Mr. Long, who followed the Prime Minister, had no doubt
a very difficult task to perform; but it cannot be said that he contrived to defend the action of the House of Lords with any very great success. 'It had frequently, he said, been made a charge against the Upper House that their interference was actuated by a desire to defend the rights of property and the privileges of a class. The wildest opponent of the Upper House could not charge them on this occasion with having been animated by feelings of that kind. Their sole object had been to preserve a system of education which would make the children of the nation good citizens, and which would give to all denominations the same opportunities and the same privileges. That might have been a possible line of defence had the House of Lords rejected the Bill on the second read- ing, but, considering the well-known fact that the com- promise broke down on the narrow point of the right of the teacher to give denominational instruction in Clause III schools in rural single-school areas, it can hardly be regarded as sound. Mr. Long was followed by Mr. Redmond and Mr. Keir Hardie, who, as we have noticed above, both fell into line behind Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and expressed their willingness to fight the Lords on the Constitutional point. After Mr. Birrell had made a stirring speech in defence of his measure, in which he declared that those who had rejected the Bill would live to regret it, Mr. Wyndham once more defended the action of the Lords, and said that he and his friends did not trust to the swing of the pendulum, " but to the love of justice in this country." Ultimately the Motion for discharging the Order and letting the Bill drop was agreed to without a division.
Previous page
