HC Deb 11 March 1857 vol 144 cc2185-94

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee of Supply, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.

(1.) £21,049,700, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, agreed to.

(2.) £1,553,200 Civil Services (on Account).

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Mr. Fitz- Roy, I am not quite clear whether I am right in apprehending that the Vote on account for education is included in this sum. If that is the case, I am desirous of making a few remarks in consequence of what fell, in my absence, from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in his address on the expenditure of the country last night. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman expressed very considerable dislike of the growing amount of these annual Votes for the purposes of education. Now, perhaps, it might be some surprise to that right hon. Gentleman if he were present, and it may be a surprise to many of those who hear me, when I say that I entirely concur in the opinion he expressed, and, if a discussion had taken place upon the Bill which I introduced, it was certainly my intention to state my very strong objection to the growing amount of these annual Votes for education, and more especially with respect to the manner in which they are applied. It was truly said last night that this is a very popular question, and it is considered a very popular thing for the House of Commons to vote large sums for education. In some respects, no doubt, that is a very desirable course. It is a course very acceptable to many hon. Gentlemen in this House, because it affords a very easy retreat from the difficulties surrounding the question of education, and it is very satisfactory to those—who I believe are more numerous than they profess to be—who do not wish to see any progress in the education of the people. But I hold that the House of Commons has a duty beyond that of voting large sums of money for any object, however desirable in itself. It is our duty to take care that when these sums are granted they are wisely and beneficially expended. I shall not, however, now detain the Committee by going further into the subject than simply to say that if I have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, when these grants come under the consideration of the House, I think I shall be able to show that these annual and growing grants for education involve a wasteful and extravagant expenditure of public money, without any; adequate benefit to the country, I should, therefore, have been prepared, had I been in my place last night, to express, to that extent, my concurrence in the views of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. But at the same time, if I am correctly informed with respect to what fell from my right hon. Friend, I understand that he went on to say that while he would check these annual grants by Parliament he would not provide any equivalent in any other way, but that he would trust the education of the people solely and exclusively to voluntary exertions. Now, Sir, to any such plan as that, from whatever quarter it might proceed, I should entertain the gravest objections, and I wish to take this opportunity of stating that I cannot protest in terms too strong or too emphatic against; a course which, in my humble judgment, would be an abandonment of one of the first duties of this House, and a neglect of the highest interests of the people. The House may depend upon it that what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly true—namely, that, as the Minutes of Council now exist, these grants, large as they are, will go on gradually increasing; and I believe the time is not very distant when they will amount to as much as £1,000,000 instead of £500,000 as at present. I trust I may succeed hereafter in convincing the House that if they are pledged to these great and growing grants they are no less pledged by public duty and prudence to take far greater securities than any we now possess to insure a wise, prudent, and beneficial expenditure of such considerable sums. I deeply regret that the course of public affairs has prevented me from raising the discussion I had hoped would have taken place upon the Bill which I had the honour to introduce. Under present circumstances it is impossible to proceed with that Bill; but I will express my earnest and sanguine; hope that the discussions which have taken place on this subject in the present Parliament will not be without their fruits, and that the Parliament about to assemble will be prepared to bestow that earnest and anxious attention upon this important question to which, from its bearing upon the interests and welfare of the people, it is eminently entitled.

SIR GEORGE GREY

I fully agree, Sir, with the right hon. Baronet that this subject is one which cannot be adequately and properly discussed at the present time; and I regret, therefore, that he has taken this opportunity of expressing so decided and so unfavourable an opinion with regard to that system which has hitherto received the sanction of Parliament, under which, from the grants placed at the disposal of the Executive Government, extensive and useful assistance is afforded to existing schools, without any interference in the management of such schools, or with the religious creeds taught in them. The real question at issue between the right hon. Gentleman, and I may almost say—judging from the expression of opinion last Session—the majority of this House, is whether the system of assisting existing schools by grants placed by Parliament at the disposal of the Executive Government should be continued, or whether those grants should be superseded by a general national system of education, supported by local taxation, or by other means. I have on former occasions expressed my sense of the valuable exertions of the right hon. Baronet in the cause of education; but I think, judging from the feelings expressed in the country and in this House, Her Majesty's Government would not have acted wisely or judiciously in proposing to Parliament, during the present Session, any Bill for the establishment of what is called a general system of national education, superseding the system now in force. In the Bill which the right hon. Baronet intimates his intention of proposing to the next Parliament—

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken; I did not express such an intention.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Well, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring the subject under the consideration of the House in the course of the next Session, and we shall then have to decide between the two systems. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Parliamentary grants have been administered in a manner which has not tended to promote education. I believe they have given a great stimulus to education throughout the country, and that it can be demonstrated that very great advantage has resulted from the system at present in operation. I hope that in the next Parliament there will be a general desire to promote the extension of education, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the means to be employed for that purpose.

MR. HENLEY

said, he entirely concurred in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. At the same time, there was no doubt that persons were entitled to regard this increased Vote with suspicion; and, at all events, to use a common phrase, to see that the country got its sixpence-worth for its sixpence. As far as his information went he was led to believe that those grants had caused the greatest good; for undoubtedly, to a considerable degree, they had stimulated education. Nor could he agree with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) that abuses had occurred in the distribution of the grants. No abuse, that he was aware of, could be brought forward that was worthy of mention. The real ground of difference between them was owing to the unhappy divisions that subsisted as to the mode in which they ought to treat the question of religion. The majority of that House and of the country were opposed to all the great schemes which had been brought forward, because they saw that they must ultimately resolve themselves into systems of purely secular instruction. On the other hand, however, if the present system had its faults, it had, likewise, secured this great advantage, that it enabled every one, according to his views, to have the truth inculcated upon his children. That was an advantage so great, so essential to every system of education, that he had always narrowly watched every scheme that had been proposed, lest it should endanger the principle. For, according to his belief, the question of religious instruction was infinitely beyond all others, and all others must be made subordinate to it. If he had a seat in the next Parliament, he should use his best endeavours in support of it.

MR. EVELYN DENISON

said, he fully concurred in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that one of the first duties of the new Parliament must be to direct its attention to this most interesting subject. He also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that while their present differences existed, it was useless to introduce a comprehensive plan of general education. At the same time, it would be the duty of the Government on the assembling of the next Parliament, to take an early opportunity of stating to the House what their views were with respect to the improvement and extension of the existing system, for it was not possible to deny that it was capable of improvement in many respects.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that there would be early opportunities of discussing the subject, as the present Vote included only two-thirds of the Vote for Education, and one-third would yet remain to be voted.

MR. W. EWART

said, he was quite of opinion with the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the present system stimulated the cause of education; yet as a free trader he had doubts if any system of stimulant would last. They could only look upon it as a temporary expedient. He looked beyond this, and hoped that the system of the United States and of Scotland, which was a national system supported by voluntary rates, would be one day adopted by the people of this country. That day was far out of sight at present, but still he hoped that it would arrive at last. What they had to do was to aid such institutions as would enable the people to educate themselves. The opinion of the Government had been a judicious one on this important question. He wished them, however, to consider if, without interfering with existing schools, they could not establish some test of progress in education before a child was employed in any labour. A short Bill would be sufficient, insisting on the proof of some kind of instruction, before a child was allowed to labour before a certain age. That proceeding would involve no expense—it would be merely a symbol. If the Government would not undertake it, he himself should propose it if he had a seat in the next Parliament.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I have heard, Sir, with great satisfaction what fell from the hon. Members for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), and Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), upon this subject. I wish, however, to refer to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey). I did not intend, in any thing I said just now, to imply for a moment that these annual grants have not done a great deal to promote the cause of education; it would be most unreasonable had I advanced any such idea. Neither did I mean to say, alluding to what fell from my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Henley), that there was anything which I could conceive to be an abuse in the present mode of expending the Vote. What I intended to say was, that when we have these grants growing year after year, we are bound to take all reasonable securities that the public shall derive the utmost degree of benefit from so large an expenditure. My idea is, that you cannot ensure the proper expenditure of so large an amount at the hands of a central department without more securities than we now possess, and without something in the shape of local assistance. I also wish to explain that the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in supposing that I had intimated an intention of re-introducing my Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I think it would be the height of indiscretion for any one to presume so far upon the chances of his reelection to advance such a declaration. At the same time, should I have the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, I shall certainly be prepared to show, as I have said, that the public do not derive an amount of benefit commensurate with the magnitude of this Vote.

MR. PELLATT

said, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), that a voluntary measure was the best that could be proposed, and if what he meant to propose was that the rate should be really voluntary, he should be very apt to fall into the views of the hon. Gentleman. But if it was to be like a poor-rate, which a man must pay whether he could or not, that was not what he understood by a voluntary rate, and he could not fall in with those views. He was sorry to say that he saw no other way of doing it in the poorer districts where people were not themselves able to pay the cost of education; but he could not approve of its being generally carried out. Such measures had the effect of discouraging the national schools, by which a great deal of good was effected; still he could not deny that they had the effect of promoting education. He certainly thought there ought to be a test to which all children under a certain age should be subjected before they were allowed to be employed in any kind of labour, in order to ensure that their education had not been neglected, though he should be very sorry to see such a state of things in force here as in Prussia, where the children were driven to school by the police. But in England the chief difficulty was not that there were not schools enough, the difficulty was to get the children away from their employments in the field and in the factory, the parents being anxious to get all the profit they could out of them. He objected to the present plan, because the aid of the Government had a tendency to be given, not where it should be, to the poorer districts, but to the richer. In his own neighbourhood they had adopted the British system, and it was found to act very well; but the moment these public grants became obtainable, the Churchmen determined on separating, and setting up a national school. Still he would much rather see an annual Parliamentary grant of £500,000, though it might increase at the rate of, say £10,000 a year, than a system of rating which would involve taxation to the amount of probably 5,000,000 per annum. If the people must be compelled to educate themselves, the plan suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Ewart) was by far the best that could be devised. He thought, on the whole, that what was wanted was rather an extension of the existing system than the adoption of any new and general measure.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he thought the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) would have to weigh well two points before he expected his scheme of education to become law. First, he must consider the amount of the burden which he would impose upon the local rates of counties; and, secondly, the mode in which the fund was to be distributed. He believed those were two considerations that would offer great difficulties to the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Treasury, whether there were not some charges on account of the civil service omitted from the Vote, and if so, upon what principle those omissions were made. For example, he could not discover any charge on account of the Poor Law Commission.

MR. WILSON

said, the Vote was intended to include every service for which money would be required during the next three months. If the Poor Law Board was not provided for, it must be that provision had been already made for its requirements. However, he should inquire into the matter. The same rule was followed now as in 1841.

MR. SPOONER

Does this Vote include any expenditure on account of the Kensington Gore estate?

MR. WILSON

No.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £1,510,000 Revenue Departments, (on account).

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) was not in his place. That gentleman had spoken on the previous evening of the advantage of that House exercising a control over the expenditure. That he (Sir H. Willoughby) considered cut both ways. Hitherto the departments were entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the expenditure within the capability of the revenue, and now that responsibility was suddenly transferred to the House itself. That was a very heavy responsibility, and he did not think the arrangement so wholly beneficial to the country as the hon. Member for Lambeth appeared to consider. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, how it was that there was an increase of nearly £15,000 in those Estimates? He observed that of late there had been a silent and very gradual addition to the salaries in the Customs Department. That was a very invidious mode of increasing the Estimates, and the Committee, as far as he could see, had no means of judging of the propriety of these augmentations of salaries.

MR. WILSON

said, that the Votes would be laid before the new Parliament in the fullest detail. With regard to the increase in the Customs Department, the Committee must make up its mind to an annual increase in the expenditure of that department. When it was remembered that within the last ten years the quantity of shipping that had entered and left the ports of this country had doubled, the Committee would understand that many more officers were now required for the services of the department than formerly. The expense, therefore, ought not to be grudged by the Committee. At the same time it should be borne in mind that although there might be no increase in the salaries, properly so called, every year the scale was kept revising, as gentlemen ascended in the service, and that of itself was the cause of a slight increase in the expenditure. The great increase in salaries, however, occurred in the department of the Post Office; but then, again, the Committee must make up its mind not to regard the Post Office as a department of revenue. Within the last three years no less than 1,700 district post offices had been established, which would convince the public how great was the expenditure thrown upon that department. The fact was, the public must be content if in future years the Post Office was enabled to pay its expenses.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed; Reoslutions to be reported To-morrow.