NOES. if elected to these positions. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were necessarily First, Second and Third Schedules removed from the ordinary debates, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That the word not' be there inserted." MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that, inasmuch as the Board was admittedly a large body, it might be worthy of consideration whether, in the event of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman being chosen from members of the Board, it would not be well to allow the body to be practically reduced by two. MR. WALTER LONG said the Government were following the usual course with regard to corporations, so that the particular districts should not lose the services of their representatives were unable to take the same part in them as ordinary members, so that their constituents were practically deprived of representation. Amendment negatived. MR. LOUGH moved an Amendment which, he said, would have the effect of limiting the membership of the Board to persons who were members of the constituent authorities by whom they were elected. Amendment moved "In page 35, line 7, to insert '(a) is not a member of the constituent authority affecting him.'"-(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. GRANT LAWSON said the Amendment was very undesirable, as it was hoped that the local authorities would vie with one another in the effort to get the best men possible to represent them on the Water Board, and it would not be right to limit their choice in the manner proposed. MR. LOUGH said the statement of the hon. Member was very important, as the members might have no representative capacity whatever. However, he would not press the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. ment to disqualify from being an MR. CREMER moved an Amend- | MR. JOHN BURNS said he should be Chair- the last man to disqualify any water director who wanted to place at the disposal of his fellow-citizens the experience he had collected in the region of private enterprise, but he should like to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that that was entirely different matter from what his hon. friend suggested. This Water Board would be the buyer of the properties of the Water Companies, and it seemed to him undesirable that any person should at the same time be a member of the Board and the holder of an interest in any of these properties. Amendment proposed "In page 35, line 7, at end, to insert (a) has any pecuniary interest in any of the existing water companies.'"-(Mr. Cremer.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. WALTER LONG said it was obvious that a water director could not be a member of the first Water Board. MR. CREMER asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and stated that he would bring up the matter on the Report stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Fourth Schedule and remaining Schedules agreed to. MR. WALTER LONG said he thought he could give the hon. Gentleman a good reason for not pressing the Amendment. assuming that instead of the views of the Government the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had prevailed and that those duties had been imposed on the London County Council, would the hon. Gentleman then have proposed that no member of the Council should be interested, directly or indirectly, in a Water Company, and that no director or shareholder in any Water Company should be qualified to act as a member of the Council? Did he not think that there were some of the directors of the present London Water Companies whose services would be of immense value on the new Board? Of course it was obvious that they could not be elected at first, because they would be in the position put. of vendors in a going concern. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 307.] Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock. Asterisk (*) at the commencement of Speech indicates revision by the Member. up HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, 9th December, 1902. PETITIONS. EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) Petition in favour of; of Conservatives and Unionists of Sheffield; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. Petition against: of the School Board of Savoch, Aberdeenshire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC. TRADE REPORTS. Annual Series: No. 2919. Portugal. No. 2920. Chile (Supplementary). TRANSVAAL. THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY) having put the Question and declared it carried, left the Woolsack, and the EARL of MORLEY took the Chair. EARL CARRINGTON then rose to speak, but THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY) informed him that the House had gone into Committee. LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it was a very distinct understanding on Friday night, when the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill was brought to a close, that the two or three noble Lords who still desired to address the House should have an opportunity of doing so on the motion for going into Committee. THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I agree with the noble Lord that that was the understanding; but I am bound to say that when I put the question no one rose, and it is extremely difficult for the person who has to preside over these deliberations to conduct the Liquor Licensing Ordinance, 1902. business properly if no one will take the (No. 32.) trouble to take the ordinary means of dissenting from, or agreeing with, the Motion before the House. Strictly speaking, we are in Committee, but if the general consent of the House is obtained, I will move that the Committee be not proceeded with. into your Lordships' House was described by Lord Goschen, who invariably hits the nail on the head, as "a Bill to save Church schools from death," but it is also a Bill which gives the coup de grâce to the School Boards. I will confine my remarks to the case of the voluntary schools as affected by the Bill. There are 14,000 voluntary schools, or denominational schools, or non-provided schools, or national schools-whatever you call them they are Church schools; and, as your Lordships are aware, half the children of the working men of this country are educated in them. Twelve thousand of these schools belong to the Church of England, and it is these schools that I shall refer to first. The Bill, as we read it, endows the Church schools with public money, and leaves them practically under clerical control. We should be among the first to acknowledge the devotion, the sacrifices, and the earnestness of a great many of the clergy as regards education, but we object to the Bill because it makes the parson omnipotent as regards religious teaching. The reason for that is not far to seek. In the Church of England, when a clergyman has been given a living, and has been inducted, he is practically on his own freehold. He is the absolute master of his own actions, and interference with him is extremely difficult and expensive. Indeed, only recently we read in the newspapers an account of a clergyman of the Church of England who openly declared, having been censured in private by his Bishop, that if the language which had been applied to him had been applied to him in public he would have had no difficulty in bringing an action for libel. To those who have property in the country, and who have voluntary schools, this is a matter of considerable anxiety. Take the case of the Rev. Mr. Leeper, who was given a living by Keble College. Mr. Leeper was inducted into the living by the Bishop of Exeter, and is now a recognised rector or vicar of the Church of England, although, on the testimony of Sir H. Howorth, which I have not seen contradicted, he is the author of a manual of devotion in which every Romish doctrine is taught and inculcated with the sole exception of the supremacy of the Pope. It has been my experience, and it must have been Earl Carrington. con that of not a few of your Lordships who The objections went on increasing till at last the difficulties became very formidable, dangerous, and menacing; so much so that the Ministerial newspapers had to say that the objections were stage thunder. Some of the clergy described the objections as insincere, and the protests of Dr. Clifford and many other leaders of the Nonconformist Church were openly denounced as the veriest bunkum and the merest claptrap. But, though we were suddenly came a bolt from the blue as men crying in the wilderness, there and we discovered a very unexpected and very strong ally. About five weeks ago an Amendment was put down by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney to the effect that religious instruction should be under the control of the managers, and, to some people's great astonishment, Sir William Anson rose and announced that the Government were inclined to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister also rose in his place and supported it. Why did he support it? The Prime Minister said he did so "On account of the abuse here and there by the clergyman-very rarely, he admitted-of the powers that were given him by the trust. The harm done to the whole cause of religious measured in words. He met it at every turn and on every occasion." education in elementary schools was not to be By that statement the Prime Minister raised an ecclesiastical tornado, which he result of his change of front. Of course, was possibly not aware would be the the Kenyon-Slaney Clause had to be explained, and the Church of England took it very much to heart. They were told that it was not a slur, that it was never meant in any way to be a reflection upon them; yet they were very indignant, and resented it accordingly. I do not wonder at it. Let us put ourselves in the position of a clergyman of the Church of England, who, during a long, holy, and religious life, had done the best in his power to promote religious education. We hear of hundreds of such men in London-men like Canon Barker-who have raised as much as £40,000 or £50,000 for their schools, which are a pattern to the country, and which they hope to hand down in the same condition to their successors. Then, there are heaps of men who lead most devoted lives in obscurity in the country, and who have managed, either through the help of the squire of the parish, or by sending their daughters out as governesses, and by pinching and saving, to have efficient schools. One can imagine the feelings of such men when they were told that they were to have five other men with them to see that they taught education properly. It would be no use to tell them that these men would be of the greatest possible assistance. The clergyman would say that was all very well, but he did not believe it. A devout, religious and conscientious parson would most strongly object that the squire, a churchwarden, a retired naval or military officer, a member of the County Council, and, perhaps, a Dissenter thrown in to see fair play, should be over him as the supreme arbiters of religious faith. The Bishop of St. Asaph saw that at once, and he declared to his clergy in Wales that though he had the most profound respect for his brother Bishop of London, yet he was not going to accept his version of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment; it would be necessary, he said, before he accepted it, that he should be informed more clearly of its meaning. So the Prime Minister found himself between the devil and the deep sea, because by this Bill he had set England in a blaze, and by his acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosebery's schoolfellow, he had set the Church in an uproar. Though you may turn this Clause inside out as much as you like, though you may say that it all depends upon where you put a comma as to what it means, you are face to face with this terrible fact, which you must recognise in all its naked hideousness, that there is in the Church of England so much inconsistency and uncertainty amongst the ministers, that by 211 votes to 41 the House of Commons accepted the Prime Minister's advice, and practically declared before Christendom that in the year 1902 Old England cannot trust her parson. So much for the Church of England schools. As I have said, there are 14,000 Church schools in this country, 12,000 of which belong to the Established Church. There are, I think, 450 schools which belong to the Wesleyans, 1,000 which may be called odds and ends, and there are 1,042 which belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I think that of all the speeches we listened to on the Second Reading, the one which touched those who were privileged to hear it most was the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Llandaff, who spoke with genuine emotion of the sacrifices that had been made by his Church to establish and maintain their own schools. He spoke of the Catholic religion being in a great minority in this country. He also spoke of the poverty of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and ended by stating that he feared his Church was an unpopular one in this country. The Prime Minister spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as a religious body against which no doubt a strong feeling prevailed amongst large sections of society; and if you look at the continent of Europe, if you look at the terrible scenes taking place in France, Spain, and Portugal in connection with the expulsion of the nuns and other religious communities, you will see that the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing a time of great trouble. But in spite of what has happened on the continent of Europe, free, tolerant England has given Roman Catholicism a home, and said, to quote the words of M. Clemenceau, "So long as you ask only for liberty of belief and to practise your religion we refuse you nothing." I submit with all seriousness that it is a very remarkable thing that in Protestant England we should, under this Bill, for the first time practically endow Roman Catholic schools. I may be told, my Lords, that the Bill before us is the simple finale to the Act of 1870, but I well remember that we were told at that time that the result of the compromise would be that all the "rotten" Church schools would eventually die out and that the best ones would survive; and I venture to say that if we had imagined for one moment that thirty-two years afterwards we should have seen a Bill introduced which kept up with public money clerical schools and left them under clerical control, including Roman Catholic schools - Í say, on my honour, that I for one, and, I believe, all that band of Liberals with whom I voted, would have cut off our hand at the wrist before consenting to a |