§ (7.) £106,000, Public Education, England and Wales.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINobserved, that he did not rise to oppose the Vote, for he thought it must be a matter of satisfaction to the country that the number of children under education, and entitled to receive the grant, had considerably exceeded the estimate. He wanted to call the attention of the Vice President of the Council to the determination that had been come to with reference to the Birmingham School Board. That Board had been informed that the grant would be withdrawn, unless the female teachers in the young boys' school were replaced by male teachers. These female teachers had been employed hitherto as an experiment, which had answered very well. In Birmingham they found considerable difficulty in obtaining sufficient qualified male teachers for their schools, and as their expenses were very rapidly increasing, therefore, they were anxious to try the effect of substituting female teachers, who were paid at a lower rate. They had been tried in the best schools in the United States, and on the Continent, and had succeeded. He did not know on what ground the discretion of the Board had been thus rudely interfered with. It was only one of the many attempts to exercise local discretion which seemed to be resented by the Education Department. The Council in London was apparently actuated by a desire to cut them all down to one length, the effect of which would shortly be that they would have a 1336 system giving them as little discretion as that in Prussia.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not know this question was going to be raised, or he would have brought down the correspondence on the subject; but, so far as he remembered, the Birmingham School Board asked leave to try the experiment of substituting a certain number of female teachers for male teachers in the boys' schools. The Education Department objected, as there was a strong objection to the employment of female teachers in boys' schools. ["Why?"] The objection was not a very pleasant one to state; but, as a rule, these teachers were young, and they were brought into connection with the master, and were under his sole control. There had been more than one case brought under the notice of the Department in which immorality had resulted. Therefore, he thought the Education Department had acted wisely in the way they had done. He was aware that many school boards complained of the way in which the Education Department interpreted the Code of the Rules; but they were bound to see that those Rules were adhered to, or else they were surcharged by the Audit Department. The particular case of the Birmingham School Board was very carefully considered, though he was aware that that Board did not concur in the validity of the objections raised. The Council had not the least desire to discourage the appointment of women as teachers in infants, girls, or mixed schools.
§ MR. MUNDELLAconsidered the answer of the noble Lord eminently unsatisfactory. Throughout the whole of the United States, and in Switzerland, the younger boys, and some of even rather mature growth, were admirably taught by females. It was found that they taught boys up to 10 or 11 even better than young men, the labour, of course, being performed at about one-half the rate. Birmingham was, therefore, doing very great service by trying this experiment, and he thought the Education Department was far too rigid, and far too much given to discountenancing anything in the way of improvement. He hoped the noble Lord would permit Birmingham to try the experiment on behalf of the country, and if it succeeded, would let it be tried elsewhere. The school boards were 1337 trying everywhere to get the best education at the smallest possible rate; and to discourage this experiment, at a time when there was so many complaints of the cost of education, seemed to him to be most unwise.
§ MR. A. MILLSknew something about the United States, and he should not like to see our educational standard lowered to their level. Though he admitted that we had much to learn, in regard to the quality of the teachers, yet he should be sorry to think that the education given at the London School Board was not very considerably superior to the average elementary teaching in the United States. He believed the tendency now-a-days was to extend the employment of female teachers rather than to restrict it, and he hoped that would not be carried too far. If any alteration were made, he hoped care would be taken to reduce the undue strain at present placed in too many instances on young female pupil teachers.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid this employment of female teachers for young boys was spoken of as though it were an experiment; but he might mention to the House that the system had been in operation in the most successful school in the United Kingdom—that was to say, the best school measured by the test of results. It obtained the largest amount of grants, and he did not know any better test than that. In Gillespie's school in Edinburgh, belonging to the Merchant Company, there were over 1,300 pupils, and the grant earned last year was over £1,000, and it had been so for some years. That school was mainly taught by young women. Nine-tenths of the teachers were women, and the children were certainly well taught. Now, if that was the result of the working of the system in the most successful school in the Kingdom, why should this red-tapeism be applied to Birmingham to prevent the employment of female teachers? He was surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman opposite, a member of the London School Board, say that they would bring the education in this country down to the level of the United States. Some time ago, a gentleman was sent to America by the Government to report upon the state of the schools there. That gentleman was Dr. Fraser, now the Bishop of Manchester, and the Report he wrote was published as a Blue Book. 1338 Bishop Eraser there stated that the schools in America were mainly taught by women, and that, in his opinion, the teaching given in that country was equal to any given in this country, and in many cases was much better.
§ COLONEL BARNEsaid, as a rural ratepayer, he thought the education given to the labourers' children was rather too high. He hoped the Government would do all in their power to keep down the expenses of the school boards. At present, they were advancing by leaps and bounds; and if they went much further, the time would come, especially under the present depressed condition of agriculture, when the ratepayers would be unable to pay the rates at all. In the rural districts, also, they had great difficulty in obtaining mistresses, and though they offered very high wages, were sometimes unable to get one for months at a time. In consequence, they lost the school grants. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether there was any chance of the supply equalling the demand?
§ MR. R. E. PLUNKETTsaid, he had paid great attention to this subject, and he did not think it would be satisfactorily settled until they imported three or four hundred of these American teachers. He hoped the Department would do nothing, but would allow the experiment of employing properly-trained women teachers to be applied in any part of the country. If they adopted the system pursued in America of training girls from their earliest years in the normal schools, where they learnt to teach as they were themselves being educated, and thus acquired the habit of authority, much advantage would result. He must say, he certainly never heard there of any such difficulty about immorality as the noble Lord had suggested.
§ MR. DILLWYNunderstood the noble Lord to speak of immorality only in cases where the boys were taught alone. He did not see, however, that there was any great difference between the two systems, and he hoped the noble Lord would reconsider his statement.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINalso hoped the noble Lord would re-consider the matter. It was, in his opinion, most unsatisfactory to insist upon this absolute rigidity in the Rules. The Birmingham School Board had been overruled by the Depart- 1339 ment on technical, and he would venture to say on unreasonable, grounds. Unless he was mistaken also, at the time the correspondence took place, the Department did not put forward this possible immorality as a ground for refusing their sanction, but simply said that the female teachers should not be employed in the boys' school. They had been given an unreasonable answer, and he did not think that of the noble Lord was much more reasonable. Although it might be true that there had been some cases of immorality, yet he might point out to the noble Lord that in all probability they were not entirely due to the fact that men and women taught together in the day-time in a large building called a school. If it were to be laid down as an inexorable rule in all legislation that the sexes were to be entirely separated, how did the noble Lord explain the fact that they were allowed to work together in the Post Office and Telegraph Departments? He believed that no imputations of immorality were made against that branch of the Civil Service, and he could not understand why a mixture of the sexes which have been allowed there should not be allowed in the case of board schools.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONreplied, that the correspondence on this particular subject took place three or four months ago, and as he was not aware the subject was going to be brought up that evening, he was not prepared to go into all the details on the subject. But if the hon. Gentleman would call at the Education Office, he would be very glad to talk the matter over with him. The Birmingham School Board proposed to try young female teachers in boys' schools, and it was felt that it would not be wise to allow that, especially as they would be entirely under the control of a man, who might not be a married man. As to the supply of teachers, the number of persons passing through the training colleges was annually increasing, and he hoped that in the course of time that increase would be found useful.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £210, London University.
§ (9.) £16,984, Paris International Exhibition.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, last year, when this Vote was before the Committee, they had some conversation 1340 about it, and he asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Play fair), whether he thought the amount then stated to be required would be very largely exceeded? He pointed out at that time, and it was admitted by the Government, that the amounts voted for previous Exhibitions had been enormously exceeded, and that such a practice was not conducive to economy or to carefulness in management. His right hon. Friend then replied, that every care would be taken by the Committee, of which he was the head, to see that the expenditure was properly regulated. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) found that the total expenditure was £66,980, which was nearly £17,000 in excess of the amount originally intended to be spent. He was aware that the Commission, on getting to work in Paris, learnt that the French Government did not intend to pay for several things which had been supplied on other occasions by the country where the Exhibition was held. As far as he was able to say, the general management of the English section gave satisfaction to both the exhibitors and the public; but, at the same time, he thought it was well that the right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee some details with regard to exactly how the expenditure was incurred, and also, if he could do so without inconvenience, some account of the general results of the Exhibition, so far as the Commission was concerned.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELthought this was a matter which required the serious consideration of the Government. Two or three years ago, when this Vote was asked for, a distinct and definite pledge was given by the Government that £50,000 would be the extreme limit of the expense incurred. In 1876–7, £800 was voted; in 1877–8, the bulk of the money; and now they were asked to vote nearly £17,000 more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was invited to become the Chairman of the Finance Committee, but that, of course, was impossible with his numerous duties in the House. However he undertook, though he declined to act as Chairman, that the Treasury should keep the Commission within the bounds of the Vote. Later on the Government were asked if the Vote would be exceeded, and they replied that there was no need for it to be exceeded. Last year they were told 1341 that out of the funds the Commission had granted £100 to assist English artizans to visit the Exhibition; but the Irish Members, when they asked about the subject, were told, in reference to Irish artizans, that the amount expended could not be increased, owing to the limited sum of money voted to them. Therefore, and on that ground, the Royal Commission declined to advance any money to assist Irish artizans to visit the Exhibition. Yet they had had now nearly £17,000 asked for in excess on account of this Exhibition. If the Government knew there was going to be this excess, they ought to have told them so last year. What did they find this money was chiefly expended upon?—the rent of offices, and the construction of premises within the area, as he supposed, of the Exhibition itself. He did wish to impress upon the Government the necessity of making some explanation of this Vote.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRquite agreed that an explanation was required, and that the Committee was entitled to ask for it. The House would recollect that the Finance Committee was formed of persons of great experience, including the hon. Baronet the Member for Aylesbury (Sir Nathanial de Rothschild), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace), besides other gentlemen outside the House, who were eminent as financiers, including Sir John Rose, Mr. Rivers Wilson, and other gentlemen. He had the honour of being Chairman of the Committee, and when the Government proposed a grant of £50,000, as the full estimate for the Exhibition, he thought it was a moderate sum, but hoped, from his experience of past Exhibitions, it would be enough for the purpose. They found that at Philadelphia 187,000 square feet was all the space that was required by British exhibitors, and almost the same amount at Vienna. Therefore, estimating that about the same space would be required at Paris, they thought that the amount voted was sufficient, and that £50,000 might with economy be a sufficient sum to ask for. But when they came to have a Royal President in the person of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who acted most admirably throughout the Exhibition, throwing his great influence into the management, the demands of exhibitors increased enor- 1342 mously. Five times as many exhibitors asked for space as could be accommodated, and 383,000 square feet were allotted to the fifth of the number of would-be contributors. The Commissioners were obliged, in consequence, to build new sheds and large annexes. In doing this, the exhibitors gave great help, and without their aid it would have been impossible to bring this matter to a successful issue. He would give one illustration in proof of that aid which had consequently enabled the Commission to carry out the arrangements with such moderation and economy. Part of the scheme of the Exhibition was to have an international street, and, unfortunately for herself, England was obliged to build three houses. All the nations spent money very vigorously in erecting characteristic houses. Belgium, for instance, spent £8,000 on her representative national house. We spent no less than £25,000 upon ours; but of that sum the exhibitors gave over £23,000, and only £1,800 was required to make up the amount from the national funds. In other countries also, at other Exhibitions, the Government had supplied the labour for packing and unpacking; in Philadelphia, for instance, the American Government bore the whole expense. But in France that was not so, and, in consequence, the Commissioners were obliged to employ a large number of workmen, the item for labour being no inconsiderable one in their accounts. Again, the Fine Arts Department became, owing to the stimulus given to the Exhibition by the hearty co-operation of the Prince of Wales, of the greatest importance, and it was necessary to spend £3,300 to insure the valuable collection of pictures. That outlay had not been anticipated. Mentioning these facts, he would leave the House to decide whether they had not been most careful in their expenditure. He had had some experience of these Commissions, for he had acted on nearly all of them. In the French Exhibition of 1867 the arrangements were carried out under direct Ministerial responsibility, the Board of Trade carrying out the administrative details, while the Treasury looked very carefully after the items. At that time £123,000 was spent in an Exhibition which was acknowledged to be far inferior to that of 1878. Had that Exhibition been on 1343 the same scale as the present one, the cost in the same ratio would have been £170,000. The recent Exhibition had produced results which were most creditable to the nation, and most satisfactory to the exhibitors, and had also produced a feeling of unanimity and harmony between the two nations which was quite remarkable, with an expenditure of only £67,000. He thought, after the explanation he had given, it would be seen, that without the active co-operation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and the vigour with which he inspired the exhibitors by the energy which he threw into the work himself, they could not have produced so great a result, and that the expenditure they had incurred was really very small indeed.
§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, it was always unsatisfactory when an Estimate was exceeded; but, in this case, he thought the circumstances stated ought to make the House well content to vote this money, remembering the great results which had been achieved. No one, he was sure, who had seen former Exhibitions, and who carefully examined the arrangements of this one, could fail to be convinced that this one was better managed, better organized, and far more likely to produce beneficial results in the direction intended—the benefit of civilization and art. It must be remembered that all the jurors in this instance paid their own expenses, and that a great deal of gratuitous labour was given in the Exhibition. In particular, His Royal Highness the President gave an enormous amount of time to the case, and he thought the greatest credit was due to him for labour which made the Exhibition so productive to the exhibitors, and produced an amount of enthusiasm which otherwise would never have been evoked. Another point was, that the Secretary to the Committee was paid much less than on former occasions. In 1867 the Secretary received half as much annual salary again as was paid to the present Secretary, and yet he also received, during the four years he was in office, he did not say that he did not deserve it, £3,000 for extra labour. Sir Philip Owen had received only £300 extra for all the hospitality and personal expenses incidental to this work, and, considering the great amount of time he devoted to the matter, he was sure that was no great amount of extravagance.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, £100 was voted to send artizans to the Exhibition, but a much larger sum of money was furnished by voluntary subscription, and Ireland had her full share of the total amount raised. He himself had the pleasure of nominating some of the Irishmen who were sent to Paris, and he could assure the House that no favour was shown to anyone, and that they knew no distinction so long as the men were representative artizans. He should like to add that he thought the French Exhibition was one of the most creditable things to us, as an industrial nation, that had taken place for many many years. At a time when there was a good deal of croaking, and when people were everywhere saying fallacious things about the decline of England, it never was more clearly necessary that Englishmen should show their power still to hold their own against the world. There never was so much voluntary effort as on this occasion, and the amount of self-sacrifice on all hands was more than could have been expected. Every Commissioner, for instance, paid all his own expenses, and did not have so much as a biscuit at the expense of the Committee. The Jurors also staid for a month or five weeks in Paris, and received nothing whatever but the letter of thanks which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sent to each. England never did anything so cheap, and she never did anything so well, as she had done at this Exhibition. This was due mainly to the energy and spirit which His Royal Highness threw into the matter. He must say that, though he did not want to pay compliments where everybody was complimenting, everyone who went there could see the effect the influence of the Prince of Wales had in bringing about a thorough good understanding between the two nations. They all knew the recognition which his heartiness and bon-hommie received from the French exhibitors and the French merchants. He believed the money laid out at the Exhibition was well spent, quite apart from the high position England took as a manufacturing country. What would have been the result, if England had taken a bad position at the Exhibition, at a time when they were closely run by other nations, and every country was claiming that it could do things better than England? 1345 The thing was done well, it was done cheap, and the whole affair was creditable to everybody.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIt is not in the least necessary, after what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Play fair) and others, to add any testimony as to the extremely satisfactory way in which the work of the Exhibition was carried out. That is a matter of absolute notoriety, and it is really quite unnecessary for me to say one word on the subject. What I rather rose to say is, that I can bear my own personal testimony, not only to the zeal of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the efficient manner in which he conducted the work, but also to the extreme desire he displayed from the first to keep down the expenditure. At the commencement, His Royal Highness expected that £60,000 would be sufficient, and it was his ardent desire to keep the expenditure within that sum. It was only in consequence of circumstances, which could not have been foreseen at the outset, that the Commission was obliged to ask for some excess. I know, from repeated personal communications with His Royal Highness, how extremely unwilling he was to make that request; but, as he himself put it to myself and the Treasury, it was quite impossible to avoid it. There was also another circumstance, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not alluded, as increasing the expenditure, and that was the unexpected prolongation of the Exhibition beyond the date originally fixed, which not only involved additional expenditure for wages and salaries, but the re-hiring of the buildings, and the re-assurance of valuable works of art which had been lent to the Commission. Other matters also arose out of the prolongation, which could not have been foreseen. I will not say anything of the way in which the whole affair was conducted; but I should be wanting in my duty as a Finance Minister, if I did not bear my very sincere and earnest testimony to the great zeal with which everyone concerned had endeavoured to keep down the expenses, first to His Royal Highness, next to my right hon. Friend, who had worked very hard as Chairman of the Committee, and also to Sir Philip Owen, who conducted the work he had to discharge to the greatest possible 1346 success. I think the country feels that a great debt of gratitude was due to all concerned.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the explanations given perfectly satisfactory. He wished to draw one moral from what they had heard. This Exhibition, in which England was better represented than she had ever been before, and at one-half the cost, was managed throughout by a private body of gentlemen, under the guidance of the first Gentleman in the Kingdom. It was, undoubtedly, far better to encourage private effort than to have Government management.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (10.) £8,746, Public Education, Ireland.