, (for Mr. JENNINGS, Stockport),moved to leave out, in line 11, "average attendance," and insert "on the total attendance." The hon. Member said that after the concession which the Government had made last night he would not press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "in average attendance," and insert "on the total attendance."

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

I have upon the Paper an Amendment to the same effect, and I think the Government might make some concession to the denominational schools in this respect, especially in the case of schools which are largely attended by half-timers. I may mention one case in which the proposal of the Government will result in a loss of 17s. 6d. per week, or £40 for the whole year; and I think that after the concessions which were made last night a further concession might be made by the Government. I am afraid that if some concession is not made it will result in the closing of many voluntary schools.

^* : I must really say that it is not in the power of the Government to comply with this Amendment. The question is one which has been under our careful consideration; and we have gone as far as we possibly can in order to meet the demands of hon. Members. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

I am afraid that the wording of this clause will not carry out the intentions of the Government; at any rate, the point is one which ought to be considered, especially in regard to half-timers. In the case of my own constituency — that of Preston — there are 1,700 half-timers who at present pay the full school fee; but they will be unable to earn out of the grant more than 7s. 6d., being a loss of 2s. 6d. per head. What I want to know is, whether the Government propose to give any assistance towards making up the deficit? This is a Bill which gives to the half-timer no advantage whatever. The loss to the schools in Preston by retaining the words "in average attendance" would be £434 15s. I do not see how the financial arrangements of the schools are to be carried on.

I do not think that the question into which the hon. Member is entering is pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee.

I was only anxious to point out that this state of circumstances may arise.

^* (12.30.) : The point raised by the Amendment as to the average attendance is, I think, an important one; but I wish to point out that if the average attendance is struck out we shall have to fall back upon the actual attendances upon the books, which would make the working of the Bill utterly impracticable. We cannot certainly accept any Amendment to strike out the word "average." The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) has referred to the difficulty in the case of the half-timers; but I do not think it is strictly in order to refer to that matter now. It will have to be raised hereafter, and I think it will be better to deal with the question on its merits when the proper time arrives.

I presume, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, but I think I ought to explain that the reason why it has been proposed is that an impression has got abroad that the grant of the Government is equivalent to 3d. per week. It is nothing like 3d. per week; it is much more like 2¼d. or 2½d. But as the question of half-timers is to be raised later on I will not at present enter into the question.

As the question will come before the Committee later on I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I wish to point out, in regard to average attendance, that there is a time of year when the attendance is naturally slack. If the average is taken upon the whole time the school is open, there is manifestly a temptation to the managers to shut up the school when the attendance is slack, whereas if the average is taken for 40 weeks it would be perfectly fair to all, and there would be no temptation to the managers to close a school during the time that the attendance is slack.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "attendance," to insert the words "during forty weeks of the school year." — ( Sir G. Stokes. )

Question proposed, "That those word be there inserted."

^* : The Government cannot accept this Amendment. I am afraid that it would lead us into a considerable entanglement if we were to insert these words. All that we desire is to secure the efficiency of the school.

Question put, and negatived.

^* (12.36.) : I have now to move the omission, in lines 12 and 13, of the words "not being an evening school." My object in moving this Amendment is to bring evening schools within the operation of the Bill. There has been a strong feeling expressed on all sides of the House as to the importance of the school life of the children. Two years ago I introduced a Resolution into this House in favour of evening schools. My Motion was discussed at great length and with a general feeling of sympathy from every part of the House. Indeed, there was an unanimous feeling in favour of the importance of evening schools as continuation schools. The result of the present system is that numbers of children after school hours swarm the streets, and become what are called "street arabs." There is nothing like the same state of things in any other country, and as we all know it is these street arabs who recruit the criminal class. The cause of that is, I think, our inefficient system of evening schools, which is very different from that adopted in Germany and Switzerland.

I wish to point out to the hon. Member that only those evening schools are admissible under this Bill which are public elementary schools, and that it is not competent to enter into an argument as to the general question of establishing evening schools.

^* : I will confine myself, Sir, to the line which you have indicated. Last year there were in attendance at the evening, schools 64,000 children; of these 51,000 were qualified by attendance for examination, and there was an average attendance of 43,000, as against 4,800,000 on the register for day schools, or scarcely 1 per cent. Ten shillings per head on 43,000 is only £21,500; but all we ask for is 5s. per head, which will cost a trifle over £10,000. Taking into consideration that the Government yesterday accepted Amendments which involve an additional cost of £200,000 or £300,000, I do not think they ought to object to this additional £10,000 for a most important and valuable work. Evening schools are conducted under very great difficulties; it is most difficult to keep them up, and, without a grant, it will be impossible for them to make both ends meet. Under these circumstances, I do not think that a special grant ought to be grudged.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "(not being an evening school)." —( Mr. Samuel Smith.) )

Question proposed, "That the words '(not being evening school)' stand part of the Clause."

^* (12.40.) : I think it must be perfectly obvious, after the discussion which we have had already, that it is altogether hopeless to ask the Government to extend the provisions of the Bill to evening schools. It is a most important point, indeed, as to whether the Amendment is in order; but I presume that it may be regarded as regular, seeing that we include scholars in certain standards who attend evening schools. At the same time, I would ask the Committee to deal with the Amendment at once, and pass on to other Amendments which are really more important. I will not weary the Committee by going into the various grants which have been given to evening schools, but I will remind them that we are imposing heavy burdens for the purpose of encouraging elementary schools; and when the hon. Gentleman pleads for continuation schools, I can only assure him that when I submit the Education Estimates he will find that under the new Code we are making giant strides in this direction. Her Majesty's Government have made concessions which involve a large expenditure of money, in order to meet the demands which hon. Members have made, but I think it is somewhat hard that, having made these concessions, we should be pressed over and over again to make more. I hope that we shall be allowed to proceed to matters that are more intimately connected with the provisions of the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman expresses a wish that we should pass at once to the next part of the Bill, but I think we ought to be allowed to plead the cause of evening schools. We are now, in reality, imposing a barrier against the use of night schools, because for the first time we are requiring that a fee shall be paid. Taking into account the small number of children we have hitherto been able to draw into evening schools, I think this is a question which deserves serious consideration, especially if evening schools are to flourish as they ought to flourish.

^* : I am unwilling to retard the progress of this Bill, but I think this is an important matter which deserves serious consideration. The Vice President of the Council says that the Government are making gigantic strides in the direction of assisting evening schools.

^* : What I said was that when the Education Estimates are brought forward it will be seen that the evening school question is making giant strides.

^* : I am very glad to hear it, and I think the admission shows what a very deserving class these schools are. My own opinion is that nothing has done more good than the evening schools. But what I wish to draw attention to is the result which was arrived at yesterday, in changing the age to which education is to extend from 14 to 15. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that concession. But it is quite clear that in most cases it is impossible for children after the age of 14 to attend any but evening schools, for the simple reason that they are at work during the day. The amount now asked for is really very small — only £10,000 — and I trust that the Government, seeing the importance of the matter, will concede it.

^* (12.48.) : I quite understand and appreciate the sympathy which hon. Gentlemen feel in regard to the encouragement of night schools, but, at the same time, I wish to point out that there is a limit beyond which the Government cannot go. We find it impossible to contribute out of the Imperial Exchequer more money than has already been appropriated, and the argument that as concessions have been made more concessions ought to be made only indicates how extremely unwise it is for the Government to have made any concessions at all. For my own part, I think it is unreasonable to ask the State to pay the fees of boys and young men who are earning money, and are in a position to pay for their own education. We cannot accept the Amendment, but must adhere to the concessions which have already been made.

I gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that if we press for further concessions the Government will drop the Bill. I have no desire, nor have my hon. Friends, to press the Government unduly; but really when the right hon. Gentleman says, "We cannot afford," and that "our financial resources allow us to go no further," I wish to remind him that under certain circum- stances the attendance of a child at a night school is made compulsory. If the Government insist upon resisting this Amendment I hope my hon. Friend will allow us to make our protest at once, so that we may proceed with the other provisions of the Bill. I warn the Government that the time will come when they will have to do this. It is one of the inevitable consequences of having taken the first step. The time cannot be long delayed.

^* : I am quite ready to accept the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury that there should be a limit put upon the age, and that the age of 18 should be fixed.

^* : I made no such suggestion.

^* : The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was that young men who were earning a living might avail themselves of the privilege. That is not my object. My object is to get children of 11 and 12, who have reached the standard which enables them to leave the day schools, to enter the night schools in order to continue their education.

^* (12.55.) : I desire to say a word in support of the Amendment, namely, that until evening schools are made compulsory we ought to do something to encourage the children to attend them. So many children after leaving school forget what they have learnt, that we should get far better value for the money we are spending if we go a little further and make evening elementary schools also free, and thus induce children to continue their education.

supported the Amendment; but the hon. Member's remarks, owing to loud calls for a Division were inaudible.

^* : I am extremely anxious for the maintenance of evening schools, but I cannot support the Amendment, because I think that the Government have gone as far as they can be expected to go, and that it is unwise to ask them to incur additional expenditure.

^* : I think there is some misapprehension as to the amount of money involved. The entire cost would be somewhere about £2,500, and I would ask if it is worth while for such a sum to prevent children who have left school at an early age from trying to keep up their education for a short time longer.

The sum involved is extremely small, but the amount of good it may do is very great. We all know the enormous advantage it is for children to continue their education after they leave school at an early age, especially where technical instruction is concerned. The cost is an extremely small matter, but the question itself is a most important one, and I trust the Government will re-consider their decision.

(1.0.) The Committee divided: — Ayes 99; Noes 61. —(Div. List, No. 314.)

^* (1.10.) : I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, which is intended to make it clear that managers of schools are free to take or to refuse the fee grant. I believe it will meet with no objection from my right hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, after "evening school," to insert "the managers of which are willing to receive the same and." —( Mr. Talbot. )

^* : I think there can be no doubt that if Sections 1 and 2 are accurately read and understood they will be found to cover the objection of this Amendment. But I can see no possible objection to the proposal, especially as the insertion of the words proposed by my hon. Friend will more clearly emphasise our meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

I now beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, namely, to insert after the word "to," in line 14, the words "management and." The three chief points to which I wish to call attention are these: First of all, the audit of accounts. The hon. Members for Rotherham and Staffordshire have Amendments relating to an independent audit of accounts preceding the free grant. But I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will accept my Amendment. The next point is that the accounts of the schools shall be rendered to the local education authorities, and that copies of those accounts may be had by any persons interested in the schools. The third condition is one which is also embodied in several Amendments which appear upon the Paper. The first of these Amendments is that which appears in the name of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Hobhouse), and the words of that Amendment have pretty much the same effect as mine, namely, that in cases where the fee grant exceeds the present fees of the schools the surplus shall be used to promote increased efficiency. I think it would be scandalous if some restrictions were not laid down to insure that the expenditure of the surplus money should be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the schools, because there can be no doubt whatever that increased efficiency is needed. This has been admitted over and over again by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I think I have on these three points made out my case, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted by the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "to," to insert the words "management and." —( Mr. T. Ellis. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I must point out to the hon. Member and the Committee that if this Amendment is accepted it will have the effect of shutting out the other Amendments on the Paper raising questions as to management.

^* (1.17.) : I am not prepared to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member, and as you, Sir, have indicated the position in which the Committee will be left should this Amendment be accepted, I do not think it necessary to argue the different points that may be urged on the questions involved. I would merely point out that this is a Bill for the relief of the parents from the payment of school fees, and I do not at the present moment propose further to discuss the merits of this question beyond pointing out that, if accepted, it will shut out a further Amendment enabling the surplus beyond the present fees to be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the schools.

I would point out to the Committee that if the words "as to fees" were omitted the difficulty might be met.

I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, because if he does the other Amendments, as I understand your ruling, Mr. Courtney, may be prevented from being put. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council desired that this Amendment should not be pressed, because it would shut out another Amendment, by which the efficiency of the schools would be promoted by the application of any surplus over and above the present fees. We hail that remark of the right hon. Gentleman because we regard it as an indication that he will at least give his serious consideration to that proposal. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

^* (1.20) : I should like to obtain from the Chairman some definite ruling as to whether it will be competent to hon. Members to move the further Amendments upon the Paper if this Amendment should be agreed to?

I thought I had already explained my view upon the matter with sufficient clearness. I had pointed out that if this Amendment were carried it would have the effect of preventing the discussion of other Amendments which are upon the Paper.

Under the circumstances, I will ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.

The question is that leave be given to withdraw this Amendment. [ Cries of "No!"]

^* : If hon. Members opposite refuse to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn it will, under the Chairman's ruling, become necessary to discuss all the points involved in this Amendment, and those which may be shut out by its adoption. It certainly is somewhat inconvenient that upon words of this general character we should be compelled to discuss the questions raised by two or three other Amendments

I hope I may be allowed to appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow this Amendment to be withdrawn. Of course, if they insist on this Amendment being put, we shall feel bound to raise the whole question arising upon it and the other Amendments which it is intended subsequently to introduce. Do the Government intend to shut out the discussion of the other Amendments?

^* : I understand that hon. Members are desirous of arguing the points arising on the other Amendments, and I think, therefore, it would be well if this Amendment were allowed to be withdrawn.

As I understand the matter, if hon. Members opposite persist in forcing on this Amendment, it will involve the shutting out of all the subsequent Amendments which involve the question of management, consequently it will be necessary for us to enter into a general discussion of the whole question of management on this Amendment.

^* : I understand that you, Mr. Courtney, hold that the Amendment before the Committee if carried will supersede the other Amendments relating to the same subject. I think, therefore, it would be advisable if this Amendment were allowed to be withdrawn.

I think that upon the whole that will be the better course.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I have now to move the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper. I think the Committee will see the desirability of accepting this proposal, as it is inevitable that unless the principle it asserts is adopted, the half-timers in the schools will be placed at great disadvantage.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after "Act," to insert, "Where there are children attending school only half time, the average attendance of such children shall, for claiming the fee grant, be calculated in the same manner as for the ordinary grant, that is to say, an attendance of two consecutive hours by a half-time scholar shall be reckoned as an attendance and a half." — ( Mr. Jennings. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* : I may inform the hon. Member that it is my intention at a later stage to introduce a clause which will place the half-timers on the same basis in regard to the fee grant as that upon which they stand in regard to the ordinary annual grant. Undoubtedly as the Bill now stands my hon. Friend has hit a blot. I admit that fully, but my Amendment will, I think, be found to answer the object the hon. Member has in view.

I desire to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment he has indicated, because this halftime question is one of great importance to the schools of the North of England. After this concession I can hardly ask the Government to do more; still I hope they will consider the question with the view of carrying the principle a little further. The halftime schools in the North are as efficient as the full-time schools, and though the children attend only a part of the day, the results achieved are as good as those obtained in the full-time schools. If the average attendance is calculated on the number of days the school is opened, instead of on the times of meeting, the half-time schools will be placed in the same position as those of full time. As the Bill stands, and allowing for the concession just made by the right hon. Gentleman, the halftime schools will sustain heavy loss, and even if they are treated as full-time schools, which on all rational grounds ought to be the case, they will still suffer an appreciable loss.

I understand from the remarks made by the First Lord of the Treasury a short time previously, that the Government have made up their minds that they cannot consent to any further extension of the grant, but practically this Amendment involves a large extension of the grant to the half-time schools, in the North of England chiefly, schools which are the worst supported and the worst staffed in England, and at which the children pay most extravagantly. I cannot, in the circumstances, join in pressing this demand on the Government.

I must protest against the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the half-time schools in the north. They are by no means the worst schools in England; many of them are excellent schools, and produce good results.

I think the explanation offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council is perfectly satisfactory, and in order to give him the opportunity of bringing forward the Amendment he has indicated I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^* (1.33.) : I beg to move the Amendment which appears on the Paper in my name. Its object is a very simple one, but, at the same time, it is of considerable importance. It is to secure in all cases the appropriation of the surplus which will exist in many schools, when the fee grant is paid, to proper educational purposes, and especially to ensure the advancement of education under the New Code in the voluntary schools of the country. This Bill, on the face of it, does very little directly to advance education, although, no doubt, indirectly it may do a great deal. Many of us would be better satisfied with the measure if it bore on the face of it some provision securing greater efficiency in return for the benefits conferred by the grant. In many of the schools there will be a large surplus. There will be a sum amounting to something like 5s. or 6s. per head in the cheapest schools of the country, and I am informed that in the county I have the honour to represent the average amount of surplus will be 4s. per head. What is to become of all this money? Surely it is a matter for the earnest consideration of this House how we are to expend it. Ought we not to make sure that in granting so large an amount we are really securing the permanent advancement of efficient education? This question was raised by several speakers on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I listened with great attention to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Council, on this subject. I do not think that what he said was a complete answer to the arguments advanced. He told us it had been said that in some cases, such as those of the Welsh schools, the managers might even put some of the surplus into their own pockets, and he met that argument effectively by referring the House to the 20th Section of the Act, 1876, under which it was quite clear that no portion of this fee grant would be allowed to go into the managers' pockets. That is true. But, nevertheless, I think there is great danger in the case of those schools which are being starved at the present moment, that the surplus will go into the pockets of the subscribers or into the pockets of the ratepayers. No doubt the subscribers will be very much induced, by the windfall coming to the managers under this Bill, to slacken their subscriptions, and in many parishes where School Boards are conducted on economical principles the ratepayers will insist on the reduction of the rates in consideration of the increased grant, and thus one of the results will be that the poorer schools, both Board and voluntary, will continue to be half-starved at the expense of efficiency. We were further told by the right hon. Gentleman that the requirements of the New Code are such that the whole of the surplus will be absorbed. I quite admit that where the School Board or managers are anxious to do their duty and to increase the efficiency of the schools up to the full extent of the resources that will be the case. But even there I should be glad to have the provision I now propose, in order to make it perfectly clear to the subscribers and the ratepayers that this is what they are bound to do. As the Bill at present stands, however, there is no security, there is not even an indication of the way in which the surplus grant is to be expended. I cannot help thinking that if we are to secure the whole of this money as an additional educational fund throughout the country, we ought to have some provision like that of my Amendment on the face of the Bill. I wish also to say a word or two as to the special advantages that will be derived from this provision by the voluntary schools. The existence of those schools depends on their keeping up a liberal amount of subscriptions. And I think it a most short-sighted policy for the friends of voluntary schools to look merely at the relief which will be afforded to subscribers by this Bill, and not to consider the position in which those schools will be put in the future if the subscribers are induced by the new grant to slacken their subscriptions. My own county of Somerset stands in a peculiarly favourable position in this respect. Our fees average about 6s. per head, and our subscriptions nearly 13s. per head, and I am bound to state that some of my friends think the subscriptions so high that they might be reduced without danger to the schools. I do not think so myself. There are other parts of the country in which a different state of things prevails, and where the subscriptions only amount to 3s., 5s., 6s., 7s., or 8s. per head. I cannot help thinking that if my Amendment is not accepted the subscribers generally throughout the country will be tempted to diminish their exertions, so that their schools will ultimately be placed in a very perilous position. A provision of this kind will strengthen the hands of the good managers and force the hands of the bad managers of the voluntary schools, especially in the rural districts, and thus secure what must be one of the main objects of the Education Department. As to the special form of my clause, that is a comparatively immaterial matter. It provides that the surplus shall be spent in the advancement of education, and the improvement of the schools, and I am quite sure that that is an object which is desired by the right hon. Gentleman. The main objects of the new expenditure will be the improvement of the schools, the provision of special apparatus, the increase of the staff, and the furnishing of means for technical instruction. I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a critical moment in the history of elementary education. The right hon. Gentleman knows what a wonderful effect was produced by the optional clause in an Act of Parliament inserted last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and that under that clause of the Local Taxation Act an immense sum has been voted for the promotion of the objects which, I believe, will confer the greatest benefit upon the country. Great difficulties still exist in carrying out a proper system of technical education, owing to the want of a proper foundation being laid in the elementary schools of the country districts. I believe that the adoption of my Amendment might result in much being done to supply this deficiency. In conclusion, I would call attention to the elasticity of my Amendment. Where the schools are already so efficient that not much more expenditure is required, there will be no necessity for the appropriation of the surplus. We have heard of schools in Birmingham which are supposed to be absolutely efficient. I do not know whether that is so or not, but if there are cases in which the extra money cannot be usefully expended, the Education Department will have power to release such schools from the operation of the clause. Again, where it is desirable to expend money in objects not specifically mentioned in the clause, or in new objects, the Education Department will have power to sanction the appropriation of money to such purposes. I confidently recommend my Amendment to the House, as tending to maintain the school resources and to keep the managers up to the mark, while it will indirectly in the future do much towards helping to maintain the voluntary school system of the country.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after "Act" to insert, "Provided that in the case of any school where the fee grant exceeds the amount received in fees during the school year ended last before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, an annual sum equal to such excess shall (unless the Education Department certify that such expenditure is not necessary or expedient), be expended by the School Board or managers of such school in one or more of the ways following (that is to say): on rebuilding, enlargement, or improvement of the school buildings, the provision of school books, plant, and apparatus, the payment of additional staff or of special teachers for drawing, cookery, laundry work, science, drill, or manual instruction, or for any other proper educational purpose from time to time sanctioned by the Education Department." —( Mr. Hobhouse. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* (1.46) : I have listened with great attention to the speech of the Mover of this Amendment, but I cannot say it has removed in any degree my objections to it. I regard it as superfluous because, as far as I can understand, its object is met in another way, and I also regard it as vexatious, because it forces the Education Department to enter into the consideration of a number of small details, from which it might well be relieved. All the Education Department ought to do is to look at the general efficiency of the Education Department over which it presides. Its main care is to see that the educational expenditure is properly and efficiently applied. The duty of seeing whether schools are properly administered lies upon the Inspectors, and it would be absurd to require the Education Department to consider every small surplus in order to see what ought to be done with it. The great consideration that seems to move hon. Gentlemen opposite is the fear lest any money should go back into the pockets of the subscribers. Why should it not? What evil have the subscribers done that the beneficence they have shown should be converted into what mediæVal Sovereigns call a benevolence — that is to say, a voluntary tax which they must pay? Why do the subscribers to the voluntary schools tax themselves. They do this for three reasons — first, to increase the efficiency of the education given; next, to lighten the burden falling upon the poor; and, thirdly, to secure that efficient education shall also be a religious education. Who are they who have done this? They are not a definite or permanent body which can be perpetually taxed. The mover of the Amendment said the whole incomes of the schools ought to be appropriated to education. But what is the income of the schools? It is a thing on which you cannot count. It is in part the contribution of the shifting body of subscribers which is here to-day and gone to-morrow. Why are we to say they should be continually taxed by the operation of law? They have willingly taxed themselves, and will continue to do so. I do not at all disagree with the hon. Gentleman opposite when he contends that any surplus there may be should be devoted to the purposes of education; but, first of all, it must be a surplus on the real income. Those who have hitherto contributed to voluntary schools will not wish to be relieved until the education provided in those schools is efficient; but when the education is efficient, why should they continue to provide unnecessary funds? I have no doubt that hon. Members on the other side of the House rather wish to get rid of voluntary schools, because their destruction must lead to School Boards. I detest School Boards and all their works if they are to supplant the voluntary schools. If the latter are inefficient, then I would welcome School Boards, because the people must be properly educated. What they ought to do is to give liberally to relieve the poor from that which presses hardly upon them, and to take care that the means of education are as efficient as possible, the schoolhouses good, the attendance sufficient, and the teachers what they ought to be. Any arbitrary attempt to put the hands of Parliament on these surpluses would tend to diminish the money that will be available for education. I should like to tell the Committee how this Amendment will affect the two parishes in Hertfordshire with which I am connected. In the parish of Aldenham the fees are for one child 3d., for two children 3d., and 2d. each for three or more. The average, therefore, is 2½d., so that they would be in the happy position of profiting by the 10s. grant. The schoolhouses, five in number, are very good. They have an endowment of £100 from the Platt Charity a year, of which £30 a year is put aside for the maintenance of the buildings.

The fees were £70 19s. 11d.

^* : And the subscription about £100.

£38 5s.

^* : I think I ought to know the amount. They were about £100.

The hon. Member does not seem to have before him the right figures. According to the last published return, the subscriptions were £38 5s.; the pence, £70 19s.; and there was an endowment of £76.

^* : I still maintain that the subscriptions last year were £101.

The return from which I quoted applied to the year before last.

^* : Last year the subscriptions amounted to £101. The Government grant in the last three years has been £251, £262, and £280, and it seems to show that the schools are maintained in an efficient state. The average number on the books is 390; and the fees average 9s. 2d. for 44 weeks' schooling. The small surplus which the fee grant will give the managers ought to be left to them to spend in the way they think best for the education of the parish, and I do not see why they should not, if they wish, economise one year and use the surplus another year. The circumstances are about the same in an adjoining parish. [ Cries of "Name!"]I will not give the name, and then I cannot be contradicted. The school pence in the parish last year amounted to £59, the subscriptions to £50 17s., and the fee grant will be £62 10s. Therefore in this parish the surplus will be £2 10s. when the new grant is substituted for fees; and the managers will have to sit solemnly to determine what is to be done with this surplus if the Amendment is carried. I will not say anything now about the religious difficulty except to remark that in this parish no such difficulty at all has arisen as to the Con-science Clause—

Order, order!

^* : I apologise for transgressing the rules. I will say no more on the point. I hope Parliament will not enter into these details, but will leave managers to do what they deem to be best in the interest of education. The less interference we have in these small matters the better it will be for the schools. I thank the House for extending to me that indulgence it always accords to new Members.

^* (2.5.) : I wish to make an appeal to the Committee. It would be inconvenient and quite opposed to the plan of the Bill to introduce this Amendment into the clause. I recognise the full right of the House to consider the main question raised, which I understand to be the application of any surplus for the benefit of a school, and to secure that the schools shall be really efficient. I think it will be more convenient to consider that question on the subsequent proposals of the right hon. Members for Leeds and the Brightside Division of Sheffield. The present Amendment is encumbered with details which would make it difficult to carry out; and it would, therefore, be better to consider the question on the later Amendments.

I wish to join in the request to the hon. Member to withdraw the present Amendment, reserving his right, if he thinks fit, to bring up a new clause on the subject. I must, however, protest against a doctrine that has just been laid down by the hon. Member for the City of London. I cannot conceive any argument more disastrous to voluntary schools than the argument that the Bill is a Bill for the relief of subscribers. It is not for that reason that the Bill has been accepted by the House. The supporters of voluntary schools are prepared not to diminish, but to increase, their subscriptions, and it is not likely the taxpayers of this country will consent to pay £2,000,000 a year simply to relieve the supporters of voluntary schools of the necessity of continuing their subscriptions. I do hope that it will not be thrown in our faces that the supporters of voluntary schools accept the Bill as one of relief to themselves. That, I think, is a most unhappy argument.

^* : A strong appeal has been made to me, but I think I have a right to complain of the manner in which I have been treated. This is the first speech I have made on the Bill, and, as I was anxious to economise the time of the Government, I put my arguments as briefly as possible. Several weeks ago I laid the matter before the Vice President of the Council, who, I understood, agreed to consider the matter, yet I am to have no explanation of the views of the Government. No indication is given whether the Government intend to accept or reject the principle embodied in the clause, and we do not know when the matter can be again discussed.

^* : The hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me. When he showed me the Amendment some time ago, I made a careful note of the arguments he advanced in support of it. I did not, however, give any pledge, but only said that the subject was a fair one for discussion. I was prepared to go minutely into the point; but the leader of the House, in the interest of the progress of the Bill, intervened and shut out any further remarks I might have made. The question, however, will be more fully discussed on subsequent Amendments. I may say I am not prepared to accept this Amendment.

^* : As I said just now, the Government recognise it is only reasonable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this question, and that can be done best on the Amendments of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Leeds and Sheffield.

^* : I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. The matter is too complex to be discussed at this stage, and my hon. Friend will not be placed at any disadvantage by adopting this course, and bringing up his Amendment as an alternative new clause, to be discussed with others on the Paper.

^* : In deference to the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, I think the Government ought to have replied to me on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I wish to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Order, order! The words at the beginning of the Amendment, "for these and all other purposes," are quite inadmissible. The Amendment must be restricted to the purposes of this Bill.

I will adopt your suggestion, Sir, and substitute the words "for any purposes connected with this Bill and other Educational Acts."

Order, order!

Very well, Sir, I will alter the words so as to run "for the purposes of this Bill." My object is to equalise the fees payable throughout a child's educational life, and to enable the managers of both voluntary and Board schools in which fees are payable to charge the same fee for infants as they can for more advanced pupils. Let me give one case as an illustration. There is a school with three departments. For the infants 3d. a week is now charged, for the juniors 4d., and for the seniors 6d. Under this Bill the infants will be educated free, the juniors will have to pay ld., and the seniors 3d.; but I want to enable the managers, if they think fit, to make a uniform charge in all departments. I desire to take away all inducement to parents to withdraw their children from school in consequence of the fees being increased as they grow older. These higher fees ought not to be imposed at the time the chill becomes more costly to feed and clothe, and, therefore, I would give the school managers the power to charge a uniform fee in all classes. This question affects Board and voluntary schools alike, and I trust the Government will accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after "Act," to insert "and for the purposes of this Act any public elementary school in which there is more than one department may, at the option of the managers of said school, mean an 'elementary school,' notwithstanding the definition given in Clause one of 'The Education Act, 1870,' whereby each separate department of a school is defined as an elementary school.'" —( Mr. Sinclair. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* (2.20.) : I think I can shortly show my hon. Friend that the object he has in view can be attained under the Bill as at present framed. I fear that an answer I gave recently to a question as to how far a department can be considered a school in itself has induced him to propose this Amendment, but I may point out to him that it is the practice of the Education Department to deal with the income of a school as a whole, and therefore it will be quite possible for managers to equalise the fees. I do not, at the same time, think that advisable, because the Bill is founded on the principle of the relative payment of fees, and maintaining the relative position of fees in each department.

Do I understand that if this Amendment is withdrawn it will be possible under the Bill to equalise the fees? I will net go into the question whether it is advisable.

^* : Certainly.

That being the case, I have no wish to press the Amendment.

^* : The Bill will not prevent the equalisation of fees, but it discourages the adoption of such a course.

On the understanding that it will be possible for the managers of such a school as I have referred to to charge an all-round fee, instead of differ- entiating the charges, I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (2.25.)

rose to move —

In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert "Provided that no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in any school receiving the fee grant."

I rise to order. I notice that this Amendment would strike out of the operations of the Bill 14,784 schools. The total number of schools dealt with is 19,498. Consequently, if the Amendment is passed, it will strike out approximately three-fourths of the whole of the schools dealt with. I submit that such an Amendment is in contravention of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded.

That is not a point of order. It is entirely in the discretion of the Committee.

I think it right to avail myself of this opportunity of raising a protest against the sectarian character of much of the education given in our public elementary schools. This Amendment is taken verbatim, so far at any rate as the first part of it is concerned, from Section 14 of the Act of 1870, which is known as the Cowper-Temple Clause. That section reads as follows: —

"Every school provided by a School Board shall be conducted under the control and management of such Board in accordance with the following regulations:—

"(1.) The school shall be a public elementary school within the meaning of this Act.

"(2.) No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school."

This, then, is the present law in School Board schools, and what I propose is to put denominational schools and School Board schools on a footing of equality so far as the teaching of a distinctive religious catechism or formulary is concerned. In other words, I propose to make it illegal to teach during the school hours any religious catechism or any religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination. What is the ground upon which I base my contention? It is that by this Bill you are materially altering the character of the so-called voluntary schools. When this Bill is passed you may call these schools, if you like, denominational schools, but you will have no right whatever to call them voluntary schools. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) appeared, the other night, to think that anyone who uttered such a sentiment as this must be either a platform agitator or a partisan orator. Is the hon. Gentleman aware who is the author of that opinion? Does he know that it dates back to the year 1876, and that the author is no other person than the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington)? Speaking on the consideration of Lord Sandon's Bill in 1876, the noble Marquess said that the clause releasing managers from the obligation to meet the Parliamentary Grant with an equal local income—

"Altogether abandons the principle hitherto adopted by Parliament, that assistance should be given to denominational schools only in proportion to the voluntary contributions. It is now no longer a necessary condition that voluntary support should be given. In fact, the word 'voluntary' ought in this matter now to disappear altogether. They are denominational schools, but they are not voluntary schools."

If that statement was true, as it no doubt was true, in 1876, it is still more true to-day. The voluntary contributions to so-called voluntary schools have not increased in the interval. If you consider the number of children in these schools the contributions have diminished rather than increased, because I find that the voluntary contributions to Church of England schools amounted in 1876 to 9s. 6d. per head, whereas in the year 1889 they had fallen to 6s. 11d. per head. Hon. Gentlemen are no doubt aware that there are a great number of these so-called voluntary schools without a single penny of voluntary contributions. There are 1,176 of such schools, and there are 548 schools, not only without voluntary contributions, but without a single penny of endowment either. When this Bill becomes law these so-called voluntary schools will really be schools maintained almost entirely out of the Public Purse. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton showed the other night 56 per cent. of the income of the voluntary schools is now provided by the State; and he demonstrated beyond the possibility of contradiction that when this Bill is passed not 56 per cent., but 78 per cent. of their income would come from the National Exchequer. These schools call themselves national. All I ask is that we should make them national in reality as well as in name. I propose, then, to exclude from publicly supported schools the teaching of sectarian catechisms. Some hon. Gentlemen may, perhaps, ask what objection there is to the Church of England Catechism being taught in our national schools. I will not go into the question whether it is wise to endeavour to indoctrinate the minds of young children with particular theological opinions, and I will not ask why we should attempt to teach children of tender years what many grown-up men profess their inability to comprehend. I take the two first questions and answers in the Church of England Catechism—

"Q. What is your name? — A. M. or N.

Q. Who gave you this name? —A. My Godfathers and Godmothers in my baptism" —

I think that that is an improper Catechism to teach in schools attended by the children of Baptist parents. Such children have not been baptised at all, and they are puzzled when they have to give an answer to the question, "Who gave you this name?" and are taught to say in reply, "My Godfathers and Godmothers in my baptism." The Baptists are a numerous body in this country. In the year 1888 in Great Britain and Ireland they had 3,745 chapels and 1,865 pastors. The members numbered 324,498, and Sunday scholars 482,167. In 10,000 rural parishes the children of Baptists are obliged to attend Church of England schools. There are, no doubt, a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who think it is right to continue the use of the Church of England Catechism, but who, at the same time, object to what is called an "unauthorised Catechism," and if any hon. Gentleman will propose an Amendment which will forbid the teaching of an unauthorised Catechism I shall have great pleasure in supporting him. I think this might easily be done. We might give to the Education Department power to prohibit the use in a public elementary school of an unauthorised Catechism. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) called attention to the Catechism compiled by the Rev. Mr. Gace, which was published for use in parochial schools, and which has gone through a considerable number of editions. It has been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who said it ought to be impossible that such teaching should be given in public elementary schools, but it has been condemned by a still higher authority on religious questions than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham — the Archbishop of Canter-bury. On March 9, 1889, the Archbishop wrote the following letter to the Rev. R. F. Horton, M.A.: —

"I am much obliged to you for your letter of the 7th inst. The question of this 'Catechism,' which appears to emanate from a small parish in Essex, has already been more than once brought to my notice, and I have in each case replied that it was a most unjust and uncharitable document."

I think hon. Gentlemen will quite agree with that description: it is a most unjust and uncharitable document —

"I am glad to assure you that it in no way represents the mind of the Church of England, whether her greatest theologians of the past or her leaders of the present day are called as witnesses. I venture to say there is hardly a clergyman of any weight whatever — certainly no Bishop — who would endorse the intolerant statements to which you have drawn attention."

The Archbishop concludes —

"I cannot but think that the circulation which it is said to have attained must be largely due to the notice which, as I hear, some of the society papers and many indignant pulpits have bestowed upon it."

Well, I think we shall all agree in condemning Mr. Gace's Catechism as an "unjust and uncharitable document," and, if we are so agreed, surely the wisdom of the House can find a remedy for an admitted grievance. Surely we may now in Committee, or, if not now, on Report stage, devise some Amendment which will make it impossible in future to teach this obnoxious Catechism. There is another Catechism to which, a short time ago, I ventured to draw the attention of the Vice President of the Council — the Catechism of the "Church Extension Association." There are two of these Catechisms — the "First" and "Second," and on the title-page of the copy of the First Catechism I hold in my hand I find printed "115th thousand," so that it seems that this catechism is taught in a considerable number of schools, subject to the control or under the management of "The Church Extension Association." I ventured a while ago to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President whether he was aware that this Catechism was taught in any of our public elementary schools, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember some of the questions and answers in this Second Catechism of the Church Extension Association. Let me quote one or two —

"Q. What are those who separate from the Church of England commonly called? —A. Dissenters.

Q. Are there different sorts of Dissenters? — A. Yes. Baptists, Independents, Quakers, and many others.

Q. Is it wrong to join in the worship of Dissenters? —A. Yes. We should only attend places of worship which belong to the Church of England.

Q. Why? —A. Because it is the branch of the true Church which God has placed in this land."

Now, since I put my question to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject I find that another edition has been published, "carefully revised and corrected," the passage to which I called attention having been revised and corrected accordingly. I am not sure that the revised edition is any improvement on the original; but, in order that I may be perfectly fair in the matter, perhaps I had better read the revised version of the Catechism—

"Q. Is it not, then, very dangerous to leave the Church? —A. Yes; and it is also a very grievous sin.

Q. What is this sin called? —A. Schism, or division.

Q. Are we warned against this sin in the Bible? —A. Yes. St. Paul tells us to mark them which cause divisions, and to avoid them

Q. What does St. Jude say? —A. 'These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit.'

Q. Is it wrong to forsake the services of the Church of England?"

The answer, of course, is in the affirmative. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President told me he was not aware that this Catechism was taught in any public elementary school, and, of course, I know very well that it is not the duty of the Department to inform itself on the subject. I know that by Section 7 of the Act of 1870 it is provided that a public elementary school shall be open at all times to the Inspector, so, however, that it shall be no part of the duty of such Inspector to inquire into instruction in any religious subject given in such school, or examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or belief; but perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman in his inquiries if he is at all disposed to make inquiry on the subject. This Catechism, as I have said, is published by the Church Extension Association, and I will read to the right hon. Gentleman a list of the schools for which this Church Extension Association has made itself responsible. The list is taken from the official journal of the Association, called Our Work, and I quote from the copy of June 1, 1891 —

"Some of our friends are interested in the schools for which the Church Extension Association has made itself responsible. Of these there are in London: The St. Augustine's Schools, Kilburn (girls and infants), number on the books 1,400; Gordon Memorial School, West Kilburn (boys, girls, and infants), 900; Wilberforce Memorial, West Kilburn (girls and infants), 500; Princess Frederica, College Park, Willesden (boys, girls, and infants), 800; Princess Frederica, Willesden, upper grade school (girls and infants), 90; Keble Memorial Schools, Harlesden (boys, girls, and infants), 600; People's College, upper grade (girls and infants), 140; Waterloo College, Kensal Green, upper grade, 100; Old Palace, Croydon, upper grade, 180; St. Gabriel's, Bromley, 80. Then in the Provinces: Nottingham, All Saints' School (boys, girls, and infants), 190; Salisbury, George Herbert Schools (girls and infants), 240; York, upper grade school, 140."

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiry whether the First or Second Catechism is used in these schools for which the Church Extension Association has made itself responsible. When Mr. Forster introduced the Education Bill in 1870, he prepared a Memorandum to be submitted to the Cabinet of that day, and in that Memorandum Mr. Forster used a remarkable sentence. "It would not be fair to tax a Roman Catholic to teach Methodism." Now, I hold that if it is unfair to tax a Roman Catholic to teach Methodism, it is equally unfair to tax a Dissenter for the purpose of teaching in a public elementary school to the maintenance of which Dis- senters contribute that "Dissent is schism and a sin." I said at the outset I did not wish to detain the Committee at any length. I am advocating not that religion should be excluded from public elementary schools, but that sectarianism should be excluded from these schools. We sometimes hear that School Boards are irreligious bodies, but I find from the Majority Report of the Royal Commission that out of 2,225 School Boards in England and Wales, only seven in England dispense with religious instruction, and only 50 in Wales. As to Wales, the Commissioners say—

"Those Boards which shut out direct religious teaching are, for the most part, in Wales, where the Sunday school system most powerfully affects the population."

To sum up. I have been arguing not in favour of excluding religious teaching from our public elementary schools, but that sectarian catechisms, and especially these unauthorised catechisms, should be excluded from our schools. I say, in conclusion, let us banish sectarianism, and thus make it possible for true religion — pure and undefiled — to exert its natural and beneficent sway ever the minds, and hearts, and consciences of men.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after the word "Act,' to insert the words "Provided that no religious catechism, or religious formulary, which is distinctive of any particular denomination, shall be taught in any school receiving the fee grant." —( Mr. Summers. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I venture to suggest as an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend to omit the words—

"Which is distinctive of any particular nomination,"

and to add the following words: —

"Except (a) in the case of schools belonging to the Church of England, such catechism or formularies as are authorised by law; (b) in the case of schools belonging to other religious communions, such catechism and formularies as are, or may be, hereafter authorised by the proper authority of the Church, denomination, or congregation to which the school belongs."

Let me point out exactly what is my intention, and the object of my Amendment. It would mean that the forms recognised in the Act of Uniformity, the Prayer Book, the recognised formularies of the Church of England, might be used in Church of England schools; and with regard to schools outside the Church managed by members of Nonconformist denominations, for my own part I think that the words I have suggested are sufficient for the purpose. Of course, there are various Church organisations among Nonconformists. The Presbyterians have a body to whom authority is delegated, and among Congregationalists each congregation is a law unto itself. All I am anxious to do is to protect the children attending our national schools from the unauthorised intrusion, by the mere caprice of particular managers, clerical or other, of Catechisms and formularies such as those which have been mentioned, and which are evidently abhorrent to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on either side. My Amendment, as hon. Members will agree, would not interfere with any religious instruction given in conformity with the recognised convictions of the various religious denominations. But it has been said to me, "Why, you are recognising the propriety of having Catechisms and formularies in schools." No, I am not recognising anything of the kind. All that I desire to do is to exclude certain unauthorised documents, Catechisms, and formularies. There is nothing in my Amendment to provide that Catechisms and formularies shall be used. All I wish to do is to correct one abuse. I cannot do away with all abuses in this connection. I wish to make my position quite clear. I am, and I ever have been since I have thought on the subject of national education, distinctly and emphatically in favour of excluding all theological teaching whatever from the schools of the nation. I would have morality taught, but not theology, though I have no objection to religious teaching in its proper place and time. I must guard myself against the imputation of being an opponent of religious teaching. I suggest secular instruction in schools, not because I am opposed to religion at all, but because I, with many others, believe that, religion cannot properly be taught except where the children expect to receive such instruction from the hands of those to whom parents send their children for the purpose. That is what I mean by religious instruction at the proper time and place; and if any hon. Member does me the honour to criticise my proposal, I hope he will not assume, what I can assure him is not the fact, that I am opposed to all religious instruction. For many reasons it is better to exclude such teaching from our public elementary schools, but I wish emphatically to deprecate any hostility to religious teaching in itself, and I wish further to say in regard to the sentiments of those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church that though I shall be obliged to allude to certain practices of that Church which it is sought to introduce into our national schools, and to protest against them, I do not wish for a moment to express the slightest disrespect for those of the Roman Catholic Church who entertain opinions differing from my own as to practices they consider proper to the profession of Christianity. I hope I have made my position clear, but I do insist that parents ought to know what they are to expect when compelled by law to send their children to school. We have no right — no moral right, whatever may be the legal right of Parliament — we have no moral right to pass a law compelling the attendance of children at school, leaving it quite uncertain as to what religious influences the children shall there be subjected to, leaving to the caprice of managers or teachers what doctrines or superstitions they may impart to the children. Parents should know what teaching their children receive, and they cannot know unless you lay down restrictions, outside of which instruction shall not travel. Here is a fair opportunity for laying down such limitations. We are now making a large increase in the amount of public money given to public elementary schools, and I maintain that on this ground alone some concession should be made to the growing feeling that more respect should be shown than has been the case hitherto to the consciences of parents of children who are particularly affected by the management of these schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has given illustrations of the dangers to which children are exposed in these schools. My right hon. Friend paused in his citations, and said he would not quote some of the answers in that Catechism in relation to certain sacred observances. Why not? This House is in the position of supreme authority over these schools, and in a great measure we are responsible for what is taught there. Why should not the House be informed of what is taught in the schools, for the management of which we are responsible? We are bound to make ourselves acquainted with the facts. When my right hon. Friend quoted from the Catechism which he said was in use in schools, he was b challenged to say where it was used. Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has given a list of schools under the authority of the Church Extension Association, publishers of the Catechism to which he has referred. It is evident that the Catechism is extensively used, for this, I see, is marked the 115th thousand. Now, I say this: that this "First Catechism" and "Second Catechism" and the "Manual," all forming part of a series issued by the Association managing those schools to which my hon. Friend has referred— all these books betray an insidious design to lead children and young people under their influence to the practice of auricular confession, which I take it is generally deprecated by Protestant public opinion in this country. Having said so much, I am bound to give proof of my statement. In the First Catechism intended for very young children we find these questions and answers—

"To whom has God given authority to pronounce absolution?— To His priests.

How should we obtain absolution?— By confessing our sins.

What is to confess our sins?— To tell them one by one."

Now, that may appear laughable to some hon. Members, and it would be amusing enough if we could put out of sight altogether the kind of corrupting influence produced on young minds by such teaching. Then in the Second Catechism we find this—

"What is necessary before we can receive absolution?— Repentance."

Very true, no doubt.

"What are the three parts of repentance? —Contrition, confession, and satisfaction."

Then, farther on we find—

"What is confession of sins? — To tell them one by one.

Would it be wrong to keep back anything? —Yes, it would be a very grievous sin."

Then in the Manual which is put into the hands of children we find in the preface, "Go to confession as often as your clergyman advises you." Then we find in the book the introductory form of confession, and the penitent is instructed to say—

"I confess before the whole company of Heaven and to you, I have sinned in thought, in word, in deed."

Now, I say again, I have not a word of disrespect towards those who are members of the Church which teaches these practices; they have my profoundest respect; but we are speaking in reference to a Church supposed to deprecate such practices, or, at any rate, all parents who send their children to these Church schools believe that such practices are inconsistent with the doctrines and formularies of the Church of England. Why, I ask, should we by our legislation compel children to attend schools with the risk of being subjected to such teachings, which are known to be objectionable to the majority of our countrymen, with no control or safeguard except the miserable Conscience Clause, which is known to be inoperative? I believe the majority of the House object to. these things. Why, then, not make some. Amendment in the Bill to exclude these objectionable practices? Hon. Gentlemen laugh and sneer, not, I know, at these sacred things alluded to, but because they think we are incompetent to deal with these matters. Individually, perhaps, we are; but we are sent here to represent the views of electors, and those views I express. They protest against the present state of bondage under which Nonconformist children suffer, especially in rural districts, and I think the least we can ask is that Parliament should make this trifling concession in order that while proper and authorised religious teaching may be given, unauthorised, capricious, and offensive Catechisms and formularies shall be imperiously excluded from the schools we are called upon to support.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,

To leave out the words "distinctive of any particular denomination," in order to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words "except (a) in the case of schools belonging to the Church of England, such catechism or formularies as are authorised by law; (b) in the case of schools belonging to other religious communions, such catechism and formularies as are, or may be, hereafter authorised by the proper authority of the Church, denomination, or congregation to which the school belongs." —( Mr. Picton. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'distinctive of any particular denomination' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

I rise to appeal to my hon. Friends not to press their Amendments on the consideration of the Committee. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester raises the whole of what is called the religious difficulty, and anybody who has had anything to do with the discussion of this matter during the last 20 years knows what the religious difficulty means. It was the great subject of discussion in 1870. I am not going to enter upon that question now; my views have been fully expressed; but I would ask the hon. Member for Leicester to remember that this is now the month of July, and to consider whether it is possible for this House to enter now upon a discussion of the religious question with any hope of the Bill passing into law this Session. I confess that I think it is not, but this Amendment raises the whole of that question. As far as we who sit on this Bench are concerned, we have put forward our views on the Instruction which was moved to the effect that protection should be given by popular representation against what might be considered by any section of the community improper religious teaching. I do not desire to enter into any detail or any argument on this subject; but I would appeal to my hon. Friends, in the interests of the passing of the Bill, not to insist upon the prolongation of a Debate of this character.

I do not deny that there is considerable force in the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that at this period of the Session it is inopportune to enter into the religious aspect of this question. But if that is the case, the Government themselves are to blame for it. A large portion of the early part of the Session was taken up in discussing a measure connected with religion—a Tithes Bill, which was brought forward and passed by the Government mainly in the interests of the Church of England; and if we find ourselves now in the month of July without time to discuss the various aspects of this Bill, it is only right that the blame should be put on the proper shoulders. For my own part, I thank the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Summers), although it may be that the time is inopportune, for bringing forward this grievance. Only two years ago the Government conceded this very security now asked for in the Technical Instruction Bill, in which it was found necessary to make provision to safeguard those who do not belong to the dominant body who may control the schools in which technical education is taught. And in Mr. Forster's Bill Parliament inserted a provision in the case of Board schools similar to that now proposed by the Member for Huddersfield. Now, when we are altering the character of the voluntary schools by making them State-supported schools, it is only reasonable to expect that these safeguards shall be extended to the denominational establishments. If this is not the moment to raise the question, I hope that every Member sitting on the Liberal side of the House will at least assent to the proposition and determine that on the first occasion the attention of Parliament can be brought to bear on this question it shall be their solemn duty to insist that an end shall be put to the wrongs, injustice, and oppression which exist under the present system. It has been made manifest by the action of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House that they are interested in the continuance of the teaching of the doctrines of the Church of England in these schools. That cannot be disputed. It is the desire of the National Society that the poor of this country shall be educated in the doctrines of the Church of England, and it is a remarkable fact that while in the course of this Debate hon. Gentlemen opposite are dumb when any proposition affecting education pure and simple is brought forward, when anything affecting the interests of the Church of England is mentioned they seem to regard it as their bounden duty to join in the fray, and defend what they call "the ancient rights" of that great religious and political corporation. I ask is the House of Commons so concerned in maintaining the privileges of the Church of England as to allow the injustice and oppression which the children of so large a body of the Queen's subjects now suffer under? I am proud to be able to stand here and defend the rights, of the poor and the weak in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] The Member for Oxford (Mr. Talbot) does not like to hear these observations. I have sat opposite to him while I have been in the House, and I must say that the hon. Gentleman has been a very zealous, if an unwise, defender of the privileges of the Church. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he has been fighting a retreating battle, while I am proud to say that the cause with which I have been associated is gaining strength. [ Laughter and Opposition cheers. ] Yes; the Church of England and the Political Party connected with it have been forced to make concession after concession. I cannot agree with the Amendment of the Member for Leicester. I do not believe it is for the House of Commons to sanction any particular form of religious teaching, which may be considered to be the case if they exclude one in favour of another. I hope that that Amendment will not be pressed; but if the Member for Huddersfield goes to a Division, I hope he will be supported, if only as a protest against maintaining a course of injustice and oppression in elementary schools.

As this question of the Church Catechism is to the front on this Amendment, I hope I may be allowed to take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield a question with regard to the Catechism of which we heard something two days ago. The sentiments with regard to Nonconformists expressed in the questions and answers read out by the right hon. Gentleman have caused great pain and grief to almost every Member on this side of the House, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can state in how many schools the Catechism is used for daily instruction, Or what authority he has for stating that it is in very large use? For my own part, from inquiries which I have made and information which I have received, I believe that the circulation is not anything like that which has been stated.

^* (3.45.) : I at once respond to the inquiry the hon. Baronet has addressed to me. I referred to two Catechisms the other night. The author of the particular Catechism from which I quoted was the Rev. F. A. Gace, vicar of Great Barling, Essex. The edition from which I quoted—it was published a year or two ago—was the twelfth edition. That fact indicates pretty clearly that the Catechism has a circulation, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield pointed out a circulation indicates that the Catechism is not printed simply for the purpose of being put into the waste paper basket. If it is put into circulation I think it is safe to infer that it is used. I distinctly said that my statement the other night was made on the authority of the responsible head of the Wesleyan Educational Department in this country, who authorised me to state that of his own knowledge he knew that this Catechism was in use, and in extensive use, in various parts of the Kingdom.

In day schools?

^* : The whole purpose was in reference to day schools. We were talking about day schools and day schools exclusively when the information was conveyed to me. I simply stated the broad fact that this Catechism was in circulation. The other Catechism to which I referred I said was in its 157th thousand. I said it was in use in various parts of the Kingdom; but I say that even supposing such a Catechism is only in use in a very small district, that district has a right to complain. I may be allowed to express my grateful acknowledgments to gentlemen of all shades of religious opinion in this House, and especially to laymen of the Church of England, for unanimously repudiating that Catechism. I quite accept that repudiation, and I believe it will do more to put a stop to the use of such a Catechism than perhaps any other instrumentality.

^* (3.49.) : For pity's sake let us proceed with the Bill. In this Debate we have had a sufficient illustration of what might have happened had Her Majesty's Government proposed to introduce the religious element into the Bill. The hon. Member was perfectly candid when he said that this was a subject on which he felt strongly, and that he brought it forward simply as a protest, and not for the purpose of dividing the House upon it. The hon. Member has made his protest, and I do hope he will be satisfied with the discussion. For my own part, I must refuse altogether to enter into the merits of the question. I was a Member of the House in 1870, and I remember the tortuous Debates we had then on the religious question. I am confident of this—that the Member for Derby has done good service in the promotion of the Bill in having urged the Committee to at once proceed with other matters. I will add one word with reference to these unhappy documents, the Catechisms. It is perfectly obvious that the Catechism quoted by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton contains matter which any sensible man, any just or liberal-minded man, in the House or elsewhere, must repudiate, and, as far as I am concerned, I consider that a better document for the promotion of dissent in this country it is impossible to find. We shall find out by-and-bye, after the lurid glare that has been thrown upon it by these Debates, to what extent it has been circulated. I have been pressed on the question of these Catechisms and urged to instruct the Inspectors to see that they are not used. I think it is well-known with regard to the Department that they are absolutely shut out from dealing with the religious question. Both in the Act of Parliament and in the Code Inspectors are expressly enjoined not to meddle in religious matters. If there is any influence which I can bring to bear by any possible means to put a stop to the evil which must be created by such a Catechism as the one referred to I will gladly use it.

[ Cries of "Divide!"]: I thank my hon. Friend for making this protest, but I hope he will go to a Division. [ Cries of "Divide!" and interruption. ] I have not had an opportunity in Committee of saying a word on behalf of Welsh Dissenters. I think hon. Members on the other side of the House—men whom I respect for their religious opinion just as I respect my fellow countrymen for theirs—will appreciate the position of a, representative like myself when I tell them that in my own constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan there are 30 parishes in which there is no school but; a Church of England school, although four out of five of the children who attend them are the children of Dissenters. These children are bound, under stress of the regulations, day after day in school, before the real work of education begins, to listen to the Catechism of the Church of England. [ Cries of "Divide!"] The Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield would, to a great extent, satisfy the grievances of the Welsh Dissenters, and would get rid of the religious difficulty if the hon. Member would consent to an Amendment. I would suggest that he should add at the end the words—

"No formula, catechism of the Church of England or any sectarian catechism shall be read in public elementary schools which accept the fee grant except during one hour out of the school course."

I believe the Welsh Members would be to a large extent, satisfied if those words were added, especially if it were stipulated that no child should join in the religious instruction, except at the written request of the parent. If the hon. Member for Leicester will withdraw his unfortunate Amendment, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield will add these words, I think his proposal will be acceptable, at any rate, to the Welsh Members.

I understand that the hon. Member for Huddersfield intends to go to a Division. I intend to vote against him, and I should like to explain why. The hon. Member for West Bradford is perfectly consistent. He represents the Liberation Society, and what may be called aggressive Nonconformity. Under these circumstances, he is perfectly consistent in subordinating the interests of education to the interests with which he is especially charged. That would be the effect of the Amendment, and it is on that account that I shall oppose it. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield is really an Amendment against the principle of the Bill, and in another form brings up the issue which was raised by the proposed Instruction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. That Instruction, if carried, would have led to making all the voluntary schools School Board schools. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield requires all voluntary schools to behave as if they were School Board schools, and to give up the denominational teaching, which is, in fact, the chief reason why they have been separately established. If that Amendment were carried, the Government could not, without a breach of faith towards its own supporters and the managers of the denominational schools, continue the Bill. It would be fatal to free education, and on that ground I shall vote against it. The Amendment upon the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester is not open to the same objection, but it appears to have no friends whatever. As has been pointed out, the hon. Member is compromising great Nonconformist principles. He directs his Amendment against some particular Catechisms, which are not only sectarian, but personally offensive. It is the opinion of the House that the Catechism edited by Mr. Gace is personally offensive to a large number of Nonconformists— [Ministerialist Members: And Churchmen]— and I should add Churchmen; and we have it on the authority of the acting head of the Education Department that if he had the power he would discourage the use of it in day schools. Well, I think it would be possible hereafter by a short clause to give to the Department some discretion or power to deal with a Catechism of this kind, but the argument does not apply to a Catechism which is simply sectarian. The teaching in a Wesleyan school is just as sectarian to me as that in a Church of England school is to a Wesleyan, or that in a Roman Catholic school to a Protestant, but the objection which I think we have a right to take to the Catechism in question is that it is unnecessarily offensive to a large number of our fellow-subjects. For these reasons I shall vote both against the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment. The matter of the particular Catechism, as I have already pointed out, may with propriety be dealt with at a later stage.

I beg to withdraw the Amendment, my purpose having been served by the discussion. I had thought it would be acceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as to hon. Gentlemen on this side. It is not, and all I can say is that it is the very first attempt I have ever made at a compromise on this matter, and I certainly shall take care that it will be the last.

Anendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

(4.5.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 90; Noes 195. —(Div. List, No. 315.)

^* (4.15.) : The question dealt with in the Amendment of which I have given notice is, I hope, not a burning question—at any rate, not in the way I propose to treat it. I would remind the Committee that the original grant from the Imperial Treasury had to be equalled by the amount from the local resources. But in the year 1876 that was in some degree infringed upon, and it was laid down that the amount from the Public Treasury should not exceed whichever was the greater of the two sums—the grant from local resources or the 17s. 6d. per head. It comes to this: Whereas the cost of denominational schools is about 36s. per head, and in Board Schools 45s. per head, the grant from the Imperial Treasury will be about 27s. in the first case and 28s. in the second. That is to say, the amount to be raised by local resources will be left entirely to subscriptions and endowments or to rates. What is the amount raised from local resources? It is rather remarkable that in 1865 the amount in Church of England schools was 7s. 8d.; in 1870, 7s. 6d.; 1875, 8s. 9d.; 1880, 7s. 10d.; 1885, 7s. 2d.; and in 1887, 7s. From 1865 the amount has been, on the whole, diminishing, while the amount of fees in the same time has risen from 7s. 10d. to 10s. 8d. per child, and the amount from the Imperial Treasury has risen from 7s. 5d. to 16s. 6d. We are actually now in this condition: that the Imperial Treasury is going to give 27s. out of 36s., and the remainder only is to be made up by the school pence and by voluntary subscriptions. I do not on the present occasion say a word against voluntary schools, though my own conviction is strongly in favour of having education under School Board management. I only urge denominational schools, in their own as well as the public interest, to take care that the name by which they have been recognised shall continue to be a real living name. It is not desirable in any way that these schools should exist all over the country without having surrounding them a body of persons really taking an active part in their maintenance and progress. That, I contend, is demanded by the interests both of the public and of the persons concerned with these schools, that they should not only take a share in administering the endowments left by their forefathers, but show their faith in the denominational principle by their work and subscriptions. I have taken the amount of 7s. I propose that if the amount of subscriptions is not equal to 7s. that the grant shall be reduced below 10s., exactly in the same proportion; that is to say, if they do not contribute 7s. the grant shall be reduced; and if they only contribute 6s. the grant shall be reduced to 9s., and if they contribute only 5s. the grant shall be reduced to Ss. The Committee will have observed that 7s. is now the average amount in the Church of England schools, the average for denominational schools being, I think, 6s. 7d. Now, is there any necessity for putting this clause in the Bill? I find that in Birmingham the voluntary contribution is 5s. 3¾d.; in Bradford, 2s. 11¾d.; Bristol, 3s. 10½d.; Hull, 6s. 8¼d.; Leeds, 4s. 0½d.; Liverpool, 3s. ld.; London, 9s. O¼d.; Manchester, 4s. 7d., and so on. In Brighton it is 11s.7½but all the others are comparatively small. Preston, of which we have heard so much, is only 4s. l¾d. These figures are for the year 1884–85. I imagine the figures are substantially the same in the present year. A consider-able number of voluntary schools, especially in the North of England the large towns, are supported mainly by school pence and the grant. I de not believe that the majority on the other side of the House will think that sound or wise. I do not think they will hold that it is desirable either on the ground of the public interest or on the ground of their particular denominations that there should be, as it were, excepted from the general run of public management certain schools. which are to depend on a large gift from the Public Treasury, and very little, indeed, on voluntary subscriptions. The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) referred to the case of Darwen. By the Mundella Return I make the voluntary subscriptions there to be 3s. a head, and when he urges an increased grant I cannot help thinking that he ought to recognise as far more suitable that he should urge those in the district which he represents to show their faith in the principles they adopt by subscribing liberally in support of their schools. If they do not they must either diminish the efficiency of their schools or put the deficit upon the school pence. If I were specially anxious to destroy voluntary schools I should urge them as much as they could to add to the school pence. Surely it would be wiser on the part of those who are in favour of voluntary schools to try to increase the efficiency of their schools by urging their neighbours to contribute to the schools of which they approve, and they will have the additional inducement that for every 1s. above 3s. or 4s. which they are now giving they will get an extra 1s. from the Government. There should be a fair amount of subscriptions in order to maintain the efficiency of the schools, and to prevent in the case of any particular school the intention of Parliament being frustrated by maintaining the school pence at a considerable elevation. As to endowments, I should prefer that they be not used in the future to supply the place of subscriptions and of rates, but in making the school fulfil the object of the original benefactor by increasing its efficiency by means of the endowment. I urge strongly that a provision of this kind should be put in the Bill, so that security shall be given to the public, and the denomination that there shall be a living body of persons aiding, improving, and continuing to improve the school.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after "Act," to insert "Provided that, if in any such school the income in any year arising from subscriptions, endowment, and rates does not amount to seven shillings for each such child, the fee grant payable to the said school in respect of each child shall be reduced by the difference between seven shillings and the average amount for each child of the income arising as aforesaid." —( Mr. Roby. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* (4.30.) : It is not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, which has been so clearly placed before the Committee by the hon. Member. As I understand it, it is a scheme for fining schools when the subscriptions do not reach a certain point. For example, if the subscriptions do not amount to 5s. per scholar, then the fee grant will be 8s. instead of 10s. So far as the Amendment aims at insuring the maintenance of subscriptions and of the efficiency of schools, it has my sympathy with its intention. Any scheme which will insure the fulfilment of their obligations by voluntary managers will to that extent be valuable. But the Amendment goes far beyond that, for it really upsets the financial basis of the Bill. I have been obliged to resist Amendments which would have extended the financial operations of the Bill, and it would be unjust to entertain Amendments which would restrict those operations.

^* : The Government are in a peculiar mood to-day; they resist Amendments for both diminishing and increasing the amount to be spent. If this Amendment were operative it would tend to increase the resources of a school by keeping up the subscriptions, or to diminish the charge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I shall vote for this Amendment. The Bill practically does away with the 17s. 6d. limit by reckoning the 10s. fee grant as if it came from local sources.

Amendment negatived.

The Amendment which stands in my name deals with the exceptional state of things which prevails in Wales. There the majority of the schools are Church schools, and it is well-known that Dissenters stand very poor chance of securing appointments as teachers in them. This inflicts a hardship on the Municipality, for it tends to reduce the efficiency of the teaching staff.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Provided always, that such. grant shall not be made to any elementary. school in the counties of Wales and Monmouth, the managers of which shall impose a condition or stipulation upon the appointment or retention of any teacher in such school that he or she shall be a member of any particular religions denomination, or shall attend or assist in the services of any such denomination." —( Mr. Lloyd-George. )

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

Surely the Amendment is a reasonable one. My only complaint is that it is limited to Wales and Monmouth. It seems to me that it should apply to all schools receiving State aid. The profession of a school teacher is a very honourable one, and if persons fitted for it are to be disqualified from following it in so large a proportion of our schools unless they belong to a particular denomination, I think a great hardship is being inflicted on the community. This system operates very harshly in Wales. It is discouraging young people from qualifying for the work of teaching, and it is imposing an unjustifiable religious disqualification. I hope the Government will adopt some plan to remove that disqualification.

^* : I quite agree that the profession of teaching is one of the most honourable, but I am not aware that there is any disqualification put upon persons by reason of their not belonging to the Church of England. There are training colleges by which they can enter the profession and schools in which they can be employed.

I put the case of a parish in which there is only one school. If elder scholars cannot begin teaching in that school, they cannot do so anywhere else, and therefore they are disqualified if their religion is not that insisted upon by the managers.

^* : This Amendment goes far beyond that, for it provides that no conditions shall be laid down by the managers of any denominational school receiving this grant that a teacher shall belong to a particular denomination. If such a provision were inserted in the Bill would it be operative? Would not the Wesleyans find means? Would not Wesleyans, who have some of the best schools in the country, find means of selecting a Wesleyan by conviction? And so with regard to the Roman Catholics. Are they to be deprived of the Government Grant if they insist that a teacher in any of their schools shall be a member of their Church? I cannot consent to an Amendment that would prevent the managers of a Roman Catholic school from making it a condition that the teachers in that school shall be members of that Church. I am in entire accord with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the rights of conscience should be respected and should be dealt with in a most liberal spirit; but I believe that in practice the consciences of both teachers and children are respected in a far greater degree than hon. Members opposite appear to think they are. In many Church schools the pupil teachers are Dissenters. I, however, cannot accept, on the part of the Government, a proposal of this kind, which is entirely opposed to the existence of denominational schools, and which would put a severe strain upon the consciences of the managers of schools. Even if the Amendment were adopted it would be utterly and hopelessly inoperative.

I cannot agree with the First Lord of the Treasury. I should like to point out to him that the rural schools in Wales require the protection which is proposed to be given to them by this Amendment. In a school in the parish in which I live 90 per cent. of the children are Nonconformists, and yet all the teachers are required to belong to the Church of England. Of the 105 children on the books not ten are children of Church-going parents. The school is governed by the clergyman, assisted by his curates. Some 40 years ago two parishioners were nominated on the Committee, but their successors have not been appointed. Surely it is not fair to lay it down that no one can be appointed teacher in a school in which 90 per cent. of the children are Nonconformists unless he is able to say he is a communicant of the Church of England. Yet, under this Bill, you will encourage such conduct.

I appeal to the Vice President to make this small concession to Wales. The principle has already been found to work satisfactorily in connection with Welsh intermediate education. My hon. Friend has cited the case of a school in which 90 per cent. of the children are the children of Nonconformists. In my own village there is a school in which every child is a Nonconformist, and yet all the teachers are required to belong to the Church of England. That is a state of things which no sensible man will uphold. There will be no real grievance in the case of Roman Catholic schools, because the religious teaching in those schools is given by the priests and not by the schoolmasters. One of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools has expressed the opinion that religious teaching in all voluntary schools had better be given by the ministers and not by the teachers. In my opinion, the present condition of things offers a premium to hypocrisy, as it induces people to declare themselves members of the Church of England merely for the purpose of qualifying themselves as school teachers in Church schools. If this Amendment were agreed to, it would, even if practically inoperative as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says it would be in a majority of cases, at all events show the spirit in which the House of Commons looks at the matter. I hope my hon. Friend will press this to a Division.

The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down is another example of the reckless inconsistency with which hon. Members opposite attempt to draw distinctions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England to the detriment of the latter. Why should the hon. Member desire that the schools of the two Churches should have a different treatment meted out to them?

I only asked that this Amendment should be applied in the case of Welsh parishes in which there is only one school and that a Church of England one.

Why is it that the Welsh Nonconformists if they do not like Church of England schools do not build schools of their own? The answer given by an hon. Gentleman opposite was that they preferred Board schools. That is the difference between the Church of England and the Nonconformists. Whilst the members of the Church of England are willing to pay for the education of their children, the Nonconformists are not willing to spend a penny in aid of education, but desire that all the cost should fall upon the ratepayers. If Nonconformists in districts where there are many of them want schools of their own, let them build them. I am not speaking of the small congregations of Nonconformists in certain parts of England. Their case is entirely different; but in Wales, where we are told they are in such a large majority, I cannot conceive how they can have the face to complain that there are no Nonconformist schools. I protest against the assumption apparently favoured by some hon. Members opposite that schools exist not for the benefit of the children, but for the benefit of the teachers. If managers of schools were not to be allowed to require that teachers should conform to given conditions respecting religious belief, persons might present themselves for appointment as teachers who were not Nonconformists, but extreme, aggressive infidels. Supposing that an infidel wished to be appointed teacher in a school, for the purpose of indoctrinating the children with his own ideas on religious matters, are the managers to be prevented from rejecting his application on the ground of his non-belief? I hold that the discretion of managers ought not to be interfered with in the way now proposed, and I trust that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

The noble Lord, by what I cannot but think the unworthy and very hackneyed taunt with which he began his speech, has shown how a very kindly man may be influenced for the worse by sectarian feeling; it is astonishing that a country gentleman, or the son of a country gentleman, who knows what are the conditions of rural life, should think it a sufficient answer to a number of agricultural labourers and small farmers, who wish for schools in agreement with their own religious persuasion, to say that if they are not satisfied with the existing schools of a district they should set up schools of their own. That is an invitation and a challenge which, if the noble Lord were speaking to a number of poor labourers, he would be the very last man to use. What is the use of talking in that way? The Welsh Nonconformists have proved that they were willing to set up schools themselves in those districts where they derive sufficient private incomes from trade or other pursuits; the grievance of which they complain arises in the rural districts where the whole surplus wealth of the community is represented by the rent. For my own part, I feel that the landlord in such districts is not fulfilling his duty as receiver of that surplus when he sets up a school which does not conform to the views of the great bulk of the people living upon the soil. Does the noble Lord really think that in any Welsh village where there is already sufficient school accommodation for the children of the district the Education Department will permit the public money to be wasted in the establishment of another school?

Certainly; according to the law, any school in an elementary school district which can attract a certain number of scholars for a certain time is entitled to a grant.

A building must be provided.

But does the noble Lord seriously think that his plan is one which would really conduce to the better education of the people? One of the reasons why we welcome the proposal of the Government to establish free education is that we wish to systematise the education of the country. The noble Lord's view is that in a small village two starving schools should be set up, when the only real means of insuring efficient education in the village is by concentrating all the educational enterprise and energy of the community on one school. On some occasions, perhaps, shadowy grievances have been put forward by Nonconformists, but the grievance which the Amendment is designed to meet is a very substantial one. It is a very great grievance that the people of a district should not be able to hope to teach in the schools of the district, or to have their children taught by those who are in sympathy with the religious views of the majority of the community. In the interests of education itself the legitimate prizes of education ought to be open to the many and not reserved for the few. Nonconformists in Wales and elsewhere have no chance at present of obtaining the blue riband of education. The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) sneers—[ laughter ] —yes, sneers as visibly as I have ever seen anyone sneer in this House. But those who do not belong to the noble Lord's class or to the class next to his, but to the ordinary village community, know that the proudest intellectual distinction in the eyes of a child is to become a pupil teacher, with the hope of ultimately becoming a teacher in his native village, or, as a Welshman would say, in his native country. This Amendment is a protest against the great abuse of obliging teachers to undertake duties lying outside the legitimate domain of education. It ought not to be required of a teacher that he should be an organist, that lie should sing in a choir, that he should act as clerk; still less ought it to be made a condition of his employment—and this is a religious test of a most unfortunate sort—that he should be a communicant.

^* (5.12.) : I am afraid that the discussion is wandering away somewhat from the point before the House. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the spirit and object of the Amendment, but even the hon. Member for Rotherham agrees that it would not carry out the object he has in view. The hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis) referred to the endowed schools. The Endowed Schools Commission, of which I was a member, had to deal with cases entirely different from those which the Amendment is intended to cover. We had to consider cases in which it was impossible under old deeds to appoint any person to be master of a school unless he belonged to a particular denomination. This limitation was abo- lished, and the change was therefore an operative Amendment. This Amendment, on the contrary, simply provides that membership of a particular denomination shall not be made a condition of appointment. The appointment would still be made in exactly the same way, and the only difference would be that notice would not be given of it. Then we had a case referred to in which a school in Wales had been for 40 years carried on under the Church of England clergyman, and yet almost the whole parish were Nonconformists. That is hardly a case which shows there was much grievance or oppression, because it shows that the school has not been carried on in a proselytising spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman is confusing a case I quoted with one referred to by the hon. Member for Rotherham.

^* : I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but the argument holds good all the same. The Amendment now proposed, however, would have no effect. If, indeed, it were operative, and if it were extended, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to England, it would strike at the very root of the Bill, because it0020would exclude Roman Catholic and Nonconformist schools from the advantages of the Bill. As drawn, however, the words would really have no effect whatever, and would not carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view.

^* (5.15.) : The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cranborne) challenged Nonconformists to build schools of their own. I wish to tell him that Church schools in Wales are largely built by the help of Nonconformists.

^* : I am of opinion that the Nonconformists of Wales do not object to the Bill in its present form. The persons educated in the denominational schools of which we have heard so much are generally labourers' children, and the agricultural labourers of Wales are Churchmen, not Nonconformists. As far as we can calculate, from the statistics at our disposal, about half the people of Wales are Churchmen. We were anxious to prove these facts by the official Returns of the census, but hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), oppose a religions census being taken for reasons of their own. If we had had a religious census much of the opposition to the Bill would have been abandoned. The speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) has knocked the bottom out of the arguments brought forward in support of the Amendment. He has objected to it that it only applies to 12 or 13 counties in the West, and he very properly argued that it should be applied generally or not at all. The Nonconformists of Wales are not poor. The poorer classes do not belong to them. In fact, the Nonconformists of Wales do not want to have much to do with the poor. Their religious societies are designed for those who can pay for their own membership, and they are supported by the well-to-do middle class, and some rich strangers who are good enough to represent them in the House of Commons. It will be found that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Stuart Rendel) and others have contributed largely to Nonconformity in Wales. The Board schools in Wales are really denominational, because the religious teaching given in those schools is in accord with the religious views of Nonconformists, where any religious teaching at all is provided, for in 50 schools in the Principality the Holy Bible is a prohibited book. The proposed Amendment is, therefore, conceived in the spirit of bigotry rather than of religious liberty.

I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Member for Derby feels some compunction for having given his support to this Amendment after he had refused it to that of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The right hon. Gentleman very justly deprecated sectarian discussion, but the question we are now debating is precisely the issue raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, although it is not raised in such a logical way. What we are discussing is not a particular grievance, but the grievance of the existing denominational system. Under that system the denominations are allowed to teach their own religious belief by formularies and Catechisms. It is surely only consistent that as long as that is the law those who wish to have those formularies and Catechisms taught should also wish to have them taught by those who believe in them. It is equally consistent that the Member for Huddersfield should propose that all that should be changed. My only objection to that is that the adoption of the Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, as we can only have free education on certain conditions, namely, that the denominational system shall be left alone. If hon. Gentlemen are determined to attack the denominational system, then they must be prepared to concede that they care much more about destroying the denominational system than about having free education. I shall vote against this Amendment, not only because it will be inoperative, but because I regard it as wholly inconsistent.

I do not myself feel the inconsistency of the declaration I made a short time ago. But really the Member for West Birmingham is much more denominational than the denominationalists, and carries his views further than Her Majesty's Government. If we want to understand why the Nonconformists in England and Wales are opposed to the denominational system, we have only to listen to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Darwen and that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Leighton) who, although not a Welsh Member, always undertakes to speak for Wales. I hope the speech of the noble Lord will be accurately reported and will be distributed in every English village and rural district, so that people may thoroughly understand the purse-proud spirit on which the noble Lord has based his opposition. The noble Lord said he could not understand why these poor people could not build schools for themselves. It is because the noble Lord has never been able to understand what is the difference between wealth and poverty. Than such language used by the noble Lord a greater blow could not be struck at the denominational system, because it shows what denominationalism is and what are its objects. When we listen to such language we must be convinced that the only chance of fair play for all is the establishment of Board schools in every part of the country. The noble Lord said that it was not for the purpose of giving to the children in the schools a fair chance of rising to be professional teachers that they contributed their shillings or pence to the support of these schools, but for the purpose of excluding men of a different religious denomination. There is only one remedy for that, and that is, as I have said, to establish Board schools, where people will have fair play, and thus to put an end to persecution and injustice.

^* : The Nonconformists of Wales have been taunted with not building Nonconformist schools. As a matter of fact, many of the Church schools in Wales have been built with the assistance of Nonconformists, who have contributed to them and have given a great deal in free labour. At the time many Church schools were built there was no suggestion that the schools would be put into the hands of the National Society and made denominational schools. The exhortations made to Nonconformists were solely directed to the necessity of having schools, and—

It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(5.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 215; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 316.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

(5.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 212.—(Div. List, No. 317.)

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Perhaps the hon. Member will bear in mind that this Bill, which I understand will be of great public utility, directed more especially to conditions that obtain in his own constituency, may give rise to questions affecting other counties, and therefore it is desirable, in order to afford proper opportunity for consideration, that Committee should be deferred to a distant date, consistently, of course, with this period of the Session.

I gladly accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and propose to set the Bill down for Committee on Wednesday.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

I should like to know if the Government have considered this Bill, and what action they propose to take upon it.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.