The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-24 00:00:00

of the country should be free, not simply the schools of the
poorer classes, but the middle class schools, even the
Universities. The hon. member then went on to say that if

he understood the amendments of the Government aright,

they proposed that the denominational schools at present
existing might hereafter be increased in number, and that
the grant which had hitherto been paid to them might be
augmented to the extent of one-half. He should like it
to be clearly understood that he had not the slightest ob-
jectiou to the transference of the burden of the cost of
these schools from the rates to the Imperial Exchequer.

But he did object, and he thought all the Nonconformists of
the country would object to this that they should make

an increase of the grant, no matter from what source out

of the public revenues for denominational schools. The
The hon. member pointed out what in his opinion would

be the effect of such a clause as that proposed by the
member for South Hampshire and accepted by the
Government. In every school board the question would
be debated whether any religion whatever would have to
be taught, and if it were decided that religion
should be taught it would then be debated what religion
it should be. He felt convinced that, apart from the
special difficulties to which he alluded, and which would
be a barrier to educational progress in special districts,
the operation of the clause would be such that the Non-
conformist bodies would be in perpetual antagonism to
the law, and would conceive it to be their duty to
perpetually agitate against the operation of a principle
which they had invariably dissented from. The hon.
Member then disputed the position of the Vice-President
of the Council, that they had no right to have a con-
scientious scruple in the matter of religious teaching
unless they allowed those who wished for it to have a con-
scientious objection against the exclusion of religion from
their schools. He denied that the Bible was to be
I excluded, and the organisation which he represented (the
Birmingham League) had never suggested it.
Mr. BRUCE said that there was no surer way of
wrecking the bill than by adopting the schemes
of the supporters of the amendment. The main
principle of the proposition was that schools should be
secular. He quite admitted that if they were
to have what was called a national system of
education he could see no other refuge than a secular sys-
tem, but it was because the Government were of opinion
that they had opposed the present measure. The
right hon. gentleman denied that the bill could be consi-
dered in its principle as " undiluted denominationalism,"
and referring to the observation made on a previous occa-
sion by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buck-
inghamshire, that the schoolmasters would become a
sacerdotal class, he said the effect would be directly the
contrary. He thought it was a mockery to tell the House
that the children should be left to the clergy, and asked
where, if not in schools, the thousands of children who
lived in irreligious homes, and never heard of God except
in blasphemy, were to be taught religion ? It was, he
said in conclusion, with infinite mortification that he had
seen the discussion on a subject of national education had
degenerated into theological dispute. The right hon.
gentleman spoke for an hour. At the close of his speech
and as soon as Mr. Henley rose, a large number
of . hon. gentlemen left the House. The mem-
ber for Oxfordshire, who supported the bill, thought the
Government would now see that it was clear
that all their concessions to the secularists would prove
futile. He regretted that the amendment of the member
for South Hampshire had been adopted, because it shut
out the Church of Enlgand. He believed that if the
existing schools had been more utilised they would have
had a sounder knowledge of the wants of the country,
and how to meet them. As the hon. member resumed
his seat nearly a dozen hon. gentlemen jumped up
simultaneously in a great hurry to have their say on the
bill. Mr. Charles Reed, however, caught the Speaker's eye,
and proceeded to address the House, if such it could be
called, there not being more than 20 members present, at-
trihutable no doubt to the circumstance that it was nearly
eight and dinner time. Mr. Ayrton, the First
Commissioner of Works, was, as usual, somnolent,
and the Secretary of State, with arms folded
and bowed head, seemed utterly prostrated. Mr.
Gladstone and the President of the Poor-law Board were
conversing very confidentially in a subdued tone, tho
Clerk seemed languid, whilst the " House " exhibited the
most consummate indifference to the hon. gentleman
who was addressing them with an earnest-
ness they apparently could not appreciate. The
representative of Hackney said that he hadfor forty years
had a good deal to do with the day and Sunday schools of
the Nonconformists, but he had never in the former heard
anything like denominational teaching. He thought it
would be a monstrous thing to discard the Bible, and could
not understand how members of the House could commit
themselves to a secular system of education. When Mr.
Hibbert rose the House ha,d become still more vacant, and
the Conservative party were represented by four members.
The' member for Oldham said he had heard a great deal
about the defects of the bill, but he had heard nothing
about its merits, which he considered were very great. He
spoke of the impossibility of satisfying all parties, and
said they could only settle the question in a spirit of
compromise, upon which he contended the bill was based.
He strongly urged the supporters of the amendment to
refrain from opposing the measure, in order that it might
pass this session. At a quarter to nine Mr. Gordon,
rising hastily, called out, " Mr. Speaker, sir ;" but Mr.
Speaker, as is usual with him, left the chair for about a
quarter of an hour for refreshments. On the Speaker
resuming the chair the member for Glasgow and Aber-
deen Universities expressed his belief that "the reli-
gious difficulty" was simply a theoretical and political
difficulty. Mr. Baines spoke against the amendment, and
characterised it as most unworkable and impracticable.
During the time the member for Leeds was speaking
the appearance of the House became greatly changed,
and on both sides the seats were well occupied. Doubt-
less hon. gentlemen apprehended that a division must
soon take place. Viscount Sandon criticised the speech
of the hon. member for Birmingham, and spoke generally
in favour of the Government measure. Mr. Wint erbo tham
opposed the bill. At the beginning of his speech he was
listened to with great patience and evident interest, but
he soon disturbed the temper of the Opposition, and he
was interrupted by impatient and united cries of "'Vide
'vide." The member for Stroud, however, was not dis-
posed to yield to such attempts to stop the flow of his
eloquence, and he proceeded to give expression to his
convictions. Once only did he lose his self-possession, and
show how he felt the conduct of his opponents, and that
was when he declared that the country would not be satis-
fied with clamour.
At half-past eleven Lord JOHN MANNERS rose to address
the House, but hon. members had evidently had enough
of speechifying for the night, and his lordship found himself
in the unusual position of being unable for some minutes
to get a hearing. The scene presented was an extra-
ordinary one. Mr. Forster, with legs crossed and eyes
shut, and hands in pockets, seemed dead to the eloquence
of the noble lord. Mr. Gladstone seemed troubled ;
probably the proceedings in the other House deeply con-
cerned him. The condition of Mr. Bruce and the
clerks seemed unaltered, and nine out of ten of the
members were talking. At a quarter to twelve o'clock,
just when the discussion had lasted seven hours, Mr.
Mundella moved the adjournment of the debate, and the
proposition not being opposed by the Premier, it was
agreed to.