the multiplication table and be inculcating religious doctrine. The only thing he asked was that there should be complete separation, and that religion should not be taught by a stipendiary agency. Religious teaching ought to be undertaken by the religious bodies. He had been both a Sunday-school scholar and a Sunday-school teacher, and from his experience he believed that if the street Arab had a good secular teaching the use of Sunday-school teaching would be greatly increased. He hoped the Government would see its way to meet the demands of those who were not opposed to religious training, but who sought for religious liberty, and desired to secure the rights of all parties. The position of the working classes in regard to this question must not be forgotten. He feared that the greater part of them did not identify themselves with any religious body; but looking at the matter from a outside point of view, those who dwelt in towns were strongly opposed to anything savouring of sectarianism; and they found themselves represented by members from the boroughs. But persons of the same class in the counties, who no doubt shared the feeling, had no direct representation in that House. He hoped, however, that Parliament would consider the claims of both these divisions of the population, and would find out a satisfactory mode of dealing with the difficulty.

the children in our large towns-and he feared he must add in the rural districts also were now allowed to receive out of doors an education of the most pernicious character; while the Government were bound to take care that there should be harmony between the new system and the old-the new system should not be based upon the old model. With regard to the measure of the Government, the question divided itself into two parts-first, the provisions they had a right to ask for in the shape of a Conscience Clause in the denominational schools now existing; and, secondly, the conditions under which the new schools to be constituted under the Bill should be conducted. He was not going to attempt to determine whether any, or what, religion should be taught in the new schools, but he objected strongly to Parliament abandoning its duty by refusing to determine so serious a question, and leaving the discussion to be threshed out in vestries in the smaller, or the meetings of corporations in the larger towns. They had been assured by the Government that the Conscience Clause was not to be a delusive one; but he found no guarantee of this kind in the Bill. Without separating religious and secular education, he did not see how it was to be secured. The object of the Irish system, as stated by the Commissioners of National Education, was "to afford combined literary and moral, and separate religious instruction ;" and this was all that he, and those who thought with him, desired Parliament to do for English schools. He trusted that they would hear no more about the schools which they desired to see, being irreligious. One of the objections to the Government Bill was that it provided for denominational inspection, but no results were asked for in religious teaching, and the inspectors might not belong to the sects whose schools they examined. Nothing could tend more to mar the operation of the measure than to introduce religious strife into these boards. If the question were relegated to them, they must consider it in the best manner in their power; it would, however, be a great fault in the Bill if it were allowed to foster and increase religious animosities. He had as strong a feeling as any man in that House in favour of religious training, and he believed that no education without it was worthy of the name. But the ordinary education and the religious education could not proceed at the same time. They could not at the same moment be going through

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER: My hon. friend the member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) at the commencement of his remarks regretted that the importance of the question involved in his amendment would prevent him touching other very important points of the Bill in which he felt great interest. I was glad, however, to hear my hon. friend expressing his belief that under the provisions of the Bill school boards would quickly become universal, and com

ment on.

pulsory attendance be generally insisted upon, because I agree with him in entertaining the hope that the effect of the Bill will be that school boards will be established throughout the country, and that in a short time attendance at school will be rendered compulsory. One other remark of my hon. friend I must speak a few words of comHe stated that he thought the Bill would result in millions of pounds sterling being raised by rates. [Mr. DIXON: And taxes.] I certainly understood my hon. friend to say rates, and to confine himself to that mode of raising money. I refer to this, because I do not want hon. gentlemen, who feel naturally sensitive with regard to questions of rates, to suppose that the provisions of the Bill can result in the raising of millions of money by means of rates. Practically, the Bill provides for a rate not exceeding 3d. in the pound, in order to the carrying out of the requirements of the Act. That amount of rate would very rarely be exceeded; indeed, in my opinion, a smaller levy would be quite sufficient to work the Act; but should the whole sum be required, a 3d. rate throughout England and Wales would only, according to the authority of my right hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board, produce a sum total of £1,250,000. Having stated this much, I will at once proceed to the important amendment of my hon. friend. I was very glad to gather from his closing remarks that he does not mean his amendment to have that effect on the Bill which, on the first sight, it would appear to have if passed. He seemed to speak with thorough heartiness his approval of the great leading principles of the measure. My hon. friend the member for Knaresborough (Mr. Illingworth)-whom, as one of my constituents and also as a colleague, I may congratulate on the favourable beginning he has made in the debates of this House-in seconding the amendment did not speak as though he intended the motion to be hostile to the Bill; but I must assure my hon. friends that viewed in the light of Parliamentary history and precedent theirs is, in fact, a hostile amendment. Amendments have often before been moved to the second reading of a Bill, but I believe no single instance can be found of an amendment of this kind having been moved, where the avowed object of those promoting it was not to throw out the Bill if not also the Government who had brought it in. I will not suppose that it is the wish of my hon. friend to throw out this Bill, for he is

too earnest in the cause of education to entertain such a wish. But we must take the amendment as we find it, and I cannot help thinking that gentlemen on both sides of the House will feel that the questions which have been raised to-night are not questions as to which we ought to be asked to decide upon abstract resolutions, but which we ought to discuss and decide after the fullest deliberation in Committee. As it was to be an amendment to the second reading, I do not know that it was easy to frame it otherwise; but the amendment is certainly vague, and I would even add_unfairly vague, though I acquit my hon. friend of any intentional unfairness. Amendments of this kind are generally brought forward by gentlemen influenced, no doubt, by feelings of duty, but still hostile to the Government and their measures; and with the skill which is found among framers of hostile resolutions, these are generally so constructed that gentlemen with opposing views, but who all wish to get rid of the Bill, will be able for different reasons to vote for the amendment. But friends of a Bill scarcely ever propose an amendment with that intention. I can scarcely suppose that my hon. friend, when he put his amendment on the notice paper, was aware that the vote put by you, sir, from the chair would be "Aye" or "No" to the second reading; I imagine he thought it would be "Aye" or "No" to his amendment. But let me point out that those who are prepared to vote in favour of this amendment may mean three distinct things. The amendment is very explicit as to what ought not to be done that the question of religious instruction ought not to be determined by the local authorities. But my hon. friend does not ignore the existence throughout the country of a question of religious instruction, and he knows that if it is not to be settled by the local authorities it must be settled somewhere. The amendment leaves it doubtful how it is to be settled; and, as I have said, leaves it open to the advocates of three distinct views to vote for the amendment, however much they may differ among themselves. If the religious question is not to be determined by the local authorities it may be left to the Government of the day to prescribe how it shall be dealt with; or this may be prescribed by Act of Parliament in the very measure that we are now about to pass; or if it is not to be prescribed in either of these ways, it may be proscribed, and no religion whatever may be allowed

to be taught in any school supported out of local funds. As regards the first of these views, I need not dwell much upon it. I do not suppose there is such an amount of confidence felt by the House or by the country in Earl de Grey or myself that they would be willing to entrust to us the task of prescribing what the religious instruction should be. And I hope that no such trust ever will be reposed in any central authority, enabling them to decide what the religious instruction shall be in every varying locality. My hon. friend, I am quite aware, does not mean that. The next question is, shall we prescribe the nature of this instruction by Act of Parliament? My hon. friend said the amendment did not state what religious instruction shall be given, and, indeed, I could scarcely gather whether my hon. friend meant that there should be any religious instruction at all, and, if any, what. I will ask hon. members who think that Parliament should prescribe religious instruction in every locality in the kingdom, to consider what an outcry would be raised if we were to say such and such a religion shall be taught in every elementary school, whether the majority agree or not. I am sure it will be felt that Parliament never could take that course. Several notices have been placed upon the paper by hon. members who, I believe, sympathise more or less with the hon. member for Birmingham, but yet who evidently feel that these are points which can more properly be pushed to a division in Committee. There are five of these amendments which would limit the discretion of the local authorities in the settlement of the religious question. I do not for a moment dispute that the mode we take of leaving the question to the local authorities to settle is one to which objection may be very easily raised. I never was blind to that. I have only felt that of all the alternatives open to us this was the one to which least objection could be taken. But it is a question upon which we can only fairly deliberate if we have at the same time to discuss the alternative proposals. And it is hardly fair to ask us to vote in favour of an abstract resolution, unless you tell us exactly what you propose by way of substitution. The hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) is among those by whom amendments have been placed upon the paper, and his amendment limits the discretion given to the local boards, and provides that no religious catechism or formularies in support of or in

I

opposition to any religious sect shall be taught in the schools, but that the reading of the Holy Scriptures shall not be excluded. I am anxious to come to the discussion of that very important amendment for this personal reason among others. It will be recollected that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have twice brought before the House, in 1867 and 1868, educational measures which originated with a committee in Manchester, composed of men of all religious denominations, but of immense experience on educational matters. In those Bills exactly the same discretion was left to the local boards as in this Bill. I remember well that when the committee first submitted that provision to me, the objections which were capable of being urged to it started up in my mind-that there would be differences of opinion, and contests in boroughs; and it was not until we had long discussed the matter together that I came to the conclusion that any evils which might be attendant on the adoption of that course would be outweighed by the evils of any other course. Late last year I had the opportunity of consulting the committee again, and ascertained that they still held the same view. This year, believe, if we had not brought in a Bill, my hon. friend the member for Manchester, representing that committee, would have brought forward a Bill on their behalf. But the amendment shows that they have changed their minds, and I am honestly and sincerely anxious to know why they have changed their views, for I am persuaded they could not have done so without good reason. Then comes the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), that no denominational catechism shall be taught in any school. The hon. member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) has a similar clause, and the hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) has an amendment providing that no religious instruction shall be given in ratesupported schools, but that the Holy Scriptures may be read. The hon. member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) desires that the school boards shall prepare schedules in which they shall prescribe the religious instruction to be given. What I want my hon. friend the member for Manchester, and the other hon. members who have given notices of amendments in Committee, to bear in mind is that, by the very terms of their amendments, I claim their votes in favour of the second reading. There is not

one of those notices which does not leave some discretion to the local school board, and there is not one of them, therefore, which is not opposed to the spirit of this abstract resolution. But I claim the vote of my hon. friend the member for Birmingham himself. The Education League, of which he is at the head, and may be regarded as the representative, though they now appear to be going rather against this measure, have done a great deal in exciting interest in educational matters all over the country. Only a few weeks ago they prepared and circulated the heads of a Bill to be introduced in 1870. Among those heads was this

"No creed, catechism, or tenet peculiar to any sect shall be taught in any national-rate school, but the school board shall have power to grant the use of the school-rooms out of school hours for the purpose of giving religious instruction, provided that no undue preference be given to one or more sects, to the exclusion

of others."

It may be said that by this was meant that all parties should be treated with equality. Well, I prescribe the same thing in my 22nd clause. But when you give the managers of a rate-fund a power to do something, even according to certain conditions, you are giving them a great deal of power, and, at all events, you cannot say the religious question is nowhere left to them if they have the power to prescribe the time when and the place where such instruction is to be given. But much more, the school committee is to have power to permit the reading of the Holy Scriptures. If they have power to permit, I suppose they will also have power to disallow. I think, therefore, I may claim the vote of my hon. friend the member for Birmingham against his own resolution. I have read these amendments, and I now refer to resolutions passed by different meetings in which great interest was taken in this question. It has been the fate of my right hon. friend at the head of the Government and myself to see many deputations lately on this matter, and we have obtained much valuable information from them; but we have almost always found that this difficulty, which my hon. friend tries to sweep away at once by an abstract resolution, was a difficulty to which they also were compelled to yield. I do not know that there is any part of the kingdom where there is more feeling on this subject than in Wales. I am not surprised at that. What has passed there within the last year or two may well

make Welshmen sensitive. A most earnest, intelligent, and influential deputation came to us from Wales. It had partly emanated from a conference of Nonconformist ministers in Wales. The first resolution of this conference had said, that—

meeting the requirements of Wales must be "That any system of national education fully free, secular, unsectarian, and compulsory." And the second said that it was not intended to exclude or to oppose the reading of the Bible. Upon asking for an explanation of the phrase secular and unsectarian, I was informed that the school should be secular in education and unsectarian in management. The hon. member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), however, than whom I do not believe there is a more candid man in this House, frankly confessed that there was a difference of opinion among themselves, and it was thought that by using the two words they might get over the difficulty. The resolution of another deputation, from the committee of the Congregational Union, was to the effect that there should be no dogma taught in the rate-supported schools. I asked whether the word "dogma" was intended to apply to the dogmas held by one sect of Christians as against another, or to the dogmas held by all Christians, and I found it did not mean the latter. Now, I do not quote these inconsistencies in order to obtain any paltry argumentative triumph; I do so from no motive of that kind. I only bring them forward to show that all who have endeavoured to deal with the question have discovered its difficulties, and ought from their own experience to sympathise with the Government in reference to it; and let me add that they ought not to support my hon. friend the member for Birmingham in trying to meet it by an abstract resolution, as to which each may feel somewhat differently, but hasten to go into Committee on the Bill, where we may fairly discuss the whole question, and deliberately consider all the amendments, in order to determine whether there should be any limitations in the discretion given, and if so, what? That is what I say to all hon. members who are in favour of unsectarian education. Unsectarian education is a very difficult matter to define in an Act of Parliament; but I deem it not at all difficult to reach in practice. If we cease to try this almost impossible task of finding words to put into an Act of Parliament to determine that education shall be unsectarian, almost the first effect of the Bill,

now,

when passed, will be to give religious, though unsectarian, training-training in the great moral truths; for children mostly under twelve years of age are not those to whom it is easy to teach theological doctrine. My hon. friend the member for Birmingham scarcely knows his own position. He said he was in favour of unsectarian, or, it may be, even secular education; but my hon. friend went on to say, I do not ask for secular education now. I say more, sir; I not only do not ask for secular education but I trust I never shall ask for it. The hon. member for Knaresborough said there might be secular schools that would not injure religious training. I agree with him. There are such schools, and a part of this Bill provides that when the majority wishes for a secular school, a secular school they shall have. But I ask the House to consider for a moment what would be the effect of decreeing by Act of Parliament that in elementary schools supported by the rates, whether the majority wished it or not, religion should be excluded? Our opinions in religion may be different; but I think we all of us agree, the enormous majority of the country agrees, that the standard of right and wrong is based on religion, and that when you go against religion you strike a blow against morality; and if we could solemnly by Act of Parliament tell the parents of children to be educated that religion is a subject not to be mentioned in the schools, they would suppose that we cared little about religion ourselves, and that in our opinion it were best left alone. We are told that some active intelligent artisans-men to whom we look forward with hope that they will take part in the political government of the country we are told that they have great doubts on this subject, and that they dislike any religion being pushed on them in this way. I believe that to some extent that is the case, and there is something in their past history to explain it; but if the House wishes to perpetuate that feeling, the way to do it is to decree that religion shall be tabooed. I speak not merely having regard to the present, but as having hope for the future. Surely the time will come when we shall find out how we can agree better on these matters-when men will find out that on the main questions of religion they agree, and that they can teach them in common to their children. Shall we cut off from the future all hope of such an agreement, and say that all those questions which regulate our conduct in life, and animate our

hopes for the future after death-which form for us the standard of right and wrong-shall we say that all these are wholly to be excluded from our schools ? It is not merely duty to the present and hope for the future; but it is the remembrance of the past that forbids us to exclude religion from the teaching of our schools. I confess I have still in my veins the blood of my Puritan forefathers, and I wonder to hear descendants of the Puritans now talk of religion as if it were the property of any class or condition of men. I regret to find that my hon. friend the member for Knaresborough seems to think that religion belongs specially to the minister. It belongs to the schoolmaster; it belongs to every man; and I am sure my hon. friend when he thinks over it will see that it is not his place to sanction the doctrine that the priest or the minister must step in between a man and his Maker.

he never intended to say anything of the MR. ILLINGWORTH explained, that kind. What he said was, that it belonged to religious bodies to teach religion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: I would say that it belongs to all religious men to teach religion, and the master of the school, we trust, will be a religious man. To no religious man can we say, leave religion alone. My hon. friend the member for Birmingham talked of the feelings of the working men. I have some experience of the working men. I know their sympathies, I know their doubts and difficulties; I wish I knew how to answer them; but I am sure of this, the old English Bible is still a sacred thing in their hearts. The English people cling to the Bible, and no measure will be more unpopular than that which declares by Act of Parliament that the Bible shall be excluded from the school. There are countries in which the Bible is excluded. I believe in some parts of the United States it is excluded at the present moment. I have heard a good deal about a coalition being entered into against religious teaching at schools; but I confess I did not expect to see that possible coalition reinforced by the Evangelical Nonconformists. The possibility of that coalition, however, reminds me of some words that have been put into my hands lately which were written by one for whose genius we have all a great respect. Speaking of the old English Protestant Bible the words are better than anything I can say, and therefore, if the House will allow me, I will read them. I dare say