HC Deb 05 March 1878 vol 238 cc777-95
MR. JOHN BRIGHT

Sir, I am sorry to be obliged to take up the time of the House with a question which to the House may appear not of great importance; but by the constituency which I am here to represent, it is considered of the greatest importance. I regret very much the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) is not present; and I regret, as I am sure we all must, the cause of his absence. But by Act of Parliament only a certain time is allowed—I think 60 days—after a school scheme has been laid upon the Table, wherein the propriety of that scheme can be questioned. Therefore, although I have put off my Motion in the hope the noble Lord might be present, I am compelled to bring it on now, or I may have no other opportunity, and the scheme may receive the sanction of Parliament unquestioned. My Motion is— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, and for the management of the Foundations of John Milward and Joanna Lench, in the county of Warwick. The school, as I need hardly tell the House, for many hon. Members are well acquainted with it, is one of the most ancient character, having come down to vis from the time of King Edward VI. It was not exactly established, but it was restored, by that Monarch in 1552. The importance of this school will be at once recognized when I inform the House that the increased value of the present income is £15,000 a-year, and that the number of children receiving education is not less, if it is not more, than 2,000. The town of Birmingham, therefore, may be forgiven if it takes the greatest interest in this educational institution, and with my constituents, the question I am now asking the House to consider is regarded as one of considerable importance. There have been many past efforts made in the town for the improvement of the management of the school. Going back to 1842, the town council of Birmingham, representing at that time the population of that great town, humbly asked that five members of a representative character might be admitted to the board of governors of the school; and again, in 1861, they endeavoured, by means of a Private Bill, to obtain a Private Act to enable the mayor and ex-mayor of the town to be members of the governing body; but in both these attempts they failed. In 1866 the Schools Inquiry Commissioners inquired into this school, as they did into many other schools in various parts of the country. They recommended that out of 21 governors, 10 should be appointed by the town council of the borough; but the town council were not satisfied with this, and wished that the whole power of management should be transferred to the corporation; but every proposition, every attempt at reform made in past years to give the direction into the hands of the public of Birmingham, through their municipal body, has been persistently, continuously resisted by the governors of the school. The School Inquiry Commission reported upon this school, and one or two extracts I may give the House. They state that scarcely a child of the poorest of the population was to be found in the school; but almost the whole benefit of this great charitable educational institution was given to the superior classes. They say that the well-to-do tradesman sends his son to the school free, for the school is free, and has been so for 300 years. But the tradesman's porter sends his son to the national school, where he pays for his education 2d., 3d., or 4d. a-week, as the case may be. Canon Miller, a clergyman well known to many, and then a resident clergyman in the town, said the effect of the principle of self-government has been that members of all the Nonconformist Bodies are particularly excluded from the management of the schools. Now, I need not tell the House what is the general feeling in Birmingham when such is the state of things; for if there is a town in the Kingdom where Nonconformists are numerous and influential, Birmingham is the town which must specially be pointed to. There were some other points in the evidence to which I might refer. One witness, a resident of eminence and influence, stated that up to that time no member of the town council had even been elected to the board of governors, and no Member of Parliament for the borough had ever sat on the board with one exception—and he believed he was elected before he became a Member of Parliament—the late Mr. Spooner, a Member of the Party opposite. It was stated further that up to that time 23 gentlemen had held the position of Mayor of Birmingham, but not one of these had been elected to the board. I believe that up to now 30, if not more, gentlemen have occupied that eminent position—Mayor of Birmingham—and I understand some relaxation has taken place, and two of those who have occupied the office of mayor have had a seat on the governing board. As might be expected, other things have followed this system. It was represented that the expenditure for the classical branches of education was large and expensive, while the provision made for elementary branches of education was insufficiently small. I could say more; but throughout the whole establishment from end to end the advantage of the schools came to that class who are represented on the board of management, and the intentions of the founders of this great educational institution are frustrated solely on account of the manner in which the governors of the school are appointed. The Endowed Schools Commission, which investigated the whole subject, presented a scheme in 1873. That scheme did not please everybody, but still it was such that it received a large share of support, and if it had been passed it would have settled the question. It was not called in the House of Commons; but it was opposed in the House of Lords by the Marquess of Salisbury. I have taken the trouble to read the debate that then took place, in order to ascertain on what grounds that scheme was rejected, and, as I think, most unfortunately rejected. The Endowed Schools Commissioners proposed in that scheme that the schools should be under a board of 21 governors—eight were to be what are called co-optative governors, one was to be appointed by the teachers—male and female—in the school, eight by the town council of the borough, and four by the school board of the borough. In that case, there would have been 12 representatives of the corporation and school board, eight governors self-elected, and one elected by the teachers, and the majority would be with the representative class, the school board and corporation. This compromise would have been accepted generally in the borough; but, unfortunately, the other House of Parliament rejected it. The ground of the objection to the scheme was that there was not sufficient provision for religious instruction in accordance with the views, belief, and practice of the Church of England. I believe that this objection was made under mistake, for I cannot, after reading the words of the charter, believe that anybody concerned in it had any idea to shut out the majority of the people of Birmingham from the benefit of this school. The only ground upon which that argument seems to be founded is, that a Bishop—I think the Bishop of Worcester—is the Visitor of the school, and, in concert with the governors, does certain things in the fulfilment of his duty. It was urged that, because a Bishop was in the matter, nobody but those who believe in Bishops had a right of entry into that great institution, on the ground that the scheme was rejected by the other House of Parliament, and it failed with regard to the question of religious instruction. That was the ground upon which the other House of Parliament rejected it, and if this House was to take the course pursued by the other House on that ground it would reject this scheme. The scheme having been rejected, it fell to the lot of the Charity Commissioners, who have succeeded the Endowed School Commissioners, to found a new scheme, and in this new scheme they have adhered precisely to the course taken by their predecessors as regards religious instruction. I do not want to discuss the religious system at all. I am quite certain the Government in this scheme will take all needful means to give such religious instruction as they think wise to the scholars who are under their care. The point I want to call the attention of the House to is the constitution of the governing body. The people of Birmingham object to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners on this, among other grounds—that, whereas the school has been free for 300 years, it is now proposed to establish a system of fees. I formerly thought that free schools were not so good as schools in which some fees are payable; but I confess the more I consider the question the more I am inclined to think that the opinion was not a wise one, and that a free school after all is something better than where something would have to be paid. If I wanted an illustration I or an argument to support that view, I would point to a remarkable case in the city of Edinburgh, where the schools contain from 4,000 to 5,000 children—schools which have been established by the accumulated funds derived from Heriot's Hospital; and I learn from good authority that in the attendance of the children in free schools there was a very large percentage of the children whose names are on the rolls attending schools, and that the general advantages of free schools are shown in the city to be altogether indisputable, and such as might well afford, in my mind, and, I might add, in the minds of others, a change of opinion in regard to the general advantages of free schools. But I shall leave that question, and I think my hon. Friend who will follow me, who is more acquainted with that subject, will deal with this question when he states his views to the House on the point. With regard to the constitution of the governing body, the present scheme proposes that out of the 21 governors, nine should be co-optative or self-elected. The town council shall appoint eight, and the teachers, men and women together, shall appoint one. There remain, then, three governors to be appointed elsewhere or by some other authority. In the proposed scheme of 1873 four were appointed by the school board, they being representatives of the population of Birmingham just as freely and clearly as the town council is. In this case, instead of giving eight co-optative governors, this scheme proposes nine—eight by the town council and one by the teachers, and three elected by the three Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London. What the corporation and the people of Birmingham object to is that the majority, which in the scheme of 1873 was given to the corporation and the school board, is reduced to a minority, the school board being altogether got rid of, The co-optative members are increased by one, and three members are to be appointed by Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities. If the right hon. Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) were here I would ask his opinion whether it would be well to give these three Senates power to appoint a governor of a school of a town with which they have no connection, and about whose circumstances they may be held to be entirely unacquainted. I am not arguing the question between the town council or the school board; but I think this will be clear to the House—that on the whole, if you have eight or nine members to be elected by the town council, it is the simplest way altogether to allow the representative members to be elected by the same body, whether it were a town council or whether it were a school board. The representative system should be adhered to, and the people, to a large extent, would be satisfied. I believe the public of Birmingham would prefer the three members to be elected and appointed by the corporation rather than the matter should be under the control of the three Universities. I would like to ask the House one simple question. I was looking last night into a very interesting book, which I believe nobody has ever read through—I refer to Whitaker's Almanack—and I looked to see who were the Charity Commissioners. I will not mention their names; but I think five of them sat in London, and no doubt they performed their duties to the best of their knowledge and capacity. I would like to ask whether these five are more likely to know what is better for this great school at Birmingham than the town council, the school board, or the public of that great city. The town council it is admitted throughout the Kingdom is one of the most eminent of our municipal bodies. It has the management of the gas works of 300,000 or 400,000 people; it has the power of laying out large sums for the supply of water to that great population; it has the paving of streets and the management of the sewage of the town, and also the management of the police; it has also the conduct of all that is necessary for the sanitary condition of the town. Now, the school board is a body of which the public has heard a great deal. I believe there is no school board in the Kingdom that has done more for education than that of Birmingham, excepting the School Board of the City of London. The Birmingham board has the education of 22,000 children, and Parliament has entrusted that board to be elected by the ratepayers of the town, and they have the care of the education of a vast number of the children of that population. I should say that the Univer- sities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London have no pretence of pointing out to the corporation or the school board of Birmingham the knowledge of the wants of that town as regarded the great educational question. In the scheme there is a description of the classes to be appointed on the board, and it states that no person shall continue to be a govenor unless he carries on a trade, business, profession, or calling within the municipal borough of Birmingham or some parish adjoining thereto, or resides within a convenient distance, such distance to be determined from time to time by the governors. I should like to ask the hon. Members for Oxford, Cam-bride, or the London University, whether it was convenient, right, or just to the population of Birmingham, to the corporation of that great town, or to the school board, that these Universities should be called upon to select somebody in the district, and put him or them on the governing body of this school, with the expectation that these three gentlemen so appointed will be more eligible in any degree than eight or 12 that the school board might be called upon to elect. It is obvious that the plan is one on behalf of which no fair argument could be offered. Last year I went with a deputation to see the Charity Commissioners; and, though they heard all we had to say, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that they did not pretend to have any kind of argument in favour of their proposition as against that which the town made. Last summer, also, I went with a deputation to meet the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, and the whole question was discussed before him fairly. When the deputation withdrew I stayed with the noble Lord, and was asked if I thought the town of Birmingham, on the whole, would be satisfied if, as regarded the three members for the Universities, that portion of the scheme were omitted—whether it would be opposed in Birmingham? With regard to the free schools, I gave my honest opinion that all my constituents were in favour of free schools, and that if they removed that objectionable part upon which the town felt humiliated, they would, on the whole, be fairly satisfied, and the scheme would be accepted, and no further difficulty would arise; and that, so far as I had any influence, I would advise them to accept the scheme. I confess I was very much surprised, after the question was put to me at the Privy Council, when the scheme came forth, to find that the three University members were still retained. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for London University whether he thought the Senate would proceed to appoint anybody, and he said he really did not know. He thought, perhaps, they might have a committee, or some one person to recommend another person, and that the appointment would be made, no doubt, perfectly honestly and to the best of the judgment of the Senate. Allowing they did their best, it is quite obvious it must be better that Birmingham through its well-known and legal representative members of the corporation or of the school board—I prefer the corporation myself—it must be better that one of these bodies should have the choice of those three members rather than that they should be chosen by the Universities upon whom the duties have been assigned in this scheme. I understand that, though it is competent for me to move the omission of any clause from the scheme, I cannot propose the insertion of something else. Therefore, what I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will no doubt reply to me, is whether he will sanction the withdrawal of the scheme for a time, and that the Charity Commissioners be given to understand that that particular point may be re-considered, and probably they might take away these three members whom they propose to have elected by the three Universities and transfer them to the corporation of Birmingham. If that were done, I believe the whole question would be permanently settled to the general satisfaction of the town, and we should hear no more of it. If it is not done, we shall have continued attempts on the part of the corporation and the people of Birmingham to get rid of this very objectionable scheme, and other means will be taken to apply either to Parliament or to the Charity Commissioners on the subject. Before I sit down, I should like to remove the impression as regards the management of the school. I am happy to say that the management of the school has undergone a most salutary change during the last few years, and there is much greater satisfaction in the management of the school than in past years. The whole of that has been brought about mainly through the corporation, who had infused into it a new spirit, and this magnificent school is now conducted in such a satisfactory way that no complaint is made as to its management. You have a great population, a great industry, great intelligence; you have a corporation directing the population wisely in all that it does; and there can be no doubt in my mind that the corporation is wise enough to take its fair share at least in the management of this great institution, whose property has been created by the industry of the town, and whose children, to the extent of 2,000, are now in the schools, who will form a large portion of the intelligent population of the town. I have made no attack on the schools or on the present Government. The course taken by the Charity Commissioners is, I think, humiliating and somewhat offensive to the town of Birmingham. I think it would be a good thing to allow the scheme to be withdrawn in the manner I have proposed. I believe I speak the opinions of a vast majority; the minority is not to be counted, it is so small on this matter; and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would consent to this, it would give great satisfaction to the population. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Sir, I rise for the purpose of seconding the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken some personal interest in this matter, because I know the subject is one that affects my constituents, and indeed the vast majority of the inhabitants of Birmingham. The public bodies of the town had urged the Charity Commissioners to make a local inquiry, in order to satisfy themselves as to the state of public opinion on the subject, but the Commissioners had refused. The town council and the school board had protested against the scheme, public meetings had been held, which had been of an open character, and presided over by the mayor; and upon all these occasions an overwhelming majority has pronounced in favour of the proposition of my right hon. Friend. The objections to the scheme as it stands are stated to be twofold. In the first instance, we object to the alterations which are proposed to be made in the system, which has prevailed for more than 300 years, under which the school has been a free school. It is rather strange that I, as a Radical, representing] a Radical constituency, should have to appeal to a Conservative Government not to destroy an institution which has confessedly worked well up to the present time, and which no one in the constituency desires to have altered, and which is likely to be much more useful in the future than in the past. Now that the Elementary Education Acts have been passed, and the number of children going through the public schools of Birmingham are numerous, I think we may well hope more of the poorer classes will be enabled to give their children the advantages of a higher system of education, if only the doors are not closed upon them by a system of fees. It seems that the proposal for change is made at the very moment when the poor are enabled to avail themselves of the advantages offered. We say that the school should remain free for children of all classes. If not, the whole question ought to be relegated to the governors for the time being. This, after all, is a secondary matter in comparison with what is the broad issue raised by my right hon. Friend. It was whether or no the people of Birmingham are fit to be entrusted with the management of their own schools. The scheme proposed is altogether unsatisfactory. Although the governing body was to consist of only 21 members, there were six sets of electors, residing in four or five different towns. I put it to the House, as a simple proposition, whether the representatives of the people, the town council by preference, should not have the nomination of the whole of the board; or at least, if it is considered necessary, as an experiment, to introduce other elements, that the representative element should be in a majority. There was a time in the history of the school when the majority of the governors consisted of Dissenters and Liberals, and they were so liberal that they were satisfied with maintaining a majority of one, and leaving the remaining nine to be elected by Conservatives and Churchmen; but, on one occasion, when there happened to be an election to fill two vacancies, one of the Nonconformist members could not resist the temptation of a very fine morning in May to go trout-fishing. He went, and the temporary majority of Conservatives and Churchmen thus secured elected two of their body, and no Dissenter has ever since been elected. At all events, up to recent years, no Dissenter and no Liberal had ever been elected. The result was for a long period complaints of favouritism in the nominations and of extravagance in the expenditure, complaints which had now been remedied; but distinctly in consequence of the pressure of public opinion, and not by the initiative of this self-elected board. Yet the scheme proposed to lessen the influence of this popular opinion, and to perpetuate the influence of the self-electing system, from which such grievances had resulted. The question is whether Birmingham is fit to be entrusted with the management of the school. It may be said that gentlemen are fitted to the members of a corporation which is entrusted with the management of sewage, or to be members of a school board which looks after the elementary education of the people, but have nothing to do and are not fit to be entrusted with the higher education of the people; but I say that no town in the Kingdom has shown a deeper interest in culture and in education than Birmingham. It has just been determined, with the full assent of the people, to spend £20,000 in the improvement and enlargement of its Free Library and Art Gallery, one of the finest of such institutions in the Provinces. There are thousands of members of, and subscribers to, the Midland Institute, which is one of the largest institutions in the country devoted to the work of secondary education. Sir Josiah Mason has established a Science College at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000. These things prove the interest that is taken in general culture and in higher education, and the citizens of such a town are to be denied the management of this school! It is said that town councils want intelligence, culture, and breadth of appreciation; but how is it likely they should be better if, when there is a question of culture, you say these men are not fit to undertake it? You leave it to be inferred that they find an appropriate occupation in sewage and other matters. I hope that the Government will listen to the appeal that has been addressed to them. I feel that if they do not it will be as useless to argue with them as with the master of many legions; but we shall at least have made our final protest against the scheme. It is unpopular with our constituents, and sooner or later I believe the wisdom and justice of the House will secure its revision, and give us the management of our own school.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, and for the management of the foundations of John Milward and Joanna Lench in the county of Warwick."—(Mr. John Bright)

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD

said, he did not represent any interest in Birmingham, nor had he been communicated with on the subject; but he would speak as an independent Member, who had lived long in Birmingham, and knew something of its public life, at least, as far as his political opinions did not exclude him from its public offices. The question was whether a great educational foundation, 300 years old, which had done great service and sent many distinguished men to the Universities, which it was admitted had been fairly administered for many years past, should be administered under a thoughtful and impartial scheme, framed by the most competent authority, or whether the corporation, as now constituted, was a body better qualified than that indicated by the scheme to carry on the work. If it were a question of investing money raised by rates in making sewers or gas, he would say that the corporation, whether it fairly represented the town or not, should administer the funds, and the people must take the consequences. But, in dealing with funds, not one farthing of which came from the ratepayers, but were due to a magnificent act of Royal bounty, Parliament and the Crown, acting under proper advice, had the right, for the public good, to impose certain conditions on the management of the institution. What was the corporation of Birmingham? It consisted of 64 members, 63 of whom belonged to one political Party, and the sixty-fourth was expecting his doom if the threats of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite belonged were carried out. That corporation, it was known, did not represent at all a minority, which was estimated at two-fifths of the population. Again, the school board, which was composed of the same Party as the corporation, was not noted for its liberality. Indeed, it was unique of its kind. It was the only board which refused its teachers liberty to give religious instruction to the children, even out of school. Such a body, however admirable in its composition, was scarcely fitted, in his opinion, to manage the funds of a great institution like King Edward's School. He would be the last to say a word against the culture of the town; it was as good as in any manufacturing town; but town councils were elected for other than educational purposes, and for reasons which had nothing to do with education. He thought the advantage which would be derived by the school from three of the governors being nominated by three seats of learning was undeniable. This would ensure there being on the board men who knew what real culture was, and who would help in keeping up a good tone in the school. As to the corporation, he thought they had a very fair share of the representation. They had eight members already against nine co-optative members and if the corporation used their important share of the representation wisely, he thought they would be able almost to determine what should be the course of education in this school. It was highly desirable that this institution should be kept a middle-class school. There were many points with regard to fees, &c, which, however, he would not now go into; but, with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that the question before the House was whether they were fit in Birmingham to manage their own affairs, he desired to say that was not the question. The question was whether the Birmingham Corporation was a fit—or rather, indeed, the fittest—body to manage a middle-class school. The people of Birmingham had never been polled on whether they approved this or not; and if they were to go by the results of the last contested election, it was clear that the present corporation did not exactly represent the opinions of the town, unless it had changed since that time. Therefore, for all the grounds that he had stated, and others he might name, he ventured to express a hope, without do-fending every detail of this scheme, that the House would not pass the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, were it not that he was responsible with Lord Ripon for the first scheme to which reference had been made, he should not have risen to address the House; but it might be well that he should briefly explain the ground on which they gave a majority of the governors to the representative bodies of Birmingham, and therefore show, he thought, why it should be desirable for the present Government to continue in the same course. In both schemes there were to be 21 governors, and they proposed, under the original scheme, to give eight to the town council, four to the school board, one to the teachers, and eight co-optative. The present scheme proposed to give eight to the town council, nine co-optative, one to the teachers, and three to the Universities; therefore, in this latter case, the majority were not elected by the bodies in Birmingham, whereas before they were so. The real question for the House to consider was whether it was better in the case of this great school and this great town that the majority of the governors should be appointed by the representative bodies or not? At the time of the original scheme the town council of Birmingham wished to have the governing body entirely representative. On the other hand, the governors wished a very much smaller share of the representation to be given to the town council than was finally given. A powerful body in Birmingham, called the Grammar School Re-form Association, composed of various religious denominations, wished the governing body to be divided so as not to have more than six co-optative members on the board. He was not going to say whether too large a share had been given to the co-optative section or not; but the scheme was accepted, though reluctantly, by the town council and by that Party in Birmingham which was represented by the three Members in that House, by the town council, and by the school board. The scheme was opposed in the House of Lords, not on the ground of the constitution of the board, but on the ground that some arrangement was required for religious education—a point which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). In this scheme, however, the provision with regard to religious instruction was perfectly clear; and, therefore, it was impossible that the governing body could imitate the conduct of the school board of Birmingham on that subject. The real point was whether one of the most magnificent institutions and one of the most progressive and powerful cities in the Empire should be out of harmony. His own views were not altogether in accord with the views entertained at Birmingham on the subject of education; but then Birmingham might not always remain of the same opinion as at present. No town was more in earnest on matters of education, nor was there any town in which the leading men had given more time to serve the cause of education. "Was it then advisable in framing a new scheme to run counter to the feelings of the town in regard to that school? Because there could be no mistake about the feelings of the town with regard to King Edward's School. He would not go into the question of the University nominees. It struck him that Birmingham was not the place to try that. They should trust to the educational zeal of the town. In supporting this Motion, he must not be supposed as admitting that it would be desirable to make education free. Having been a Member of the Schools Inquiry Commission, he felt with regard to the secondary and higher schools, that it would be no advantage to culture to make entrance to them free. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Motion of his right hon. Friend would be approved by the majority of the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he regretted that the absence, from indisposition, of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon), imposed upon him the necessity of answering the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) and his supporters. He regretted the absence of the noble Lord, not only because of the reason of it, but because his noble Friend was more familiar with all the details of this question than he could pretend to be. However, he had a general acquaintance with the question; and from some consideration of it in former times, and from what had passed in the present debate, he might venture to express his opinion, and to give the reasons why he could not accept the views which were put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the junior Member for Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) had put the matter in this way. He said—"I desire to see, and I think it is a fair thing you should see, a majority of the governing body composed of the representatives of the people of Birmingham." But did the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what the nature of the representative body would be under any circumstances, and especially if he and the Members for Birmingham succeeded in getting it altered in the way they wished? The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be elected members and co-optative members, and that of these the former should be in a majority. Did the right hon. Gentleman, however, recollect that co-optative members were to be kept up in the event of vacancy by election by the whole body; and that if that process were to go on the co-optative members in time would be absorbed altogether? They all admitted that in regard to the purposes for which town councils and corporations were elected, it was right that the majority should rule; but was it necessarily desirable, in a question of education and the direction of a great institution, to put the whole management into the hands of a body elected for the management of the physical condition of the town, and the management of the gas and waterworks, and so forth, and many other important functions which undoubtedly those corporations fulfilled? But hon. Members would remember this, that in what they were proposing to do, and the principles they were laying down, they could not confine their case to Birmingham; but they were introducing principles the application of which might be claimed by a great many other towns besides Birmingham. It would be invidious to say that this principle was to be applied to Birmingham and not to other towns, because they were less impartial and somewhat less advanced and intelligent. The question might be raised in a painful way by instituting comparisons of that kind. What would Manchester say? He did not profess to know the governing body of Man- cheater; but he did know that there were upon the governing body of Manchester School the University men who were now objected to by Birmingham. Were they to say to Manchester, if they asked for similar powers—"It's all very well; you are not of the same intelligence or the same advanced culture as the corporation of Birmingham; and though it would not be right to offer such an insult to Birmingham as to have University men represented in their governing body, yet for an inferior set of people like you in Manchester it is quite good enough?" Such a principle would hardly be contended for by anybody; but if they were to admit that principle, then all the different corporations would have the same claims allowed as were put forth by Birmingham. In a governing body so constituted they might have great variety of views, and some of the views that might be brought forward might be of a very questionable character. He observed that on the present occasion the Motion which was made was for the rejection of the scheme upon two distinct grounds; one was that the governing body was not rightly constituted, and the other was that there was no provision made for gratuitous education. But some of those who supported the view that they ought to give the majority to the corporation of Birmingham held that it was not desirable to give gratuitous education; and yet they would, by supporting this Motion, put the power into the hands of men who probably would go on the length, or at all events might do so, and in that way they might be sacrificing a principle which was influential in educational questions for the sake of giving power to a corporation who took a particular view—and they must bear in mind always, when he spoke of the corporation and the representatives of a class, he was speaking of the representation of the majority and not of the minority. As regarded the bodies that should elect the governing body, the Endowed Schools Commissioners had made every reasonable suggestion in proposing bodies that could not give any offence. What was this governing body for? It was to have the conduct of a great educational institution; and surely, in conducting their affairs, it was no reflection that a small proportion of the educational body should be com- posed of gentlemen who had a particular knowledge of the practices and principles of education. In the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, the Commissioners said— It seems to us that in a good school trust, the representation of the interests of parents, the interests of education, and the past management of the school should, if possible, he combined; and the Gentlemen from whose Report he quoted further said that, in their opinion, while the other two objects were attended to, some trustees should be appointed, on the ground of special knowledge, to represent the interests of education. They must bear in mind that what they did to meet the case of a particular town might have to be extended to other towns; and he feared that if they admitted the principle of the objection taken by this Motion, they would admit principles which would unravel the workings of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and remit to a number of bodies with by no means the high level of culture of the town of Birmingham the consideration of those questions, without that due reference to the interests of education which the Schools Inquiry Commission tried to introduce. He must apologize for not being able to enter more fully into the matter; but he thought that it was not necessary to do so, because the principle was easily understood and apprehended, and in itself it was a sufficient answer to the arguments of those who wished to upset the scheme. It was not necessary to go into the scheme; but he thought they might challenge the 'opinion of the House whether they would or would not affirm the principles laid down for their guidance by the Schools Inquiry Commission.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he must oppose the Motion. The scheme, he said, connected the school of Birmingham largely with the Universities. In the 78th clauseitdevoted£400perannum for scholarship in connection with Oxford and Cambridge. Surely, therefore, when they had a system beginning with the elementary schools of Birmingham, and going through the secondary scoools, and connecting them with the great Universities, it was desirable that those great Universities should be represented on the managing board. By Clause 79, £200 a-year was devoted to other Universities. But he failed to see why the London University should have a nominated governor on the board, for it was not a teaching University, but only an examining board. The money must go to the other Universities, and not to the London University. When it was seen that this money was given in connection with the great Universities of the Kingdom, he could not, as a University man, support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he particularly objected to that part of the scheme which related to the Universities. The present governors were just as much opposed to the three members being appointed by the Universities as the town council were. If the scheme were confirmed, the 2,000 children in the elementary schools who were now being educated gratuitously would have to leave unless they paid certain fees. The school was doing an enormous good, and they were going to put a stop to it. ["No, no!"] It was useless to attempt to argue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a majority at his back. He believed that Birmingham would have cause to regret the day when University men meddled with the educational affairs of the town, without really understanding its wants and requirements.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, that, while heartily sympathizing with the reform of our grammar schools, he could not support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. He asked all those who valued culture in their municipal institutions in England to pause before they adopted a principle which would compel them to give way to every petty local influence in the boroughs. He could not agree that the London University should not have a voice in the management of the school, and that Scotch Universities should have a part in the management of English educational establishments. He recommended the diminution of the number of the co-optative members, and was in favour of allowing University members to be chosen from any part of England instead of within seven miles of Birmingham.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 129: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 41.)