CLASS IV. (Hansard, 28 February 1896)

§ MR. LOUGH
asked for some explanation of the Vote.

§ MR. W. WOODALL (Hanley)
said, the Committee would be glad to listen to any explanation the right hon. gentleman might have to offer as regarded the growth of instruction in drawing in elementary schools, and as to what was being done to extend manual instruction.

§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SIR JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University
said, the policy had been carried out which was foreshadowed in the Estimates of last year, but more students had attended the classes, and they had earned higher grants than was anticipated.

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
quite understood there had been no change of policy, but the increased Vote asked for indicated a very satisfactory progress in the schools in drawing and manual instruction, and also in a greater average attendance. If the right hon. gentleman could give the Council some more detailed information on the point, it would enable them to realise more thoroughly what he thought was a very satisfactory symptom.

§ SIR J. GORST
saw there was an increase of about 6,000 in the average attendance of children in elementary day schools who earned the drawing grant. There was an increased percentage of schools which obtained the higher scale of reward, and there was consequently an increase in the payment per unit of average attendance, showing that the children who attended the instruction in drawing had benefited more by the instruction than they did in the previous year. There was a greater increase than was anticipated in the number of schools earning grants for manual instruction. It was estimated that 1,009 would earn grants, and that the average grant per school would be £14 10s; 1,089 actually earned the grant. Besides the increase of grant to the ordinary elementary schools, there was an increase of £4,000 in respect of the training colleges. That was accounted for by the fact that there were two examinations of training colleges which fell into the one year; there were two payments, therefore, where ordinarily one would be made. Under the revised Regulations the students at the second examination were 1401 more successful than was anticipated. All this was extremely satisfactory from an educational point of view, and he was sure the small sum of £20,000 would be very cheerfully paid.

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
asked if there was any intention to propose a Supplementary Vote in respect to King's College.

THE CHAIRMAN
did not think such a question could be raised, as there was no item in the Vote for King's College.

§ MR. LOUGH
asked if the Vote was the result of the appeal made by a deputation which recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

§ MR. HANBURY
said, that the question of King's College did not arise upon the Vote. With regard to the grant to the Cardiff University College, he had to say that £20,000 was promised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the University College at Cardiff, on condition that it was met by a similar amount of private subscriptions. £10,000 was provided for in this supplementary Estimate, because something more than £10,000 had already been found privately. The remainder of the £20,000 was included in the ordinary Estimates for 1896–7, but similarly would only be paid over if a similar sum was found by private subscriptions.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)
said, the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had asked whether this grant was in response to a deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago. As the point had been raised, would the Government say whether any decision had been come to as to the University of Wales?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.
said, the Vote had nothing to do with the University of Wales, but it had to do with the building grant towards the Cardiff College. The point raised by the deputation was altogether different.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
understood that £20,000 was promised on condition that another 1402 £20,000 was raised by private subscription; £10,000 had been obtained from private sources, and the Treasury now proposed to grant £10,000, thus making an entirely new bargain. It was one thing to say, "I will give you £20,000 towards £40,000," and a totally different thing to say, "I will give £10,000 towards £20,000."

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the original bargain was that if £20,000 was raised by private subscriptions the Government would find another £20,000. Although the Government were now proposing to give £10,000, £14,000 had been provided by private subscriptions.

§ MR. HANBURY
stated, in reply to Mr. LOUGH (Islington, W.), that the proportions of the Grant between the three kingdoms were:—England, 80; Scotland, 11; and Ireland, 9.