please. They have a certain educational | trinal or dogmatic teaching to any great destitution to supply. They may do it either extent. It may be said-" Why do you by setting up their own public elementary not then prescribe that there shall be no schools, or by assisting the present public doctrinal teaching-why not, in the first elementary schools, those schools-I need not place, prescribe that there shall be no reliremind the House-being efficient up to a gious teaching at all?" Why do we not certain standard of secular efficiency, and prescribe that there shall be no religious having the Conscience Clause as I have teaching? Why, if we did so, out of the described. They may either provide schools religious difficulty we should come to an themselves, or assist the present schools, or irreligious difficulty. We want, while conthey may do both. But there is this con- sidering the rights and feelings of the dition, that if they do go on the principle minority, to do that which the majority of of assisting, they must assist all schools on the parents in this country really wish; and equal terms. They may not pick out one we have no doubt whatever that an enorparticular denomination and say "We mous majority of the parents of this country shall assist you, but not the others." If prefer that there should be a Christian trainthey go on the principle of assistance, ing for their children-that they should be they must assist every public elementary taught to read the Bible. If we are to preschool. vent religious teaching altogether, we must say that the Bible shall not be used in schools at all. But would it not be a monstrous thing that the book which, after all, is the foundation of the religion we profess, should be the only book that was not allowed to be used in our schools? But then it may be said that we ought to have no dogmatic teaching. But how are we to prevent it? Are we to step in and say the Bible may be read, but may not be explained? Are we to pick out Bible lessons with the greatest care in order that nothing of a doctrinal character might be taught to the children? I do not mean to say it would not be better to attempt to do this rather than fail in the effort of meeting this matter. If the general opinion of the country was that we should try that labour, I would endeavour to encounter it; but I say that it is one of detailed supervision which does not belong to the central government, and in which the great probability is the central government would fail.

I now come to the point, what position we place the school boards in, as regards the schools which they themselves provide? The position we propose to put them in is this-we make them managers, and leave them in the same position as that of managers of voluntary schools. And here arises a very important question. I might have avoided it, but I should not be dealing fairly with the House if I did. The religious question is involved in this matter of the position of the school managers. Ought we to restrict the school boards, in regard to religion, more than we do the managers of voluntary schools? We have come to the conclusion that we ought not. We restrict them, of course, to the extent of a most stringent Conscience Clause. But it may be said "You ought to go further." I will take the different alternatives that have been suggested; but, before doing so, I must say that I can but think we are making difficulties that do not really exist. I do not want it to be supposed that I imagine there are no difficulties. There are difficulties to honest men; but these are difficulties of theory and of conscience to men as between one another, rather than difficulties in the actual education of the children.

Now, just look at the ages of the children with whom we have to deal. The great majority of them are probably under ten years of age; some are over that age and under twelve, and I fear but comparatively few are over twelve and under fourteen. We want a good secular teaching for these children, a good Christian training, and good schoolmasters. We want these schoolmasters certainly not to feel themselves Gattered in any way; but children of these

can hardly be supposed to require doc

Again, it would not be for us to prescribe that the Bible must be taught, because there may be parents in some districts who, without any dislike to religion at all, might prefer a purely secular school with the religious teaching given elsewhere, and those parents ought to be allowed to do as they please. But we have met the difficulty in this way. We take note of one fact and we rely upon one principle. The fact is this-that, as the result of experience, this question is found to be a theoretical rather than a practical one. It has been found in the case of the voluntary managers that, however much they may talk about this difficulty in theory, in practice this difficulty has not proved to be so very serious. It has been found that clergymen who have

resisted the Conscience Clause, as a pro- | a mockery to say that it is new with us, or vision of an Act of Parliament, have carried to use against it the argument that it is out such a clause in their own schools. "un-English." When we say that, howWhat we say is-we impose upon the school board practical work. We say "It is your duty to be the practical managers, and to see that this education is given; and we believe that immediately as regards the enormous majority of the children the theoretical religious difficulty will disappear. Then, again, the principle to which I have referred is this-the principle of popular election. The persons who are to constitute the school board are the members of the Town Council or the members of the Vestry, and these bodies are elected by the people. We say the members of this board are persons in whom the parents trust, because they are elected by the parents, and we do not doubt that the parents will take care to elect men that will not raise religious difficulties in the way of education.

I now come to another part of the subject, to that part to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks when I said that the country would expect that we should secure, if possible, the attendance of the children. This attendance question is a difficult question, but we must face it. To leave it alone is to leave the children untaught, and to force the taxpayers and ratepayers to pay for useless schools. I shall at once state what I expect may surprise the House. It is that, after much thought upon the matter, the Government has permitted me to put before the House the principle of direct compulsion. This may seem to be a startling principle; but, although I feel that I have already occupied the House much longer than I should have wished to do, it is a principle of the Bill which I feel I cannot quickly pass over. It has only been within the last few months that thought on the matter has brought me to the conclusion that the principle of direct compulsion ought to be adopted. I would ask the House to follow me while I explain how I have come to this conclusion, and how I believe many of those engaged in the work of education throughout the country have come to it; for no one can doubt that the principle of direct compulsion has latterly made extraordinary way; and that now both sets of educationists are in its favour, for there are as many champions of the old system as advocates of change that are favourable to it. I would first remind the House that we have already admitted the principle of compulsion: we have admitted it in the Short Time Acts. It is

ever necessary the labour of children may be to their parents, however impossible it may be for them to keep out of the workhouse without it, we shall not allow children to labour unless they go to school-that is compulsion. There are five different ways in which compulsion may be attempted. There is indirect compulsion by the Act which bears the Speaker's name. That Act might be extended, so that instead of a Board of Guardians having the power of sending children receiving relief to school, their being sent to school might be made a condition of relief. Then there might be an extension of the short-time system, which might be extended to agriculture, and made more efficient with respect to other trades. There is another plan which is not so much compulsion as temptation or inducements; it is that of giving educated children a certificate, by means of which they may be able to get work easier than those who have not one. Then there are two forms of direct compulsion. There is direct compulsion upon certain classes, as in the industrial Schools Act, and direct compulsion upon all children under a certain age. These systems might all go on together. In some countries some at least of them do go on together. I believe that Short Time Acts and direct compulsion both exist in many of the German States; and if this Bill should pass I think one of the results would be that, without direct reference to the Speaker's Act, its operation would be made more general. The school boards might, and probably often would, make arrangements with the guardians by means of which certain children might be sent to school. The details of this matter are, however, rather for the Poor Law Board; and in considering it the House will do well to consider also the recommendation of the Poor Relief Committee of 1864, which states that, after all, the business of the Poor Law Board and of the guardians is to relieve destitution, and not to be the educators of the people.

Next, as to the short-time system. It may be revised. The Workshops Act and the Bleachfields Act may be made more stringent-the short-time system may be extended to agriculture-and we may, and should, take care that education be really given in the schools which short-time children attend-that these schools should be real schools and not sham schools. But

ments, I have already detained you too | in which we have to live, of the towns in long, and have only one further remark to which it is our lot to be busy; and do we make before I sit down. I have said that not know child after child-boys or girlsthis is a very serious question; I would growing up to probable crime, to still more further say that whatever we do in the probable misery, because badly taught or matter should be done quickly. We must utterly untaught? Dare we then take on not delay. Upon the speedy provision of ourselves the responsibility of allowing this elementary education depends our industrial ignorance and this weakness to continue prosperity. It is of no use trying to give one year longer than we can help? Not technical teaching to our artizans without doubting that these considerations will elementary education; uneducated labourers weigh with the House as they have with -and many of our labourers are utterly un- the Government, I venture to submit this educated-are, for the most part, unskilled measure to the House, and therefore, sir, labourers, and if we leave our work-folk I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to any longer unskilled, notwithstanding their provide for public Elementary Education in strong sinews and determined energy, they England and Wales. will become over-matched in the competition of the world. Upon this speedy provision depends also, I fully believe, the good, the safe working of our constitutional system. To its honour, Parliament has lately decided that England shall in future be governed by popular government. I am one of those who would not wait until the people were educated before I would trust them with political power. If we had thus waited we might have waited long for education; but now that we have given them political power we must not wait any longer to give them education. There are questions demanding answers, problems which must be solved, which ignorant constituencies are ill-fitted to solve. Upon this speedy provision of education depends also our national power. Civilised communities throughout the world are massing themselves together, each mass being measured by its force; and if we are to hold our position among men of our own race or among the nations of the world we must make up the smallness of our numbers by increasing the intellectual force of the individual.

But there are many men, I doubt not many members of this House-and these not the least earnest to do their duty or the least able to help their fellows-who are swayed not so much by these general considerations as by the condition of the individuals around them. Well, then, to these gentlemen let me say one word-I am not a fanatic in this matter of education, I know well that knowledge is not virtue-that no education, much less elementary education, gives power to resist temptation-is a safeguard against calamity; but we all know that want of education-that iguorance is weakness, and that weakness in this hard struggling world generally brings misfortune-often leads to vice. Let us then each of us think of our own homes, of the villages

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, it was impossible at that time to criticise in detail such a complicated measure, introduced with a fairness and ability which all must admit. He rose to ask for explanations on certain points, and to make a few remarks on certain provisions which he did not think would be acceptable to the country. In the first place, the Vice-President had said there was to be no more denominational inspection. He did not feel sure what he meant by that. Did he merely mean that the inspectors were no longer to examine in religion? It was at present the rule that they should not examine in religion for the Government. It was true that they examined for the Archbishop, and sent their reports to him; but there was no examination in religion on behalf of the Government. This had been fully explained to the House by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the debates on the Revised Code. What then was the meaning of "denominational inspection ?" In what did it consist? What was the essence of denominational inspection ? It was the power of veto which every religious body had on the appointments of the inspectors which were to inspect the schools connected severally with those religious bodies. This was the result of the great Management Clauses controversy which termiuated in 1851. Each of the religious bodies, the Church of England, the Wesleyans, the Roman Catholics, the Jewish, and the British and Foreign Society, had their own fight with the Government; and after they had carried it on many years, there was a treaty of peace with each religious body, and forms of trust deeds were agreed upon, which gave the religious bodies the right of veto which they now possessed. There was in each case a solemn concordat; a formal treaty of peace was entered into and signed