school, he asked, with a strangely distorted sense of Puritan and Radical principles, that religious questions should be submitted to the decision of municipal bodies; the inevitable effect of which would have been to introduce into their discussions, subjects of dispute and contest which had been excluded since the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and to restore the tyranny of majorities in matters of religion. He gave great praise to the Opposition for the concessions they had made in the acceptance of a conscience clause and the abolition of denominational inspection. He asked that the House should go into Committee, his speech containing no indication that the Government were prepared to make any concessions.

The debate was continued on the following evening by Mr. Winterbotham in a speech of marked ability. Mr. Auberon Herbert, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Sir Henry Hoare, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. James Howard, Professor Fawcett, Mr. H. Richard, and Sir Charles Dilke also supported the amendment. The Liberals who opposed it were Sir Roundell Palmer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), Mr. Mundella, Mr. Cowper-Temple, and Mr. U. Kay-Shuttleworth. A number of Conservatives also gave their support to the Government; being determined apparently by the general agreement which existed below the gangway on the Liberal benches.

As the result of three nights discussion, Mr. Gladstone indicated that certain modifications would be considered by the Government-such as those referring to the popular election of School Boards, and the separation, in time, of religious and secular instruction, with other provisions to give to the minority equal privileges with the majority. Under these circumstances Mr. Dixon said he felt it his duty to withdraw the amendment.

The alterations proposed by the Government were not laid on the table of the House until the 26th of May.

representing 96 branches. Mr. Chamberlain, as Chairman of the Executive, stated the views of the League. He described its origin, its rapid growth in numbers and influence, and its claims to fairly represent Liberal opinion throughout the country. In stating the objections of the Committee to the bill, he said they were opposed to the year's delay, which would give to the denominations opportunities to run a race of wasteful expenditure, and to increase sectarian bitterness. They objected, also, to the permissive recognition of great principles, to permissive compulsion and permissive sectarianism, and also to the retention of school fees. The conscience clause proposed was entirely unsatisfactory: no parents would dare to make use of it, or to place themselves under the ban of the parson and the squire by signing such a document. If the Government entertained any doubt as to the opinion of the country, and would give them a little longer time, they would make that opinion sufficiently manifest. In conclusion, he asked that the Government which secured the support of Liberal Churchmen, and of the leading Dissenting bodies, in their efforts to carry out the principles of religious freedom and equality in Ireland, should not reject their petition for the application of those principles in England, and that they would remove from what was otherwise a noble measure, clauses which would inflict intolerable hardship and oppression upon a large class of the community.

Sir Charles Dilke spoke on the conflict between the principle of permissive, and of direct and general compulsion: Mr. Mundella described the application of compulsory laws in foreign States: Mr. Applegarth represented the views of the working classes: The Rev. S. A. Steinthal advocated the abolition of school fees: Mr. Illingworth, the Rev. F. Barham Zincke, and the Rev. Charles Vince explained the views of the deputation on the treatment of religion.

Mr. Gladstone expressed a hope that a basis was afforded upon which, by united efforts, they would be able to work out a satisfactory result. On the same day the Premier also received a deputation from the Welsh Educational Alliance-a body working in sympathy with the League.

On the second reading of the Government Bill, Mr. Dixon, at the request of the Executive Committee, moved "That this House is of opinion that no measure for the elementary education of the people will afford a permanent or satisfactory settlement, which leaves the question of religious instruction in schools supported by the public funds and rates, to be determined by local authorities." Mr. Dixon explained that his amendment did not cover the ground of his objections to the bill, which might be improved in many respects. He could have wished to show reasons for the general establishment of School Boards, and for their free election by the ratepayers; also for the immediate and general application of compulsion, and for the abolition of school fees. He was also opposed to the granting of a year's grace for the establishment of new denominational schools. But he confined himself to a review of what was called the religious difficulty, which would be greatly aggravated by the bill. In the course of time School Boards would become universal, rates would be levied everywhere, compulsory attendance would be generally enforced, and members of different sects would have to pay for, and to send their children to schools of other denominations. The minority would have to pay for the religious teaching of the majority. Denominationalism would thus be increased, rather than lessened, as he held it ought to be. If the Irish system had been adopted there would have been no opposition to the bill. He believed they could not reach a solid foundation short of separate religious teaching. If the agitation should be continued there would arise in the country, a party who would ask for exclusively

Parents

secular education. The Vice-President of the Council had misunderstood the nature and extent of public feeling on the question. A contest between the Church and Nonconformists already seemed inevitable. Looking at the lessons of history he had no doubt which would prevail. If the bill should pass, at future elections of Town Councillors, to be a Dissenter would be a qualification for office, to be a Churchman a disqualification, amongst Liberals. The conscience clause had been tried and found wanting. would not avail themselves of it. The time-table conscience clause was the only one that would work. There ought to be separate religious instruction apart from secular teaching. He hoped that the Government would modify the clauses, and that it would not be left to School Boards to decide this question after a conflict involving much strife and religious animosity. He had taken the unusual and grave step of moving an amendment to the second reading, because it was the only way in which he could gain for the subject the importance it deserved. There would have been a deep feeling of disappointment in the country unless the first opportunity had been taken for giving expression to the strong and decided feeling which existed. If the Government should not think it right to make any declaration of opinion in compliance with these views, it would remain for the constituencies to express their opinion in a manner which would leave no doubt as to public sentiment.

Mr. Illingworth seconded the resolution.

Mr. Forster complained that an amendment had been proposed on the second reading—a course generally taken by members hostile to the Government and the measure. He quoted from proceedings of the League, the Welsh Alliance, and the Congregational Union, to show that they were not agreed on the question of religious instruction. Remarking on his Puritan blood, and his connection with the Radical

school, he asked, with a strangely distorted sense of Puritan and Radical principles, that religious questions should be submitted to the decision of municipal bodies; the inevitable effect of which would have been to introduce into their discussions, subjects of dispute and contest which had been excluded since the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and to restore the tyranny of majorities in matters of religion. He gave great praise to the Opposition for the concessions they had made in the acceptance of a conscience clause and the abolition of denominational inspection. He asked that the House should go into Committee, his speech containing no indication that the Government were prepared to make any concessions.

The debate was continued on the following evening by Mr. Winterbotham in a speech of marked ability. Mr. Auberon Herbert, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Sir Henry Hoare, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. James Howard, Professor Fawcett, Mr. H. Richard, and Sir Charles Dilke also supported the amendment. The Liberals who opposed it were Sir Roundell Palmer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), Mr. Mundella, Mr. Cowper-Temple, and Mr. U. Kay-Shuttleworth. A number of Conservatives also gave their support to the Government; being determined apparently by the general agreement which existed below the gangway on the Liberal benches.

As the result of three nights discussion, Mr. Gladstone indicated that certain modifications would be considered by the Government-such as those referring to the popular election of School Boards, and the separation, in time, of religious and secular instruction, with other provisions to give to the minority equal privileges with the majority. Under these circumstances Mr. Dixon said he felt it his duty to withdraw the amendment.

The alterations proposed by the Government were not laid on the table of the House until the 26th of May.