail the income of such school from all sources, whether from Parliamentary grant, free schools, endowment, or voluntary subscription, and its expenditure, whether on salaries, school books, maintenance, or other miscellaneous expenditure; and such account, certified by two of the managers of the school, shall be kept in the school building, and shall be open to inspection by the parent of any child attending such school."

said, he could not accept the clause. There was not now any reason for the public inspection of the school accounts that did not exist in 1870, when no provision of the kind was made. The accounts were sent up to the Department, and could, he imagined, be obtained in any special case, where information as to a particular school was desired, by any hon. Member who moved for them.

stated that the people in some rural places would look upon the money received by the school as a mine of wealth, and if they did not see how it was spent, all sorts of unfavourable rumours would be circulated. If they had a sheet of paper exhibited in the school in which all the accounts were entered, it would prevent these stories from getting abroad in the majority of cases, and where they did get abroad, it would be a most effectual means of putting them down.

:moved an Amendment in Clause 5, to provide that a child at the age of 9 years might be employed at any suitable work if it had made 250 school attendances in each of the four previous years, and the same number of attendances since it had reached the age of 9, or if it had received a certificate fixed by Standard IV. of the Code of 1876. The hon. Member contended that the Amendment was much more needed now than when the Bill was first introduced, because the Government had since accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish), the effect of which was that a child over 10 years could work as a half-timer, however ignorant it might be. Strong boys and girls of 9½ years of age were very useful in agriculture during the summer months. The Amendment now proposed was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

said, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding was accepted by the Government in deference to the marked feeling expressed on both sides of the House. The acceptance of that Amendment to which he had not concealed his personal dislike, as he feared it would seriously weaken the operation of the Pass system, and interfere with the effect of indirect compulsion, had, he confessed, somewhat complicated the position of the matter; but, on the other hand, the provision of the Bill was stringent that where a parent habitually neglected the education of his child, the stern arm of the law was to interfere, and the child was required to attend school a certain number of days. If local authorities did their duty no child would reach the age of 10 without having had a good deal of school attendance. Considerable concessions had already been made to his agricultural friends in regard to opportunities for children engaging in husbandry, and the Government felt they must adhere to the rule they had laid down—namely, that no child should go to work under the age of 10.

said, he would not press the Amendment in the absence of so many agricultural Members.

in Clause 8, page 3, line 29, relating to children living on board canal boats, and who, from that circumstance, did not come within the comprehension of the Bill, requiring the attendance of children at the board schools, moved, after the word "attend," to insert, "but this excuse shall not be held to apply in the case of children living on board canal boats." The school boards had, the noble Lord observed, taken deep interest in those poor children, and he thought some provision ought to be made to secure their being educated.

did not think the Amendment would do any harm, and hoped it would be adopted.

said, no one was more anxious than himself to meet the case of the poor canal children, but he thought the Amendment would, at this moment, do harm instead of good as the noble Lord desired, as the question was involved in such great difficulty. It would be almost impossible for the canal people to comply with its provisions, and therefore only useless irritation about education would be caused. How were they, living on board a canal boat, to attend a day school? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had promised to deal with the matter next year, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, there were other classes of children with whom it was more difficult to deal, and in whose favour it was desirable that something should be done—he meant the children living on the shores of the river.

said, there were children living in barges upon navigable rivers as well as canals, for whose education something should be done.

said, it was a question whether these children should be allowed to travel in canal boats at all, the cabins often being as overcrowded as the worst houses in London. As the Government were considering the whole question, which would have to be dealt with on sanitary grounds, he trusted the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

supported the view that the education of the classes of children referred to ought to be provided for.

said, there was another class of children that ought not to be neglected—he meant the gipsy children.

said, the children of the best class of boatmen resided on shore, and they would come under the Act. The children of the worst class lived on board and were exempt from the operation of the law.

, in consideration of these assurances, consented to withdrawn his Amendment.

, on Clause 13, moved to make the distance from school which should be an excuse for absence three miles instead of two.

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

moved an Amendment in the 14th Clause, to the effect that if the parent of any child resident in the district of a school board should be unable to pay any part of its fees at a public elementary school, and the school board fail to make regulations under Clauses 25 and 74 of the Act of 1870 for the payment of them, the Guardians, if satisfied of the parent's inability to pay, should pay the same, in accordance with the provisions of the section. The noble Lord said that his Amendment was directed towards an obvious injustice to poor parents, which he hoped the Government would remedy by adopting his Amendment.

said, the clause would interfere with the 25th clause of the Education Act of 1870, and as that clause had worked well, he would advise that it be let alone.

admitted that the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath had put his finger on a real grievance. There could be no doubt that Parliament did not intend that a parent should be obliged to send his child to a board school, if he objected to such school, simply because he was poor; and it was to be hoped cases of such injustice would not long exist. Perfect freedom to the parent as to the choice of school for his child was undoubtedly the intention of the Act of 1870, and it was only in cases where there was only one school available that Parliament had agreed to compel the parent to use a school which he did not like; and then only in the case where there was the Conscience Clause. Certainly poverty was never intended to be allowed to be held as a reason why the conscientious feelings of a parent were to be disregarded. He did not believe, however, that there were many cases in which it operated, or a very strong feeling would be manifested against it; neither could he think that Parliament intended that any school board should take upon itself only to remit fees and not to pay them. As the Amendment, however, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) would re-open the whole question of the famous 25th clause, he (Viscount Sandon) hoped it would not be pressed on this occasion. If it should be, he must oppose it.

complained that the Irish Members were being sacrificed by the noble Lord's acquiescence in a suggestion from the Opposition, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision, and take steps to remedy an admitted grievance. Notwithstanding great pressure, and especially with regard to the division that night, the Irish Roman Catholic Members had supported the Government in all the debates upon the Bill; and their wishes, which were in favour of the Amendment, ought to be consulted. He was glad the subject of education was now in the hands of the present Government, and that the late Government would never have the power to influence it again in that House; for whenever they attempted to secularize education there would be 60, or 70, or 80 Irish votes given against them.

declared that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.

supported the Amendment, because in all questions of poverty the Guardians rather than the school boards were the best authorities for the payment of the fees.

hoped the Government would see its way to deal with this admitted blot on the Education Bill. He would remind the noble Lord that the Irish Liberal Members had supported the Government in the manly stand which they had made for Christian education, not because they were enamoured of their general policy, but because they were a party of principle rather than a party of expediency. The poor Irish in the large cities and manufacturing districts of England were exactly the class most oppressed by the present state of things, and he urged the Vice President to accept the Amendment and take away the reproach.

repeated his opinion that the House would do well to let the 25th clause alone

trusted that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, having recognized that the Amendment was clearly equitable, would withdraw his objection to it. He should vote in its favour. After the noble Lord's candid confession that there was a grievance here, he could not see how hon. Members on the Conservative side could avoid voting with his hon. Friend opposite (MR. Sullivan)

opposed the Amendment

, having admired the careful way in which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had piloted that Bill through shoals and quicksands, would be disposed to acquiesce in any decision of his; but the present case, he knew from personal experience, was so much one of justice, and intended to remedy what was a real blot in the law, that he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment

, speaking from his own experience as a member of a school board, maintained that the blot which the Amendment was intended to correct was not a real, but only an imaginary one. He believed that these poor children would be received into denominational schools even without the adoption of the Amendment

said, that his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had acknowledged that the demand made by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath was, in its principle, founded on justice, although he doubted whether the practical working of the clause was such as to render it necessary or advisable that they should deal with the difficulty. Some hon. Gentlemen said that no difficulty had actually arisen, while others said that it had. On that point the affirmative evidence on the one side could not be rebutted by the negative evidence on the other; and it would be only fair and reasonable, therefore, that some provision should be made to meet it, and, under the circumstances, the Government would accept the Amendment, though they believed that there would not be many cases in which it would be really required to apply it.

regretted extremely the statement just made. The acceptance of the Amendment simply meant making the 25th clause compulsory. Under that clause only some £3,000 or £4,000 a-year went to denominational schools in some favoured districts. Yet at the last Election nothing caused more excitement than that clause. As if the Bill did not trench closely enough on questions which went home to the hearts and consciences of the people, the Government seemed determined, to excite them further by making the clause compulsory. He could only express his extreme regret that the Government should have accepted the clause, which he believed would excite more religious strife than any other that had been proposed

denied that the opponents of that Amendment were the only persons who had hearts and consciences, and urged that board schools were not intended to supplant but only to supplement denominational schools. The Amendment of the noble Lord had hit a blot in the Act of 1870, without in the least departing from the principle of the 25th clause of that Act

said, the Amendment was the legitimate outcome of the 25th clause, and those who were in favour of that clause could not do otherwise than support the Amendment. From his point of view both the clause and the Amendment were equally objectionable. The consciences of parents had been referred to, but it should be borne in mind that many ratepayers had a conscientious objection to their money being applied to denominational education. The Education Act of 1870 was the means of dividing the Liberal Party and weakening them so that they were now not only a minority, but a disunited and disorganized minority. Hon. Members opposite, instead of speaking hardly of the Act of 1870, ought to con- gratulate themselves that it had been passed. "Once bit, twice shy." The Dissenters were bit by that Act, and they had been shy ever since.

supported the Amendment, expressing his satisfaction that it had been accepted by the Government

said, he did not think the House ought to be called upon to divide upon an Amendment, the acceptance of which came upon them by surprise. It was true that the Act of 1870 weakened the Liberal Party, but he congratulated the Party that the Government were taking such strong steps to re-unite them. A clause had been already introduced into the Bill which practically involved what the Nonconformists hated very much—a scheme of concurrent endowment; and now this Amendment would weaken school boards by allowing Boards of Guardians in one respect to override them. This would rouse more bitter feeling in the country than the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell)

wished to protest in the strongest possible language against the Government. Not apparently warned by the time already wasted, they repeated their tactics up to the very last. An ominous summons from the Treasury Whip had brought up the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that what some hours before was a theoretical difficulty was a practical difficulty, and to accept the Amendment making the 25th clause compulsory. In order to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Question in these new circumstances, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate

seconded the Motion

said, he was surprised at the proposal just made for the Adjournment of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Lyon Playfair) had taunted the Government with doing their best to reunite the Liberal Party. After the speech just made by an hon. Member (MR. O'Shaughnessy) the House would see upon the division whether the unanimity spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman existed among the Liberal Party. He appealed to the House to support the clause on the ground of the poor parent. Parliament was now forcing education on the people, and, if there were efficient schools in a parish where a school board existed, parents had a right to say to what school their children should go in all cases.

thought his hon. Friend (MR. Fawcett) perfectly right in moving the Adjournment of the Debate. This was a most important clause, and no one could have expected that it would be taken up and adopted by the Government. He knew 50 or 60 hon. Members who would have been in their places if they had supposed the Government would accept the clause. He warned the Government of the difficulties which the proposal would bring in its train. The Opposition never could have expected that in this last stage of the Bill such a clause would be entertained. He was entirely opposed to the Guardians being put in over the school board

said, that the clause had been put upon the Paper, and it was for the House and not for the Government to determine whether it should be added to the Bill. If the 50 or 60 Members alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) were not in their places to oppose a clause of which due Notice had been given it was their fault, and there was no reason why its consideration should be postponed. He represented a neighbouring constituency (the Tower Hamlets) to that of the hon. Member for Hackney (MR. Fawcett), and he could say the clause would be received with great pleasure by his constituents. He trusted the Government would persevere in their course, and he should give them his hearty support

understood that the Amendment had only been placed on the Paper on the previous evening; but, in any case, there was a great difference between a Notice being on the Paper and its being accepted by the Government. He complained of that sudden sudden change of front on the part of the Government, and hoped the House would sit as long as it was necessary to enable the country to form an opinion on the question

I ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council whether Boards of Guardians are to have the option of paying these fees? ["No, no!"] Then I must say that I think it exceedingly objectionable that they should not; because it would be in the power of any parent to render Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school which he might choose. I hope my hon. Friend below me is right, but I will take the case of a parish without a board school, but with a public elementary school to which the Board of Guardians may object. You cannot say to that authority—"If you do not like the school, erect another," for you have not given the Board of Guardians the power to do that. You say to them—"You shall pay to the school that exists, although you object to that school." Then I say that to make this compulsory is contrary to the whole principle of the Act, which renders the authority of the district responsible for the teaching for which it has to pay. The alterations in the terms of the code of this Bill appears to render it perfectly improper to make this payment obligatory without option on the part of the Guardians. That is a change which I hope has escaped the attention of the Government, and I for one shall certainly not vote for rendering Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school in their district whether they choose it or not.

thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) had hit the nail on the head. It would seem from the policy which the Government had pursued with respect to the measure that they were determined to have a new Education Bill every night. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not learned wisdom from experience. It took him a week to carry the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and perhaps that was worth while, because he thereby obtained the alliance of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the hon. Member. But the noble Lord had other allies in the Roman Catholic Members of that House, so well represented by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Robert Montagu), who had proposed a clause which might be described as an exaggeration of the old 25th clause. The old 25th clause gave an optional power to school boards to subscribe the fees payable by parents who sent their children to denominational schools; but it was now proposed to make it compulsory on them to do so. This was a complete overthrow of the Act of 1870 as far as regarded the 25th clause, and it was a complete change of the Bill of the Government, which did not interfere with that clause. The Amendment of the noble Lord only appeared on the Paper that morning, and within 12 hours afterwards it was adopted by the Government. It was a fresh attack on school boards, it was fatal to their authority, and intended to be destructive to those very school boards which the Vice President of the Council had eulogized. Heeded not complain of the course which the Catholic Members had taken; but he was surprised that his noble Friend, who was to a certain extent the representative of the Orangemen of Liverpool, should have entered into alliance with them on this matter. The whole theory of the Catholic Church was that education ought to be entirely in the hands of the priesthood. ["No, no!"] He was sorry if he had misrepresented the views of Catholics on that subject; but all he could say was, that the view of those who sat on the Liberal side was entirely the opposite; and one of the reasons why they desired to see the extension of school boards in this country was because school boards were essentially representative of the laity, and wherever they existed the authority of the laity to control the education of the people was effectually secured. He complained of the re-opening of that large question at the eleventh hour without any practical Notice to that House, and without any notice whatever to the country, and thought they would be only exercising their proper and legitimate functions in securing for the country ample time to consider the proposed change.

observed that he had given Notice of his Amendment as soon as he had discovered the blot in the Bill, which he desired to remove. In moving it he did so on the broad ground of justice, and he had simply declared that they had no right to compel the poor people to send their children to schools for which they were unable to pay the fees, unless they secured in some way that the fees should be paid for them. There was only one Party which had been consistent throughout on this question, and that was the Irish Party. He thought, however, that if the Government had changed their opinions on the question it was owing to what they saw was the feeling of the House.

said, the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) showed that they had not fully examined the proposals contained in the Bill. The principle of the clause under discussion, so far from being a new one, was contained in the 14th clause of the measure, and was also embodied in a Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in 1873—a Bill entitling Boards of Guardians to pay the school fees for out-door paupers, who also were privileged to select the schools to which their children should be sent.

said, that if there had been any change of front on this question, it had been effected by the occupants of the front Opposition bench above the Gangway, whose right to taunt Her Majesty's Government with changing their front he begged emphatically to deny. On the question of shortness of Notice, he would remind the House that a deputation waited yesterday on the Leader of the Opposition, and that as the result of such deputation a formidable Notice of Motion appeared on the Paper that morning, side by side with that of the noble Lord's the Vice President of the Council's, which the House was then considering. That formidable Amendment was in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition; but those of the disunited Liberal Party who had counselled its adoption had no right to place themselves in antagonism to the Amendment of his noble Friend. He challenged the Leader of the Opposition to raise the question at issue on the broad platform of public approval. The hon. Member for Newcastle (MR. Cowen), one of the most advanced Radicals in the House, and one who knew the feeling of the country far better than the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), had said that anyone who would vote for the 25th clause would vote for the Amendment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) complained that the clause would leave an option in the hands of the Guardians; but it was only an option to decide upon a question of poverty, and on such a subject he should think Boards of Guardians were likely to be the best judges. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had very skilfully raised a false issue by saying that the question raised by the clause of the noble Lord was one between the laity, pure and simple, and those who wished for clerical domination in educational matters. He could only say that the Roman Catholic laity had no desire for clerical domination. They only wished to have it known that, in their opinion, an education divorced from moral ideas and conscientious principles—reverence for God and His teachings—might make skilful infidels, but would never make good citizens. It was by meddling with education in a way that touched the consciences of Irish Members that hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench were forced out of office, and it was a little short sighted of them now to pursue a similar policy in an aggravated form. They were the most inconsistent politicians in the world. In one breath they called for the demolition of the State Church, and in the next they sought to cram down the throats of the people a new State religion in the schools. As the Adjournment was moved for the purpose of an out-door agitation, he warned the Liberal Party, who were not united upon this and other questions, and who were glad in their turn to receive concessions from the Government, that if they went to the country upon this issue, the Government would stand before the country as saying that, while poverty had many hardships, it should not at all events have this additional aggravation—that while a poor man, as long as he could pay, was able to send his children to school in which his conscience was respected, his children should not, when he was no longer able to pay, be forced into a school from which his conscience rebelled.

said, that the Scotch Act contained a clause enabling poor parents to apply to the Parochial Board, who, thereupon, paid the cost of the schooling. This clause was on all fours with the Amendment of the noble Lord, and it was a clause proposed by the late Government.

said, it could hardly be doubted that Her Majesty's Government would have refused to accept the Amendment had it been proposed by any other hon. Member, but it was impossible to forget the ties of almost intimate personal friendship which bound them to the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath. That circumstance had doubtless induced the Government to accept the Amendment with such haste. There was no reason whatever why the Amendment should not have been moved in Committee on the Bill, and as he objected to an Amendment of such a character being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, he begged to move that the House should now adjourn.

I rise to ask a question. Having come into the House after the discussion of the clause had proceeded to some extent, I put a question to hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, to which I have received no answer. I trust the House will now allow me to explain the reason of the vote which I have just given. As the clause stands the Guardians are compelled, if the parent is poor, and is resident in a district where there is not a school board, to pay the fees to any denominational school in the district to which the parent may choose to send his child; and the Amendment which is now proposed would render it compulsory on the Guardians, in a district where there is a school board and a board school, to pay the school fees for the child whose parent is poor, to whatever school the parent chooses to send his child, although the education of that child might be provided for in a board school. We are placed in this difficulty. Unfortunately, the House rejected the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford (MR. Hall) the other night, which would have insured religious education in board schools for every child whose parent demanded it. The House has failed to provide religious education in the board schools. It is quite true that in the great majority of board schools religious education is given; and I regret that there should be any exceptions to the rule; still, in the board schools generally religious education is given. Now, I hold that that ought to be compulsory at the option of the parent, and I voted that it should be, but the Government rejected the proposal. What is the effect? Why, that the Roman Catholic Members rise to tell you that all the board schools are in principle secular. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who rejected the proposal that board schools should be compelled to give religious education when the parent demands it. That was a great mistake on the part of the Government and the House. It places the House in this position—that it has established secular without religious education, and the Roman Catholic Members take advantage of this. Of course they do. They represent the principle which is held by the Heads of their Church, that no religious education ought to be given except by the priesthood. ["No, no!"] That is the declaration of your own Episcopate. Well, we object to that principle; but, unfortunately, the House has failed to enforce the alternative—the alternative being that the parent should have a right to claim religious education in any public elementary school, maintained by public funds. The position of the Conservative Party is weak, because the principle of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford was rejected; but what is the position of the Government? Because, having opposed that clause, and placed themselves in a difficulty by opposing it, as they have given the Roman Catholic Members an opportunity of declaring all the board schools and union schools secular in principle, they are now proceeding on the principle of concurrent endowment. That is inevitable from their rejecting all religious education demanded by a parent in a board or other public elementary school. The other night I urged upon the Government the precedent set by the late Lord Derby in the year 1835, who, in instituting the national system of education in Ireland, provided for the religious education of the children as a part of the system. At the instance of Cardinal Cullen, when he first appeared as a Bishop in Ireland, in opposition to the decision of the late Archbishop Murray, that system has been abrogated in Ireland; but the power of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England is not yet what it is in Ireland, and if the Government had but acted in conjunction with their supporters when the hon. Member for Oxford proposed that religious education should be given in the public elementary schools to all children whose parents demand it, they would not have been placed in the position in which they now are, and in which they have placed their whole Party. Of course, as an independent Member myself, I do not feel bound to vote against my convictions. I desire to promote religious education, and I contend that it is the duty of the State to provide religious education for every child whose parent demands it in a public institution. That is an intelligible principle: but I am sorry to see that the principle on which the Government are proceeding is this—they have adopted the doctrine of religious indifference in the sense of religious equality with respect to all the religions, the provision for which they are now about to enforce upon Boards of Guardians, and upon all school boards. I think this is a lamentable result; but it is the result of their having resisted their own supporters, when we asked the House to declare that the public authority should provide religious education for the children, whenever demanded by the parents, as was the case originally in Ireland. The position of the Government is, in my estimation, a false position, and I felt compelled in consequence to vote against them.

believed there was now no course before the Government except that of approving of the Amendment of the noble Lord. Had they gone to a division in opposing the clause they would have been beaten by their own Supporters. For his own part—although he always looked with suspicion upon a Motion proposed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu)—still on this occasion his prejudices had been overcome, and he had therefore voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. Although he so disliked Roman Catholicism, he would rather see a child educated in a Catholic school than in a secular one.

said, that as it was impossible to finish the debate that night he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, he hoped the Government would consent to the Motion. ["No, no!"] The only result in not doing so would be that they would be engaged some considerable time that night in debating it, and which would not lead to a speedy or an amicable decision of that long education debate. There was not the slightest idea the question would have been brought before the House. It had been sprung upon them suddenly; and there was a minority sufficiently large to insist on more time for consideration. The proper course for the Government to take if they did anything in the direction intimated by the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath would have been rather to have repealed the 25th clause altogether, than to modify it by a proposal which would throw the whole working of the Act into confusion, besides taking from the ratepayers an option which they at present had, and doing that in a manner the most contemptuous and insulting. The clause was working tolerably well, and there was no reason why at the end of the Session it should have been re-opened.

thought it was a great pity that they should be wasting all these hours, but at the same time he did not know what was to be gained by adjournment. As they had a full House, and the matter had been fully discussed, he thought they had better decide the question. It was not a new question; it had been before the country for many years, and the whole of the consequences involved had been made the subject of anxious consideration, and of argument both within and without the House. He could not consent to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, that an hour and a-half ago the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council declared that he could not accept the Amendment; but a quarter of an hour later the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place and accepted it. He complained that the decision of the Government had been sprung upon them unexpectedly. He, however, exonerated the noble Lord from any double dealing in the matter. The Amendment had been pressed upon him against his own convictions. He (MR. Mundella) contended that it would thrust the greatest possible indignity upon the school boards, for it involved the reversion of an important principle affecting their position, inasmuch as it would put the Board of Guardians over their heads. He believed it was the firm determination of hon. Members who had voted in the minority not to allow the question to be decided until the country had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. If the Government were going to deal in the politics of surprise, they would be surprised to find that they would not finish the Bill that Session.

said, the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath merely extended to the child of a poor man the same privilege as was given to the child of a pauper—namely, that in school-board districts the Board of Guardians should have power to send his child to school, though it left to the parent the choice of the school. He saw no reason why the clause should not be agreed to.

I believe that Roman Catholic Members speak their own sentiments, but they do not speak the sentiments of those by whom, their Church is governed. I am protesting against the State countenancing the principle of concurrent religious endowment. That is what I protest against. In December last a meeting was held at which MR. Lilley, the secretary of a Roman Catholic institution established to form a connection between the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country and Roman Catholic institutions abroad with respect to education, described the difference between the position of France and England, and he said this—

"In France our course is simple, because the people do not see anything different between pure secularism and the Roman Catholic Church. The case in England is different. The people here are divided into various sects; but they are strictly and essentially a religious people. In England we have to contend with heresy. In France we have to contend with indifference."

In France the course is simple, but in England the principle of religion is implanted deep in the hearts of the people; but that feeling is not represented by the Government, who would, however, find a solution to this difficulty in accepting the principle of compelling the the board school and every public elementary school to give religious education whenever demanded by a parent, otherwise they will give to the Roman Catholic hierarchy the advantage of being able to denounce every board school and every union school as a secular establishment adverse to religion. They need no other position in order to produce in this country that which MR. Lilley declared the Ultra-montanes desired—Roman Catholicism on one side, and absolute religious indifference on the other. That is the position from which they look forward to success, and hope to achieve it; and the reason, assigned by themselves, why they have not become dominant in England, is the religious feeling of its people who now demand from this House the satisfaction of that feeling.

speaking as a Roman Catholic, said he would prefer to send his children to a Church school with a Conscience Clause rather than to a secular school

did not wish, after the divisions which had been taken, to press the Adjournment; but as there was this peculiarity in the matter, that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) at first opposed the clause, it would be well that both the House and the Government should have further time for consideration

denied that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council at first disapproved the clause; on the contrary, the noble Lord said it was an excellent one, but in the absence of his Colleagues at the time from the Treasury Bench he hesitated to accept it

was somewhat astonished that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not corrected, if an erroneous impression existed, the statement made to the effect that he had accepted the clause of the noble Lord

denied that any such undertaking had been given. What the noble Lord said was that the Amendment hit a blot in the Bill which called for some remedy, but he hesitated to accept the clause, as he doubted the propriety of inserting it in the Bill

observed that what took place was this—He said that the Government could not do otherwise than acknowledge that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had hit a blot in the Bill, but that there was every reason to suppose that the school boards would become more and more aware that they had not exercised their functions quite justly in the matter; that public opinion, when the matter was understood, would insist that parents should be dealt with justly in the matter, and that children should not be forced into board schools when the parents were too poor to send them to denominational schools. But he said that at that late period of the Session, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford, there was not sufficient cause to justify him in opening the question. There followed, however, a remarkable exhibition of feeling on both sides of the House.—a strong feeling for which the Government was not prepared; and that made it desirable that the Government should reconsider the matter.

said, after the statement of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council positive evidence was given of the necessity of legislation in order to cure existing defects. He trusted hon. Gentlemen who thought they constituted the Liberal Party would be satisfied with the proof they had given of unification, and with having brought down the right hon. Member for Bradford as a repentant sinner.

said, it was quite impossible the debate should be closed that night. The clause had been accepted by the Government suddenly and without Notice, and no opportunity had been given for proposing Amendments. He begged, therefore, to move the Adjournment of the House.

supported the proposal for Adjournment.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

expressed a hope that hon. Members would answer the arguments in favour of the Amendment, instead of resorting to the Forms of the House to defeat it. When the Irish Members did so to preserve the benefits of the Constitution for their country they were very much condemned for the course they pursued

was afraid the temper of the House was such as to render any appeal to hon. Members opposite perfectly useless. As there were Strangers in the Galleries he did not think that was an occasion on which the House appeared in the best light. But, on the other hand, he did not admit that the blame could fairly be attached to the Opposition benches. He contended that the Government were seeking to force upon the House an important Amendment, brought forward without Notice, that it formed no part of the original Bill, nor was it alluded to in Committee, and it was but reasonable that time should be allowed to consider it and see whether it could not be amended so as to make it less objectionable than it was in its present shape

observed, that the House was considering not a clause, but an Amendment—an addition to the 14th clause. The point was not a new one; it had been under consideration for years. The 14th clause provided for the payment of the fees of poor children in districts where there was no school board, and the Amendment extended that provision to school board districts, and the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 did not meet the case, as the option to pay the fees there provided was in many cases not given effect to. At the first blush the Government did not feel inclined to accept the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), but since that time cogent reasons had been stated in support of the clause, and the Government felt bound to accept it. The principle in- volved in the clause had been so long discussed that he thought there could be no difficulty in arriving at a decision on the question. If the proposal for Adjournment was agreed to the House would re-assemble at 2 o'clock for the further consideration of the Bill with no additional information on which to found a decision.

hoped further time would be given for further consideration of the clause before the House was called upon to come to a conclusion concerning it.

protested against the Government springing a mine on the House, and moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

proposed to move an Amendment on the clause to give the Government an opportunity, in a division, of asserting their view upon the subject as regarded the principle at issue, and with the object of deferring the consideration of further Amendments.

said, that if it was to be distinctly understood that the present decision was to be final as regarded the principle, so far, then, there could be no objection to giving a few hours' delay for further consideration with regard to Amendments; but if the whole question was to be re-opened when the House met again, why, better fight it out at once.

said, the Government were willing to consent to some delay upon the terms suggested, on the distinct understanding that the division on the proposed Amendment was to be regarded as equivalent to a division on the second reading of the clause.

, on the part of other hon. Members, declined to be bound by the proposed arrangement, on the ground that it would involve the surrender of all that they had been contending for.

, pointing to the lateness of the hour—a quarter to 3 o'clock—moved the Adjournment of the House.

considered that the Government had shown every disposition to meet the Opposition fairly.