VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.

HC Deb 16 February 1897 vol 46 cc534-611

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th February], "That the Bill be now Read a Second time; "

And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Bill will be satisfactory to this House which does not provide for Board Schools as Well as Voluntary Schools."—(Mr. McKenna.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."—Debate resumed.

MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

thought he might say that on the Unionist side they considered the Government Measure from this point of view, namely, whether the proposals if sanctioned would conduce to the preservation and maintenance as part of our educational system of the religious or denominational element, which they considered an integral part—indeed, he might say, the most important part. It was said that there was no opposition on the other side of the House to what was called religious education, and the issue raised was this—that although general religious education would receive the support of hon. Members on the other side of the House, yet the proposals of the Government, being of a denominational and sectarian character, and implying the use of public funds for denominational and sectarian education—it was mainly on that ground that the opposition arose. Perhaps the most remarkable statement that had been made in that Debate on the other side of the House was one made by the right hon. Member for Montrose, The right hon. Gentleman represented that he might call the arguments for secular as opposed to religious education, and yet the right hon. Gentleman admitted that, although he had not changed any of his own views upon this most important point, the current of English opinion was against him, and that he was bound to recognise, not only the popularity of the denominational system, but the demand of the English people for its preservation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one reason for that state of things, saying that the popularity of the denominational system at the present moment was due to the energy and generosity of those who supported it. But another reason might be added. They saw in the growing desire of the English people to maintain the denominational system the benefit that had been derived from the progress of education itself. It was a remarkable fact that as education had progressed so had the popularity of denominational education grown. In our great secondary schools, which were the glory of the educational system of this country, there had always been a system of definite religious denominational education, and as education had spread and knowledge had advanced the same idea had grown in relation to our primary schools, that no system was perfect or satisfactory which did not give due scope and development to denominational and religious education. He wished to allude here to one criticism that had been advanced on the other side of the House with reference to what was called "definite religious instruction." That was instruction in distinctive formulœ, whether they were those of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Anglican Church, or of the larger Nonconformist bodies. He repudiated as unworthy the suggestion that had been made that instruction in distinctive formudœ had anything to do with the narrow bigotry which had been attributed to denominational education. It was one thing to be educated in distinctive religious formulœ and quite another to be educated in a narrow bigotry. It being desired that the system of denominational education should be preserved, the question arose—how was that desire to be given effect to? As the Vice President of the Council had said, they must have money and organisation. The intolerable strain of which they had heard so much was by itself a sufficient justification for the proposals of the Government; but far more important was the question of efficient education. Far more important was the necessity that the education given in our denominational schools should be equal in quality and efficacy to that supplied in School Boards. He did not believe that anyone had studied this question without coming to the conclusion that if our denominational system was to be preserved it was necessary that its efficiency should be increased and that additional money should be spent in connection with it. The real question that arose was as to the source from which the money ought to come. His own view was that they must look mainly, if not entirely, to the resources of the State, They should recognise that national education was a national matter, and the necessary controlling of such recognition was that the national funds should be used in order to provide an efficient scheme of national education. There ought to be as nearly as possible an equally efficient system of education throughout the country. The poor districts ought, as far as possible, to be provided for in the same way as the rich were. If that were admitted it could be seen that this provision must be made out of national funds. Of what avail would it be to propose levying further rates upon districts where the resources of the ratepayers were already strained to the utmost? It appeared to be thought by some hon. Members that in this matter the distinction between taxpayers and ratepayers was not of great moment. That was an error, for the rates were derived from certain sources exclusively, being raised on about half the property in this country, and for this educational purpose every kind of property ought to be equally and fairly taxed. The advocates of State aid did not put the interests of the ratepayers before the interests of the children, and it was not true that in the South and West of England they had taken a selfish or benighted view of this question, as had been suggested in the Debate. They took their stand first on the principle that the funds ought to be provided out of the National Exchequer, and, secondly, that if recourse were had to the ratepayer at all, he must be given a full measure of local control, and that his aid could not be asked for simply denominational or sectarian purposes. He supported cordially the proposals of the Government on this ground among others, that they had recognised the true source from which these funds must be derived, the only source to which on principle they should go, the only source which in the future could preserve our schools, both as denominational and Voluntary. He proposed now to deal with some of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. It was, in the first place, suggested that the proposal of the Government was not in accord with religious equality. All Members on his side of the House would disagree with any policy which, in their view, did not treat fairly all religious denominations and sects. They were as deeply pledged to the principle of religious equality and believed in it as fully and completely as any hon. Member opposite. What were the Government doing? They were not giving money to one sect or denominations they were treating all sects and denominations on the same basis, on the same principle, there by showing that they appreciated the true spirit of religious equality. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields brought forward this question of religious equality more than any other hon. Member opposite. He spoke of what he called sectarian endowment, and the hon. Member appeared to him to found his case on the narrowest and most intolerant form of bigotry. The hon. Member said:— My objection is not to the giving of so much money to any one sect with which I may agree; my objection is that I should be called upon to provide endowment or assistance to any denomination or sect of which I am not a member myself. Surely that was a spirit of bigotry and intolerance in its truest sense. What was the spirit of tolerance in this matter? It was to recognise that the members of other sects and denominations had the same right to assistance, the same claim, either on the national fund, or whatever the fund might be, as they were putting forward in this particular sect or denomination to which they might happen to belong. He noticed that the hon. and learned Member criticised very strongly what he called the principle of concurrent endowment. If they were to have a religious equality in the sense of helping religious life and education, it was necessary to have this concurrent endowment, which treated all sects and all denominations with the same respect, and gave them the same power as they claimed in respect of the sect or denomination to which they themselves belonged. The next argument brought forward was that of financial injustice. This argument might have been formulated, and perhaps it would have been well founded, had the proposals of the Government been limited to the Voluntary Schools of the country; but when, in accordance with the promise of the Government now made, they were going to give the same support to the necessitous schools, whether Voluntary or not, how could it be said that the proposals of the Government taken as a whole had the impress of financial injustice? He was not aware what the proposals of the Government might be as to necessitous schools; but it was easy to see in what direction they must be made. Section 97 of the Act of 1870 dealt with necessitous schools; and in the progress of time there could be but little doubt that Section 97 did not meet the difficulties of the present day. But if they extended the principles of Section 97 to the cases to which it might apply, either by amending the Section itself or producing a new Measure, they would then do for necessitous schools what the Government was doing for Voluntary Schools—recognising the new conditions, and recognising them, providing sufficient financial support. There were two other points which hon. Gentelmen opposite had dwelt upon. One was the question of popular control. It was surely very important that this question should be fully under-stood. A large number of Members speaking from the Opposition side said that they were unwilling to see the settlement of 1870 disturbed. What was the settlement of 1870 on this point? The settlement of 1870 was this, that where support and funds were given to our schools from the Exchequer, no representative or local control of any kind was conceded; and the same principle had been embodied so far as our educational policy was concerned, from 1870 up to the present time. If there was any question of increasing or extending I Parliamentary control, he thought for his own part that ought to be done in the fullest and amplest measure. Was it to be said now for the first time by those who were supporting the settlement of 1870 that the provision of additional funds from headquarters was to give a claim for local control in respect of denominational schools? This was a most crucial point. If hon. Gentlemen desired to upset the settlement of 1870 let them say so; but the settlement was a great Liberal Measure. As to associations of schools, he judged from the letters he had received that this point in the proposals of the Government had been misunderstood. The association or federation was limited to the question of aid grant only; it did not affect in any way the ordinary management of the Voluntary or Denominational Schools as carried on at present. Just as it might be of the greatest advantage (he believed it would be) that for the purposes of distribution of this aid grant they should have a federation of associations, so on the other hand he looked upon it as a great matter of moment that local interests should be preserved and local management should go on practically as it was at present. The object of this federation was not to interfere with local management; in discriminating in connection with the distribution of the aid grant it was necessary that the Education Department should have the assistance which could only be given to it by means of those voluntary federations and associations. This Measure had been referred to as an instalment; in some senses all Acts of Parliament might be referred to in that language; but it gave to our Voluntary and denominational Schools a support which it was necessary they should have at the present time. It was a large Measure to give £620,000 to our Voluntary and denominational system. Let the House accept it in no grudging spirit; let hon. Gentlemen recognise that it would preserve and maintain what they desired most—namely, their denominational schools as an integral part of their great educational system. If they looked to the future it was perhaps in another direction they would want the proposals of the Government to supplement it. Most people were agreed on one point—that this question would never be settled until a limitation was defined as between primary education on the one side and secondary education on the other. They did not want that definition or limitation in the sense of cutting down the level of education in their primary schools. They wanted that education should be kept up, and they wanted to increase it in the direction of a great system of secondary education. Let that definition be given as soon as might be. When it was once made they might finally know what the needs of their Voluntary and denominational Schools were. Until then they could have no finality, whether they appealed to the National Exchequer or to the taxes of the ratepayer. But once have that matter dealt with and settled, then this other question could be dealt with finally; and for all time they could have a system of education suitable to all wishes in this country, and carried on in a higher grade, first in the primary schools and next in a large scheme of secondary education.

MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said the hon. Member in his opening remarks stated that the difference between the two sides of the House was that, while one side desired to preserve religious education, the other side was in favour of secular education. Personally he had taken an interest in this education question ever since he had been in the House, and long before he entered Parliament. He had always desired for the people the best education that could be given, as well as education religious in its character. He had advocated those views at a time when he had been met with a great deal of hostility by right hon. Gentlemen who were now Members of Her Majesty's Government. He did not understand on what ground the hon. and learned Member believed that they were hostile to religious education.

MR. CRIPPS

I said just the contrary. Various hon. Members opposite had disclaimed any hostility, and I accepted that disclaimer.

MR. MUNDELL

A said the hon. Member added that as education had progressed in this country so had the popularity and the desire for denominational education. He joined issue on that statement. He denied that the number of the Voluntary Schools was due to a demand on the part of the parents for denominational education. It was due to a great deal of sectarian zeal, and to the fact that the Education Act did not allow a school to be set up where there was already sufficient Voluntary School accommodation. In 8,000 parishes the people of this country had no choice whatever but to send their children to Voluntary Schools. He took his part in the discussions in this House on the Act of 1870. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed entirely to have forgotten what was the very basis of that Act. Mr. Forster claimed, in his opening speech, that the relation of grants to local effort should be in the following proportion:—10s. local subscriptions, 10s. fees, and 10s. grant. But in the course of that Measure through the House it underwent a certain amount of modification, and, as a great concession, which was accepted most thankfully by the other side of the House, the conditions were extended to one-half local effort and one-half Government grant. That went on until 1876, when the Conservative Government were in, and the local subscriptions were very much higher than now and much more real. ["Hear, hear!"] They were honest cash subscriptions, which, he was afraid, now they were not. In the discussions on that Measure they had the introduction of the 17s. 6d. limit by Lord Sandown, which the Solicitor General came down last night to denounce. The Solicitor General was a Scotchman, and in Scotland they had the 17s. 6d. limit. If the 17s. 6d. limit was bad for England, he supposed it was equally bad for Scotland, and he supposed also the Government would repeal the 17s. 6d. limit for Scotland as well as for England. And yet, when he was Vice-President of the Council, there was nothing about which the Scotch Department stood more firm than the 17s. 6d. limit. He had never been a great advocate himself of the 17s. 6d. limit. For one reason, it discouraged teachers who sought to achieve good results; and, for another, it had done more to encourage fraud than anything else in connection with the Education Act. If the subscriptions could be serutinised, and put under different heads, it would be a revelation to the House to know the actual amount of cash subscriptions which came into the reckoning. Cardinal Vaughan recently published an article in the Dublin Review on this subject, in the course of which he says:— It is true the Blue Book shows au increase of subscriptions, but this is easily explained by the fact that the Department has allowed a charge for rent, and that this amount has been transferred to the subscriptions account in order to diminish the 17s. 6d. injustice. No money passed the £100 would be charged for rent, and it appeared on the other side of the account as voluntary subscriptions. He had even seen addresses by dignitaries of the Church, in which they had intimated to school managers how they could elude the 17s. 6d. bugbear. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Opposition were hostile to the religious character of the schools, and he pointed to the religious education in Scotland under the Act of 1872. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that no clergyman in Scotland could enter the schools to control the religious education or interfere with the teachers. Let him consider the advantages Scotland had over England—that in Scotland the grant was 21s. 7d. for every child, whereas in the Voluntary Schools in England is was only 18s. 5½d. Those 3s. meant a great deal in the difference between English and Scotch education. And what was it due to? Not to denominational zeal; not to voluntary effort, but to universal School Boards. [cheers.] If they could have the Scotch system in England he should only be too delighted, and he was quite sure that, in the matter of religious teaching, they could so arrange matters as to satisfy all reasonable consciences. [cheers.] As to parents objecting to the religious teaching given in the Board Schools, he was at the Education Department for five-and-a-half years, and never heard of the withdrawal of a child from religious teaching, except in the case of the child of a Jew. And now the Government were about to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit, and at the same time they were abolishing the last condition which attached to Government grants. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would listen to what the present Archbishop of Canterbury said on the 17s. 6d. limit before the Royal Commission. He said:— While the extinction of the 17s. 6d. limit may be considered a matter of detail, the limit of the total grant to the amount raised in the locality is a matter of principle. The duty of providing and maintaining a good system of elementary education is essentially a local duty. The central Government may aid the discharge of this duty, but it cannot undertake it alone. There is no security for efficiency without interested local supervision; there is no security for economy without the vigilance of those who bear the burden of the cost. We cannot recommend that in any case the grant of the Department shall exceed the amount provided on the spot, nor is it, in our judgment, a sufficient reason for overriding the principle that the people on the spot are unwilling to contribute enough. The Government were abandoing all that. After this Bill had passed, there would be no reason why a Voluntary School should have any subscriptions at all, if they could be maintained by the grants, new and old, and by the fees, obtainable from the parents. Whence came this demand for increased grants? Not from all Voluntary Schools. He had that morning received a circular from the Wesleyan Education Committee, which protested against this grant, unless it were accompanied by adequate and representative public management, and by provisions forbidding the imposition of ecclesiastical tests on the teachers. Was it not scandalous that these tests had not been dealt with before? Only the other day a question had been asked about four teachers who were dismissed, not for incompetence or bad character, but because they would not sign a contract to become communicants of a particular Church. This sort of petty tyranny prevailed under the one-man system of management to a much greater extent than was supposed. The British and Foreign School Society joined with the Wesleyans in the protest against this grant, except under reasonable conditions. There were at present 1,800 schools maintained by these societies, and they contained 451,000 children. They demanded local control, public audit, and the abolition of ecclesiastical tests to the teachers. They objected to the new bodies which were to control the distribution of the grant. Was it, then, to the credit of the Church of England that these great demands should come from her alone? If those who built and maintained their own chapels and paid the stipends of the ministers, did not ask for further aid for their schools, why could not the Church of England find enough money for her schools? The strain was not on the subscribers, it was on the teachers in the Church Schools; and if it were not for the way in which the school system had grown up in Lancashire and Cheshire, this new demand would never have been heard of. The Solicitor General had spoken of the competition of the Board Schools and the demands of the Education Department. The Vice President had dealt with the latter plea; and as to the former, subscriptions were lowest where School Boards did not exist. It was impossible to look into the state of the schools in Lancashire and Cheshire without wondering how the Lancashire Members could make these demands. The average voluntary subscription throughout the country was 6s. 9d. per child. In Accrington it was 3s. 10d.; in Ashton-under-Lyne 2s. 1d.; in Blackburn Is. 11d.; in Chorley 1s. 6½d.; in Oldham 1s. 9d.; and in Preston 1s. 9¾d. These were the towns in which there was no School Board at all.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

Are those the figures for 1893?

MR. MUNDELLA

Published in 1891, the latest available. Preston was the largest town in the kingdom without a School Board—[Mr. TOMLINSON: "Hear, hear!"]—and what a misfortune for the children of Preston that must be. This was a typical town which had had 27 years' entire freedom from the school rates; though he was bound to say that the Catholic schools subscriptions were 10s. a child more than those of the Church Schools. Though the Catholics were the poorest people, their schools were the most efficient schools in Preston. In his last Report, Mr. Iles, the inspector, said:— In Preston it is difficult to understand how the children can be taught in existing schools without continuing to overcrowd the classrooms, and without involving an improper strain on the teacher. In some cases classrooms are made to contain more than double the nominal capacity on the eight square feet basis. … This state of affairs is intimately connected with the past history of the Preston schools. Until comparatively recently, many of the schools (other than Roman Catholic) were farmed. Consequently the teaching staff, the apparatus, and the buildings were all starved, and naturally there were no subscriptions. In many cases the resulting low ideals remain. In such schools there is no effective management. The managers regard the building from a Sunday school or concert point of view, forgetful of the fact that at a concert everyone wishes to hear, whereas in a school each class should be separate. The day school maintains itself and the building for five days of the week, and sometimes pays a substantial rent for a discarded chapel as a schoolroom in addition. He would like to draw attention to another point ill connection with the state of things in Preston. The chief inspector, Mr. Iles— considers that defects of management have largely caused the present state of secular attainments in Preston, which are below the general standard of the country, and says that visits without notice disclose the fact that in some Church Schools the religious instruction is considerably curtailed or completely omitted for the five or six months immediately preceding the annual inspection. It was to preserve such schools that this grant was to be made. Let him contrast the state of things in Preston with that in Sheffield. Preston had 17,000 children in attendance. In 1870 Sheffield had 12,000 children on the rolls of public elementary schools. They had since then built Board Schools for 40,000 children. The Voluntary Schools provided accommodation for 23,000 children, making a total of 63,000 children. There were more than 60,000 on the rolls, and about 55,000 or 56,000 in average attendance. They had done all this at great expense to the ratepayers. They gave the best education, or almost the best education, in England; and it cost 1s. 1¼d. in the pound. The working men of Sheffield felt the burden of the rates as heavily as those in any school district in England. One shilling and a penny-farthing in the pound on working men whose rates now amounted to 8s. in the pound, was a very heavy burden; and yet Preston was to get out of this grant £4,200 for 17,000 children, while Sheffield, with its 60,000 odd children, was not to get one farthing—nay, more, Sheffield was to be taxed to provide the money for Preston. [Opposition cheers.] Was that substantial justice? [Mr. TOMLINSON: "Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The hon. Member for Preston cried "Hear, hear." He supposed it was the religious education that was so important, but let him state what was the kind of religious education given in the Sheffield Board Schools. He asserted without hesitation that the religious instruction, if by that was meant sound Biblical and moral instruction, given in the Sheffield Board Schools was far superior to the religious instruction given in the average Voluntary Schools. The religious instruction in their Board Schools was not given by little pupil teachers, it was not suspended for five or six months at a time, but it was given regularly, systematically, by certificated teachers, men who were capable of instructing children in religion. The Rev. Samuel E. Keeble, the York diocesan inspector, reporting upon the Sheffield Board Schools, said:— I have again to report that I found the biblical instruction in the schools examined by me most satisfactory. This year I have examined thirteen schools, no one of which was visited by me last year. The results in these compare favourably with the results in those visited last year. In every school without exception, I' found a high standard of excellence. The work of the syllabus had been everywhere carefully and conscientiously done. The moral tone of the teaching and of the schools was high—indeed may be said to be, without exaggeration, Christian. What more could be said? The same thing took place in numbers of Board Schools throughout the country, indeed he challenged contradiction when he said there was better religious instruction given in Board Schools than in the average Voluntary Schools. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY, who had been absent for some time, now returned to his place.] He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not in his place to hear the facts in relation to Preston and Sheffield. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "It was not my fault."] He knew the right hon. Gentleman could not always be in attendance; but, nevertheless, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not heard that Sheffield, which had made great effort to provide a good and sound education for its children, was to get nothing, while Preston, where some of the schools were almost beneath contempt, was to get £4,200.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREAUSURY (Mr. R. W. HANBLRY,) Preston

, who was received with cheers and laughter, said he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman made that statement with regard to all the schools in Preston. He admitted that up to a couple of years ago a certain number of the Voluntary Schools were dealt with on a system which he did not for a moment support. They were farmed out. The Roman Catholic Schools, however, were amongst the best in the country.

MR. MUNDELLA

said he had already stated that. [Cheers.] It was the Church of England schools he was talking about; and they received 1s. 9¾d. per head per child, while the Roman Catholic schools received upwards of 10s. per head. Last year the Solicitor General treated with great levity the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose that there were 1,000 schools that had no voluntary subscriptions whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was au accidental ease, and they were not the same schools year by year. Many managers and teachers confessed that they carried on their schools without a farthing subscription, and even without a visit from the clergyman. Yes, it was too common in the country. Talk about local control being mischievous! There was nothing so needful for the encouragement of the teacher himself as local control. ["Hear, hear!"] According to the Return published in 1894, the last accessible Return, there were 1,061 schools which received no subscriptions, 674 which, had subscriptions of less than 1s., and 1,967 which had subscriptions of from 2s. 6d. to 5s. But where were the subscriptions the worst? He had already said it was Lancashire. He would give another case. It was only within the last year or two that the town of Birkenhead had had a School Board. A School Board, after many years of conflict, had been forced upon it, and it was high time it was. ["Hear, hear!"] What was the state of things in Birkenhead? In 1894 there were 19 Church schools, with a total average attendance of 9,301 children. The Government grant was£8,528, and the fee grant £4,650—a total of £16,600. The new grant would add £2,320, so that £18,320 of Government money would go to the 16 schools. What were the voluntary subscriptions to those schools? £486, or 1s. 0¾d. per head. Sheffield which paid 1s. 1¾d. in the pound, and had brought up their Voluntary Schools to a state of efficiency such as they had never attained before, was to receive nothing. A few years ago the Sheffield Voluntary Schools got only 13s. per head per child, but now they very nearly reached 19s. per head, and yet it was said it was the policy of the School Boards that ruined the Voluntary Schools. Bolton had a School Board, and a very efficient one too. The Voluntary Schools there got 8s. 9d. per head, in comparison with Preston's 1s. 9d. How was that accounted for? It was simply that there was a wholesome competition between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools. He believed that the more money was granted to the Voluntary Schools by State aid the more the subscriptions to those schools would disappear. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "No!"] An hon. Member had asked what were the proportions of subscriptions in Yorkshire. He would take four southern and four northern counties in comparison. In Hants, Surrey, Sussex and Wilts the voluntary subscriptions were 10s. 0¼d. per head of the scholars, while in Lancashire, Cheshire, Stafford and Yorkshire they were only 4s. 11¾d. per head, or less than half; and the results would be much the same if worked out on the basis of population. Here, again, was evidence of indifference among Churchmen in regard to the schools. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "No!"] Then, with regard to the unequal rating of the Board and denominational schools. Here, again, there was a great injustice inflicted on the Board Schools. He held a table in his hand, prepared by a friend, showing the difference in the way those two kinds of schools were rated. The table dealt with 15 school districts in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, and showed that the net rateable value per scholar accommodated was 50.8d. in Board Schools, and only 10.7d. per child in denominational schools. In Sheffield the Board Schools were rated at 5s. 9¼d. per child, and the sectarian schools at 1s. 1¾d. Was that not an injustice to the Board Schools? ["Hear, hear!"] The fact was that everything possible was done by the Party to which hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged to prejudice the Board Schools, and he believed that, if the Board Schools had received the encouragement they ought to have received from the clergy of the Church of England, elementary education in the country would have been in a much more advanced condition than it now was. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite must admit that the average education in the Voluntary Schools was miserably low. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] He knew and readily admitted that there were many excellent Voluntary Schools, but the average education in them was low, and Parliament would have a great deal yet to do before they brought both Board Schools and Voluntary Schools fully up to the existing demands of industrial and intellectual competition. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought also the House was left much in the dark with regard to the proposed new associations of schools. It might be inferred from the speeches of the Solicitor General and the Vice President of the Council that they would be clerical and diocesan organisations, that the diocese would be the area, and that the area would contain about one million inhabitants. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURT: "They will not be clerical organisations."] Well, large numbers of people would be thankful if it were not so. Would any Minister rise and explain clearly to the House that it would not be so? Were they to be elected? Would some Minister rise and tell the House? He confessed that he shared the distrust of clerical control and of secular education which had been so forcibly expressed by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, and he believed, with him, that the intellectual results of sectarian education were always inferior in character. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished that clergymen should take a full part in the management of schools, but he strongly objected to their being the solo and dominating factors of the Voluntary Schools of the country. [Cheers.] Such a system would be dangerous to the schools and the peace of the country, and injurious to the Church itself. No worse service could be rendered to the Church than to set up everywhere diocesan boards to control the education of the country. He knew many gentlemen who had been almost the sole props of good rural schools who would not consent to take part in, or to be controlled by, such clerical organisations, and it would be a great misfortune to lose the support and the active services of such men in the cause of elementary education. ["Hear, hear!"] He earnestly hoped, therefore, not only for the sake of the teaching in the schools, but for the sake of the schools themselves, that this part of the scheme of the Government would be abandoned, and that sonic sort of local control would be substituted for it. In conclusion, he desired to say that he was convinced that to make the schools more dogmatic and sectarian than at present, or even to keep them as dogmatic and sectarian as they now were, would be mischievous to the cause of education. Matthew Arnold knew more about schools abroad than any other man who ever served the Education Department. ["Hear, hear!"] He went repeatedly to France, Switzerland, and Germany, and carefully examined the schools of those countries, especially from the point of religious education. He would quote what Matthew Arnold said of the Prussian schools: — The schools," he said, "deserve their high reputation. One thing particularly struck me in the popular schools—the religious instruction. It occupies an important place in them, it is compulsory, it is extremely well given, though too dogmatic. Now, they toll you that two-thirds of the North German parents are Socialists and atheists, yet their children have to undergo this strong religious teaching, and, what is more, they seem to enjoy it. They; must undoubtedly retain something of it, and it will have a conservative effect. So that I am convinced that the revolution will not be imminent in Germany—not even after they have lost Bismarck and the Emperor William. A truly catholic religious education was far less likely to be repugnant to the minds of the parents than the dogmatic teaching which they were now forcing on the children in thousands of parishes and in thousands of schools. Was it not deplorable that they should be discussing this question of sectarianism, that they should be fighting for clerical domination and clerical schools when everything around them warned them that the greatest danger that Englishmen had to encounter to-day was the tried and proved intelligence of those who had had greater educational advantages than they had given to the English people? If they meant to do justice to their people, if they meant to equip them so that they might fairly discharge their duty in life, be good subjects and fit to govern the Empire, they must make them as intelligent as any other people in the world. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill was not the way to do that. This Bill was a retrograde step, and it was deplorable that at the end of the 19th century, instead of improving and raising their education, they should be lowering it. [Cheers.]

SIR FREDERICK MILNER (Notts,) Bassetlaw

said that, as representing a constituency in which there were no fewer than 60 Voluntary Schools and only seven Board Schools, he felt bound to say a few words in hearty support of the Government's Measure. He would submit that the Amendment now before the House was purely an obstructive Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] At any rate, it rested with hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the object they pretended to have at heart was accomplished or not. The Leader of the House had given them a positive assurance that a Bill would be introduced dealing with necessitous Board Schools, and passed into law unless the Government were prevented doing so by the dilatory tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed he had some sympathy with those who desired to see more representative local control in their schools, but this Bill did provide adequate representative control. Personally he should like to see every Voluntary School in the country adopt, of its own accord, local control, and he hoped both Churchmen and Nonconformists would come to see how greatly it was to the advantage of the schools to adopt this system, and that in time it would become universal. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill had been brought in to meet a very urgent and pressing necessity, which was the saving from extinction of schools upon which millions of money had been spent, not one farthing of which had been contributed by the ratepayers, and in which a magnificent work for education was going on long before the State ever thought it its duty to teach its children to read or to write. [Cheers.] Nothing showed more the energy and the liberality Churchmen had shown than the fact that not only the number of their schools but the number of scholars attending their schools, and their annual subscriptions, had gone on increasing year by year. But even the longest purse must be emptied in time, and unless some very prompt and effective aid were rendered it was an absolute necessity, however willing Churchmen might be to sacrifice themselves, that many of the Voluntary Schools must be closed. It was absolutely impossible for Churchmen and the members of other religious bodies to go on keeping up their schools at the present increased yearly requirements so long as the whole of the money from the rates was given to Board Schools and reasonable assistance was not offered to Voluntary Schools. The hon. and learned Member for York gave them some figures last night about the schools in that city. York was a very good test of the value of this Bill. When he first knew York the attendance rate was 2½d. The school rate was now five times that amount, and threatened to be higher still. Yet there were only 1,855 children in the Board Schools, who got the whole benefit of this rate, and 7,621 children in the Voluntary Schools, whose parents had not only to contribute the greater part of this rate, from which they derived no benefit whatever, but to keep up their own schools as well. ["Hear, hear!"] Was this what they called "statutory equality? It was not his idea of justice. [Cheers.] The hon. and learned Member for York complained that the Voluntary Schools would receive £1,900 from this grant.

SIR F. LOCKWOOD

I did nothing of the kind. I congratulated the Voluntary Schools of York on receiving the £1,900, and I said I thought they thoroughly deserved it.

SIR F. MILNER

said the hon. and learned Member did say that the Voluntary Schools would receive £1,900, and that under the Bill the Board Schools would receive nothing, although they should receive £463. Well, considering that the Board Schools were now receiving the whole of the 11d. rate, which was being paid by the parents of the 7,621 children who were in the Voluntary Schools, he thought that this was a bare measure of justice. ["Hear, hear!"] The case of the Voluntary Schools at York now was an absolutely desperate one. The subscribers had been making sacrifice after sacrifice, but they had now come pretty well to the end of their tether. The Bill introduced by the Government came in the nick of time to save these schools from extinction, and poorer ratepayers from the crushing, overwhelming rates that would, in consequence of such extinction, be imposed. The people would not be grateful to the man or the party who attempted to deprive them of this great boon. He really had no patience with those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who talked about this benefit being a dole to parsons and landlords; they seemed to have parson and landlord on the brain. It was all very well to use such language on election platforms; and last year the Rating Bill was spoken of us a dole to landlords, who, it was said, would raise their rents in proportion to the reduction in rates. Those who made these statements, however, could not produce any instance of a landlord having done any such thing. Now the alarm was raised that this subvention would result in the reduction of school subscriptions. But was it likely that the men who had sacrificed millions of money out of love for education of the children of the country in their own religious faith, would be so foolish as to take advantage of this grant to reduce their contributions to the cause they had at heart? No; this timely help would stimulate the friends of Voluntary schools to renewed exertions to bring these schools to the highest pitch of officiency, and justify the Government which had given this assistance. He was perfectly conscious of the fact that if, in consequence of this help, the zeal of friends of Voluntary Schools should diminish and subscriptions cease, then the doom of these schools would be sealed, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would enjoy the satisfaction of seeing them Squeezed out of existence; but the Government that allowed this to be done without giving help would be likely to be itself squeezed out of existence. It had been said that school teachers were opposed to this Measure. It happened that he for many years had had considerable connections among school teachers, and had taken considerable interest in their condition and grievances. He had recognised that they had been badly treated by the State, and teachers knew that in him they had a warm advocate of their rights. Communications he had received from teachers in different parts of the country showed clearly that they warmly welcomed the proposals of the Government, and only wished that they went a little further. In his own constituency a meeting of teachers unanimously approved the Bill, expressing an opinion that it would do a great deal of good to Voluntary Schools, would put them in a secure position, and enable them to provide better teaching staffs and more efficient education. And that was the object with which the Government made these proposals. It would pass the wit of man to adduce any argument that had not already been used half-a-dozen times in these Debates. He urged the Government to persevere, to stiffen their backs, and to put down anything in the nature of obstruction by using all the forms of the House for the purpose. He urged all those who were in favour of the principle to give their loyal support to the Government, and not to indulge in carping criticisms of the Bill. No one could contend that it was perfect, complete, and exhaustive, and the Leader of the House would admit its incompleteness. But unfortunately, in these days, when obstruction had been made a fine art, when hon. Members with sufficient persistence and skins thick enough could "stick up" legislation for weeks together, it was necessary to undertake legislation piecemeal, as in this instance. He hoped the Bill would receive the hearty, loyal support of all Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and true friends of education on the other side, so that the Government would be enabled to pass the Measure into law before 31st March. He was perfeetly certain that if the Government pressed on with the Measure, they would find, when the advantages of the Bill became known to the ratepayers, it would be gratefully accepted by the country, and in any event the Government would have the satisfaction of having made an honest, earnest attempt to deal with a question beset with many difficulties.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was unwilling to stand between the House and other Members specially qualified to speak on the subject, but as the representative of a constituency where the deepest interest was taken in educational matters, he felt it his duty to trouble the House with a few observations. He was not able to lake up exactly the same position as the spokesmen of either of the two parties to this conflict over the Measure. On the one hand, he was unable to take up the position occupied by the Solicitor General; and, on the other hand, he found himself in some disagreement with some of his Friends on his own side of the House. In the course of his able speech, the Solicitor General, while very ably defending the right of Voluntary Schools to have this assistance, seemed to ignore some of the criticisms which had weight against the Bill; he seemed to be struggling against a strong current of feeling when he said not a word in favour of some form of popular control over State-assisted Voluntary Schools. The objection was not a sound objection that the only point of control of any value was the appointment of teachers. With that he entirely disagreed, and was glad to find that the head of the Catholic Church in this country had emphatically declared that, so far as Catholic Schools were concerned, he had no fear whatever of any form of popular control, with, of course, safeguards necessary in the case of all denominational schools. Of course it would be absurd for the managers of Voluntary Schools to give up the appointment of teachers; but, at the same time, a body representing parents and, to some extent, ratepayers, might usefully deal with such questions as the efficiency of schools, the health of schools, and the audit of accounts, which should not be left to a one-man management. The Solicitor General made no allusion to grievances of Nonconformists in those 8,000 parishes of the country in which there were Church of England Schools only. Would any fair-minded man say it was fair that children of Nonconformists should be sent to these schools without any protection whatever for their religious teaching and the doctrines their parents professed? It had been said that these doctrines and opinions were not interfered with, but he received a statement of that kind with some incredulity. As an Irishman, he could speak with experience of the history of education in his own country. In Ireland there had been many forms of education, and many forms of schools—the Erasmus Smith Schools, the Ranelagh Schools, and the higher education at trinity College, in which, though it was represented there was no interference with the Catholic religion, there was such an overwhelmingly dominant Protestant atmosphere that Catholics could not avail themselves of the education given. In fact, in Ireland they were familiar with exactly the same state of things existing in those 8,000 English parishes, for Catholic children were exposed to the dominating influence of a single denomination, and he, as an Irishman, fully appreciated and sympathised with the grievance of Nonconformists. He regretted that for Parliamentary and tactical reasons the Bill did not deal with necessitous Board Schools, and feared that the course adopted would give strength to the conviction in the country that the Bill was a two-edged weapon—of defence for Voluntary Schools, of offence against Board Schools. He had read speeches from Liberal politicians declaring that Irish support of the Bill would be at the risk of loss of Home Rule and other measures in which Irishmen were deeply interested. He regarded that as an ignoble and a stupid argument. Were Irishmen to sacrifice their most profound religious convictions to serve the political interests of their country? It might be asked what right had the Irish Members to interfere in the discussion at all. Their countrymen formed two millions of the population of England, and two millions of the population had some right to have their voices heard on a Measure dealing with the population of the country as a whole. And, furthermore, these two millions of people had upon this question of education convictions as strong, and had proved these convictions as nobly, as any other body in the country. He was glad to find the universal testimony which was now given to the conviction and the self-sacrifice which the Catholics of Great Britain had shown upon the education question. He listened with some amusement to the interruption of the Secretary to the Treasury to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The right hon. Gentleman was drawing rather a dark picture—the accuracy of which he was not able either to confirm or deny—of the state of the schools at Preston, and the right hon. Gentleman got up and controverted that statement, not by a statement with regard to the condition of the Church schools at Preston, but by a statement in regard to the Catholic schools in that town. He did not know whether he was to judge of the effect of that interruption by the omission as well as by the positive statement, whether he was to regard it as an admission that the Church schools were not in a very satisfactory condition, as well as a statement that the Catholic schools were.

MR. HANBURY

What I said was that up to two years ago the Church of England schools were not in the position in which I would like to see the Voluntary Schools. Since then, however, they have been put into an efficient condition, and a sum of £25,000 has been spent upon them. The Roman Catholic Schools at Preston have always been in a first-rate condition.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said he was glad to have been interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was a little scandalous that 1s. 9¾d. should be the amount of the subscriptions of the richer portion of the community, as compared with 11s. 9d. which was the amount of the subscriptions of the Catholics of the community. His hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George), who made a speech against the Rill, with some portions of which he sympathised, asked whether anybody could state what definite religious doctrine meant. He was not going to interfere with the disputes between Protestants and Protestants, but he thought that nobody could have any doubt that a Catholic could define what he meant by definite religious instruction. Between Catholics and all forms of the Protestant creed there yawned the impassable gulf of dogma. Take the teaching of the Bible. That raised the whole question which separated the Catholic Church from the Protestant creeds, namely, whether the Bible was to be interpreted by private judgment or by the exposition of a divinely appointed Church. And, therefore, it was impossible for the Catholic ever to send his child to the Board School, however slight the religious education in that school might be. The Catholic parent demanded that his child should be brought up in a Catholic atmosphere, and that in the school there should be not only a definite teaching of the dogmas of the Church to which he belonged, but also all those emblems and other signs which were part and parcel of the religious training of the Catholic child. Reference had been made to the Scotch system. There were in Scotland some School Boards that consisted entirely, or almost entirely, of Catholics; that was to say, parishes in the Highlands where still the Catholics remained almost the entire population. That was the case in Movar and Barra. A Scotch friend of his, a Member of the House of Commons and one of the staunchest friends of Home Rule, made an observation to him the other night to the effect that it was most unfortunate that the Catholics took up this position on the education question, as undoubtedly it alarmed the Protestantism of Scotland, and in that way seriously embarrassed the cause of Home Rule. Let him put before the House the Catholic and the Scotch case, or rather the Catholic case and the Protestant case. There was not a single Catholic teacher in any Protestant school in Scotland. In Barra there was one Protestant in the whole population, and that Protestant was the schoolmaster of the Catholic school, and, therefore, when his Scotch friends remonstrated with him, he was tempted to answer that the Irish people should stand by their convictions, but that really Scotchmen ought to get rid of some of their prejudices. Would this Bill entirely remove the Catholic grievance? He would take a case which happened to be Scotch. It was a case which corresponded to many cases in England. He meant the case of Port Glasgow. There they had a population of 15,000 people. The Catholic population was 5,000. There were three Board Schools in this town and one or two Catholic schools. The rates were £1,650 a year, or £500 a school. The Catholics paid all the expenses of their schools except the State grant, but in addition they paid one-third of the expenses of the Board Schools. Did they call that equality? He called that gross inequality between Catholics and Protestants, an inequality which was rendered more obnoxious by two facts. The first fact was that the Irish third formed the poorer part of the population. There was a second and more astonishing fact. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Solicitor General culled attention to the circumstance that people, especially on the Liberal side of the House, were in the habit of representing education in Scotland as non-sectarian. It was nothing of the kind. Why, the Shorter Catechism was as dogmatic as any book that was ever taught to youth, and the Shorter Catechism was taught in every Board School in Scotland. ["No, no!"] How many exceptions?

AN HON. MEMBER

Only a few.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

In 95 per cent. of the Board Schools of Scotland definite dogma was taught. And now look at the Catholic position in Port Glasgow. Catholics were not allowed to get anything out of the rates for the teaching in their own schools because it was dogmatic, but they were compelled to pay for the teaching in the Board Schools although it was dogmatic; the one difference being that the Protestant dogma was taught in one set of schools and the Catholic dogma in the other, and Catholics were fined, not because they taught dogma, but because they happened to be Catholics. The Irishmen in England, Scotland, and Wales were mostly working men. They had built all their own churches, they had built all their own schools, they supported their own clergymen, they had a number of charitable and religious organisations to support, and he thought he was under the mark when he said that there was scarcely one of these men who did not subscribe to various religious purposes a shilling a week, or on the average one-twentieth of his entire earnings. The Catholics maintained their convictions at their own expense, and in spite of the temptation of better and more efficient education at the expense of the ratepayers in the Board Schools. He submitted that Irish Catholics deserved sympathy for the inflexible staunchness with which they had stood by their schools through generations of hardships and persecutions. It showed that when Irishmen formed convictions, personal or political, no power on earth would change them. Would this Bill permanently help Irish Catholic schools? The Vice President of the Council on Education mentioned that the money to be allocated would be spent in raising the standard of education and the number of teachers' apparatus necessary for manual instruction and physical exercises, All these things he said the association of schools would recommend, the Education Department would prescribe, and this was how the money would go. [Ministerial "Hear, hear!"] Precisely; or what became of the 5s.? It would not be a penny too much to supply all these additions to the existing requirements. For the reasons he had indicated, he was unable to accept the Bill as a final or satisfactory settlement of the question. He would have preferred a scheme giving larger assistance to Voluntary Schools made palatable to the country by admitting the system of popular control. ["Hear, hear!"]

SIR ARTHUR FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)

said the right hon. Member for Sheffield had occupied some time of the House in comments upon the religious education given in Voluntary Schools, and he understood him to say that if he had his way he would not have any school, associated in any way with a religious denomination, receiving public money.

MR. MUNDELLA

said the right hon. Gentleman was under an entirely wrong impression.

SIR ARTHUR FORWOOD

said that he was glad he had given the right hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of disabusing him of an impression created by reason of his remarks upon the teaching of dogma and other matters in our national education. The right hon. Gentleman also favoured them with many statistics. He had not been able within the short time at his command to investigate all the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave as to Lancashire and Sheffield, but he did find that in the Report of the Education Department for 1895–96, the benighted town of Preston, which starved its schools and was so unfavourably compared with Sheffield, raised voluntary subscriptions amounting to 5s. 6d. per child, while Sheffield raised only 3s. 9d. Lancashire contrasted in population more nearly with London than with any other area, and although Lancashire had six Voluntary Schools to one Board School, whereas the converse was almost the case in London, and although Lancashire had agricultural districts where children had a long way to go to school, whereas London schools were close at hand, yet the school attendance in Lancashire was 80'67 as compared with 80.72 in London. These figures must impress the House that Lancashire had given as great attention to the educational wants of her population as the great Metropolis. ["Hear, hear!"] He regarded the education of the people in the sense of a public obligation, not as a local, but as a national charge. He maintained that education was a national defence against crime, ignorance, and vice, and that good education was necessary for the purpose of placing the population in a position fairly and properly to compete with other nations. They ought to ensure greater uniformity in regard to education, and avoid the great disparity between one School Board and another. As regarded expenditure for education, if the cost came from the National Exchequer, and the standard was fixed by the Department, depend upon it the Department, whilst being liberal in laying down what should be the standard, would guard the country against excessive extravagance that was too often found in local schools. For example, education in Portsmouth was conducted at a cost of 36s. per head; in Brighton the School Board spent 56s.; in London 68s.; whilst the average for the Voluntary Schools throughout the country was from 35s. to 40s. Many Members on his side of the House held the opinion that if a further sum was granted from the National Exchequer it must mean greater public control. He had no fear of any greater public control. ["Hear, hear!"] The grants were given purely and solely from the standpoint of the standard obtained by the children. The Government made a contract with the managers of the schools precisely in the same way that the Admiralty made a contract for an ironclad. He welcomed the Bill because it was a satisfactory advance in the direction of making the cost of school maintenance a national burden, and he also considered that there should be as nearly as possible equality of treatment between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools in respect of any grants coming out of the National Exchequer. The Duke of Devonshire, in a speech upon this subject, which he read in The Times, said it was not proposed by the Bill to depart from the principle of statutory equality, as regarded State aid, between Voluntary and Board Schools. That exactly expressed his sentiments as regards State aid. He only wished the noble Lord had supplemented it by a further expression of opinion, that if the Exchequer could not find all the money necessary for the maintenance of the schools, then there should be rate aid. Holding that education was a national charge, he thought there should be rate aid. He hoped the Government Bill for Board Schools would deal liberally with them. In the meantime, he was bound to say that, while that Bill would be welcome assistance to the ratepayers, he felt the present Measure would give them substantial assistance. If something in the direction of the Bill dill not pass into law, he did not hesitate, speaking of his knowledge of a very large district, to say that a very large and growing number of Voluntary Schools would be closed and Board Schools have to take their place. It was impossible for Voluntary Schools in great urban constituencies to continue to struggle on as they had done, largely at the expense of the health and time of the much-abused clergymen of the district—["hear, hear!"]—for, as they were situated in the poorest districts they could not continue their existence without some substantial aid from the Government. Mr. Morley called attention to what he described as the unfairness created by the Bill, as between district and district, and instanced Nottingham. If the Voluntary Schools of that city were closed the education of 12,000 children in them would cost the ratepayers £30,000, so that aid from the Government saved that very substantial sum to the ratepayers. The same remark might be applied to Newcastle. As regarded Liverpool that city occupied the proud position of educating the largest number of children in Voluntary Schools in any school district in the United Kingdom. No fewer than 63,000 children were educated in Liverpool Voluntary Schools, compared with 30,000 in Liverpool Board Schools. The additional cost to the ratepayers, if some assistance such as that proposed by the Government were not given, would be over £100,000 a year. He unhesitatingly stated that the larger portion of the Voluntary Schools in that city would have to be closed if the present competition with the Board Schools went on without some further assistance from the National Exchequer. He had some objection to offer to the Bill. He did not see the necessity for the words—"due regard being had to Voluntary Schools." He did not know what interpretation would be put on these words, but the question for the Government was whether or not the education was to be to a certain standard, and if it was, the Government might to be satisfied: and how the means to supplement the Government grant were obtained should not be a question raised on this Bill. In fact, these words were absolutely in contradiction to the removal of the 17s. 6d. limit, and were reimposing that limit in an indirect manner, which would do injury to the schools in poverty-stricken districts. Full justice had not been done on this question of voluntary subscriptions, for he considered that the cost of the land and of the fabrics had been too little regarded. That cost was a capitalised subscription. ["Hear, hear!"] From the public point of view they had to look at what the value would be had Board Schools to replace Voluntary Schools, and he estimated it, according to the average School Board expenditure on such matters, at present at something like 15s. to 20s. per child, according to the district. Therefore, he maintained that the Voluntary subscriptions, whatever they might be to-day in cash, ought to be regarded as supplemented by this capitalised subscription of 15s. to 20s. per child. ["Hear, hear!"] That meant that the Voluntary Schools had contributed a sum of £3,000,000 a year that would otherwise have been chargeable to the ratepayers, and he would put that sum, for the sake of comparison, against the amount of £2,000,000 a year now paid in school rates, as it would show that the value of the sites was a very important factor that ought to be considered. It ought to be borne in mind that new conditions of expenditure had been made, which might absorb all the grant now proposed to be given. He approved these conditions, which were all for the improvement and encouragement of education, but they must not lead managers into supposing that the 5s. would all be available for present purposes. He strongly supported the Government's proposal for the federation of schools, believing it would have a good effect on managers and in the employment of teachers. There was another point in the Bill which he did not quite understand. It was limited to "necessitous schools." What was the meaning of these words? There were very few Voluntary Schools that were not necessitous, and these few were probably endowed. But a very wide latitude might be given to the interpretation of these words by the Department. He supposed the 5s. grant would be given, per head, over the area of the proposed federation, and the council of the federation would be left unfettered, in doling out the grants to schools as they were more or less necessitous. He should like some further information on this point. He thanked the Government for what they had done, and hoped they would behave equally liberally to the Board Schools. He could only regard the Measure, however, as an instalment of what the nation must ultimately do in regard to education.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

MR. K. W. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said the calculations which had been indulged in as to the cost to the country of the abolition of the voluntary system were singularly futile. If they desired an illustration of the absurdity of those calculations and the case with which they were refuted, they had only to refer to the statement made a few nights ago by the Colonial Secretary that the substitution of School Boards for the present voluntary system in Birmingham would mean a rise in the school rate of Birmingham of from 1s. to 1s. 9d. in the £. That statement was at once controverted by the Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, who, with a more accurate knowledge than the right hon. Gentleman of the rateable capacity of the city, showed that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his figures by £63,000 a year, and that in the event of the Board Schools receiving the same assistance from public funds, as it was proposed to give to the Voluntary Schools, the rate would be only 1s. 2½d. or 1s. 3d. in the £. The House might, therefore, discard the bogus figures put forward to delude the people of the country that the substitution of Board Schools for Voluntary Schools would lead to so large addition in taxation. The Bill had been described from the Government Benches as a small temporary Measure; and the introduction of a number of supplementary Bills was foreshadowed. There was to be a second Bill to give grants to necessitous Board Schools, a third Bill dealing with the Scotch portion of the question, a fourth dealing with the Irish portion, and a fifth dealing with secondary education. Besides all these, the noble Lord the Member for Rochester had told the House that there were to be other Bills to carry out the particular views of his friends. There was, accordingly, before the House a formidable vista of educational measures for some time to come. This Bill was unpopular in the country. There had been no expression of popular approval of the Bill in any part of the country. What School Board had sent a petition to the House in favour of the Bill? Not a single one. What Town Council had passed a resolution in support of it? Not a single one. It had received no commendation from anybody of teachers. The two representatives of the teachers in the House had denounced it as an imperfect and an unjust Bill. But he spoke for a large section of the community who did not belong to the Established Church; and he was sure that hon. Members who were in that communion would give every consideration to those views. It had been already pointed out that the Nonconformist Churches took a considerable share in the elementary education of the country long before the Education Act of 1870. At the present time the Nonconformist Churches provided for the religious instruction of not less than 3½ millions of children in their Sunday schools. The Nonconformists had, therefore, reasonable right to be heard on any question affecting the religious education of the children of England. ["Hear, hear!"] The particular Church to which he belonged the Wesleyan-Methodist—had just institute I an inquiry as to the number of their children at present receiving their education in Church of England schools, and they found that in 6,701 National Schools, under the control of the National Society, there were no less than 240,000 Wesleyan-Methodist children. Why were these children in those schools? Not because their parents wanted them to be there, but because they were forced into the schools by a most unjust construction of the Act of 1870. ["Hear, hear!"] In 311 villages in Lincolnshire and the two adjacent counties there were no loss than 14,000 Wesleyan-Methodist children who had no choice but to attend Church of England schools. The Wesleyan-Methodists only represented about 28 per cent. of all sections of Nonconformity, go that it would be apparent that there were in the schools of the Church of England, roughly speaking, 700,000 to 800,000 children "of Nonconformists out of an average attendance of 1,850,000 or thereabouts. There were many towns where there was practically no choice. In Southport, where there were only two or three large landowners—one a Roman Catholic and the other two Churchmen—it was a common form in the leases that the land should not be used for denominational day schools in connection with the various Dissenting bodies. There was a large Nonconformist population in the town, and there were nine Church schools, three Roman Catholic schools, two British schools, and one Wesleyan school. In Cambridge there were no less than 19 Church schools, one Roman Catholic, and one British school. Consequently, there was only one school in that town which in any way met the requirements of Dissenters, though they formed one-half of the population. ["Hear, hear!"] In Salisbury there were seven Church schools and one Roman Catholic school, and the children of Dissenters were forced into those denominational or sectarian schools. ["Hear, hear!"] This alt arose from the extraordinary and unexpected interpretation of the Act of 1870, which gives existing sectarian schools the prior right of supplying a deficiency in school accommodation. These figures at once disposed of the doctrine that increased accommodation in Church schools was a test of their popularity. He had a list of 40 villages and towns where Church and Board Schools had been running side by side. Six years ago there were 25,000 children in the Church schools and 23,000 in the Board Schools. To day there were 40,000 in the Board Schools, and only 1,000 more in the Church schools. That showed that when the population had a choice between schools under the control of the clergy and Board Schools, they preferred the latter, because they were more independently controlled and afforded a superior education. That was one of the reasons why the Wesleyan body, which used to be considered Conservative, especially on education questions, had completely veered round and passed the strong resolutions which had been sent to every Member of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Wesleyans had always, as far as their own schools were concerned, been ready to accept real local control. ["Hear, hear!"] They had asked for the establishment of School Board and unsectarian schools within reasonable distance of every child. He had received a letter from a clergyman in his Division, which showed that the clergy of the Church were not so much alarmed at the prospect of village School Boards. This gentleman expressed the hope that this Bill would not pass in its present form. He found a School Board established in his parish when he came to it, and he had always been satisfied with it. He had been chairman of the Board School for the last six years, and the school was in a very high state of efficiency—["Hear, hear!"]—and the schoolmaster was a first-rate man. From experience, he said, he was a thorough supporter of the School Board system, and he could see no justice in the provisions of the present Bill, and wished its opponents all success. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division spoke of the great sacrifices made by Church-people in the erection of schools. He had the honour, some years ago, to represent various railway companies, and a common subject of discussion was, should they subscribe towards the erection of Voluntary Schools? The directors did not care two pins what were the religious opinions taught in those schools; but they subscribed because they did not want to be rated. ["Hear, hear!"] Another point was, that these schools were used for a variety of purposes not educational at all. They were told that the town of Preston—Proud Preston it was called—subscribed 1s. 9d. a head towards the maintenance of religion in elementary schools. What did they get for that 1s. 9d.? They got the use of the schools for a variety of extraneous purposes—bazaars, theatrical performances, concerts, Sunday schools. All that ought to be borne in mind when people talked of the sacrifices of the Church for the sake of religion. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill of this year was described the other day by a leading member of the Church of England as a "better-than-nothing" Bill, just as the noble Lord the Member for Rochester described last year's Bill as a bad Bill, badly drafted. They made no provision for those vital requirements which the Free Churches thought absolutely essential. There was no security that this money would be given for increased efficiency. He was delighted to hear the Vice-President indicate several important heads in which this money might be expended—additional teachers, larger salaries, a higher standard of education, and school appliances. That was all very good; but what was to become of the 5s.? Should the 5s. cover all of those? There was no guarantee in the Bill that the money would be so applied. These were all romantic myths at the present moment. They were all fancies of the Vice-President. There was no security that they would be carried out. The present Vice President of the Council of Education would no doubt exert himself to insure the proper application of the money, but Governments came and went, and there was no permanent security that the money would be so used. The Bill provided no protection against the hardships to which Nonconformists who desired to become teachers were now exposed. A farmer living in a village near Louth had written to him informing him of the following facts:—There were 58 children in the village school, of whom 14 were the children of Church-people, and 44 the children of Nonconformists. A girl wanted to become a pupil teacher in the school, as she would get £10 a year in that position, but she was told that if she was appointed she must give up attending a Nonconformist chapel. His informant described the position as that of a "tied teacher." They had all heard of tied public houses, but a "tied teacher" was, he thought, a new expression. Nonconformist pupil teachers who wanted to become teachers in National Schools had to choose between their occupation and their places of worship, and that assuredly was a grave hardship. The Bill made no provision for effective audits, and as accounts were often "cooked" for the purpose of showing revenues that did not really exist, that was a grave blemish. On the subject of the federation of schools, against which the Wesleyan body had protested, the Vice President of the Council had twitted the Opposition for not having accepted the scheme of last year. The right hon. Member said that the bodies under which these federations were to work according to last year's Bill were public, elective, democratic bodies, and that now the Opposition were face to face with an institution which was not public, not elective, not democratic. Who were to elect these associations? They had not been told.

SIR J. GORST

Oh, yes; I said that the idea was that the association should be elected by the managers.

MR. PERKS

It is not in the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAT,) Inverness Burghs

You have it in the Bill that the governing body is to be representative of the management.

MR. PERKS

asked Voluntary were the managers of these Voluntary Schools? How were they chosen? They could not be considered a representative body. Then they were not told upon what principles these federated bodies were to act. Last night they were told that the Department intended to "boycott" those schools which would not subject themselves to the control of these clerical associations and Diocesan educational bodies. Was it the intention of the Government to set up these Diocesan Boards as rivals of that useful institution the National Union of Teachers? They had not been told what the powers of these associations were to be. The Bishop of Winchester had lately taken part in, what he termed, a peculiar ceremony. It was the transfer of a Board School at Farnham to Church management. There was great danger that these Diocesan associations would use their powers and funds for the purpose of crushing out Board Schools in village districts, and that by capturing the School Boards or bribing the electors they would strive to bring these schools into the fold of the National Society. The Bill was unquestionably a sectarian Bill, and had been framed to a large extent in the interests of that section of society which was supposed to be one of the great bulwarks of the Conservative Party. The Bill in short proposed to set over our Voluntary Schools bodies composed of men belonging to the class that had ever been inimical to real education, reform, and progress.

LORD WARKWORTH (Kensington, S.)

said that his constituents would welcome the proposals of the Government as an honest attempt to redeem the pledges made on their behalf at the General Election. A peculiar characteristic of the present Debate as conducted by hon. Members opposite was that the interests of the children and the question of the efficiency of their education had been almost entirely lost sight of. ["Hear, hear!"] This was not a Bill, as the Opposition averred, for the relief of the subscriber; it was a Bill for increasing the efficiency of education. It was neither the intention nor the desire of the supporters of the Government that the pecuniary relief provided by the Bill should go into the pockets of the subscribers to Voluntary Schools; but if hon. Members opposite believed that such a result would follow, let them wait for the Committee stage, when they could move Amendments designed to prevent any such consequences. But, although the Archbishops and Bishops had expressed their desire that subscriptions should not only be maintained at the present level but should be increased, he regarded that pronouncement as a very great concession, and not as a declaration of obligation. The responsibility cast upon the voluntary subscribers by the Act of 1870 was precisely the same as that Act cast upon the ratepayers. He thought then they had a right to ask hon. Members to explain, if it was right to relieve one class of the community, namely, the ratepayers, of their responsibilities under that Act, why were they to be to be that any relief accruing to the voluntary subscribers under this Bill was a monstrous invasion? [Cheers.] The other night the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs said that the State adopted an attitude of perfect neutrality with regard to the two classes of schools. He thought, that this was a most misleading and inaccurate account of its attitude. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton said that the Voluntary School subscriber had no more claim to relief than the subscriber to a hospital; and the right hon. Gentleman looked upon the Voluntary Schools in the light of a charity and the Board, Schools in the light of a national obligation. But this was not dealing with the two classes of schools on a Footing of equality. Surely they might ask hon. Members to press their logic to the legitimate conclusion, and to admit that equality of treatment carried with it equality of relief, and that there was no shadow of justification on the merits of the case for introducing in, this Bill a clause providing that the relief should not go to voluntary subscribers. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the great defects under the present system was that they not only dealt unfairly with different classes of ratepayers, but, as between different classes of children, some of them were penalised according to whether they were born in a rich or a poor district. But that was not an equality which they would remedy by a fixed grant under the Bill. He did not believe that they would ever obtain that equality until they had not only drawn a definite distinction between primary and secondary education—which ought to have come first and not second—but until they had placed primary education on the Imperial Exchequer. Hon. Gentlemen stated that whenever they returned to power with a surplus their first step would be to try to nullify the effect of this Bill by giving further relief to the Board Schools; and the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs stated that he still adhered to the idea that one undenominational system should be the only one recognised by the country. Some hon. Members had also said that their ideal was the painless extinction of the Voluntary Schools, and if they were to introduce this Bill they would insist on the accompaniment of a provision for adequate popular control. ["Hear, hear!"] Why did they make the demand for popular control? They made it because it meant control over the payment of teachers, because they meant to use it as an engine for the destruction of the denominational character of the schools. [Cheers.] I But if they were to carry out their own policy they would be seeking to carry out a system of test in its most odious form, and the application of that test was to be made the claim to equal treatment. If there was one subject put clearly before the electorate at the last election it was that denominational education under its present system of management was to be no disqualification to perfect equality of treatment. They had heard a great deal about the position of Wesleyans and other Nonconformists, how they had made enormous sacrifices to maintain their schools, that they repudiated the aid offered under this Bill; and they had been asked why the far richer Church of England should demand this relief. But the Wesleyan community had abandoned a great many of their schools; in 1894 they abandoned 29 schools. If they were content to abandon those schools they were perfectly logical in not wanting this relief from the State because they already had a denominational system of their own which was practically endowed by the State. That was a reason why the Wesleyans did not want the extra endowment, but that was not the position of the Church of England. They repudiated the teaching given by the Board Schools, not because they did not represent their views, but because the Board School system did not afford any guarantee that they should be enabled to give any religious teaching at all, and where it was given they thought that it was not the kind which the children ought to receive. Therefore, they claimed as a right that they should be given that amount of assistance which should prevent them from the necessity of abandoning their schools. [Cheers.] In answer to the argument of the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, he might retort by asking, even supposing it were true that the rich members of the Church of England were not so alive to their responsibilities as they should wish them to be in contributing so much as they ought, was that a reason why they should punish the children? [Cheers.] He had never understood before until the argument was put in this form by the hon. Gentleman opposite that the rights of the parents and the fulfilment of national obligations were to be dependent on the charity of the rich. ["Hear, hear!"] He welcomed this Bill partly because it attempted to carry out the spirit of the Act of 1870, by dealing with the unfair advantages which the Board Schools at present possessed. He welcomed the provision for the association of schools contained in the Bill. He believed it would enable them to distribute the grant more equally to the needs of the different schools than hitherto. He welcomed it also as a temporary Measure. He did not believe the Bill was anything more than a temporary solution of the difficulty, and he looked forward to the time when his Party would have the courage to deal with the present system, which had become obsolete, and which by the confession of its own supporters could only be maintained by successive doles from the Exchequer, and would put in its place a clear and intelligible system making the whole of our national education a first charge on the public Exchequer. [Cheers.]

*MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

wished to take the House away from the polemics and politics of the noble Lord in order to consider the practical questions suggested by the speech of the Vice President of the Council. With the State-aid grant, according to the Vice President, the Committee of Council were to bring about certain reforms in the management of schools. He hoped the Vice President would be able to do all he proposed to do, but the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman were not embodied in the Bill. Unless they were so embodied there was no security whatever that those admirable ideas would be carried out. But even if they were placed in the Bill in the shape of specific Amendments, and if it were determined to spend the money upon the purposes indicated, the money was entirely inadequate. To take the first thing referred to by the Vice President, the single-handed schools alone would require some £300,000 out of the £600,000. One-half of the money would go in that provision alone. Next they were told that the money was to be used in giving better salaries to the wretchedly-paid teachers in the Voluntary Schools. The whole grant would not suffice to do that. The Government were going to give, as a whole, 5s. per child, but the deficiency between, the Board School and the Voluntary School was 12s. per child, and of that 9s. per child came out of the pockets of the Voluntary School teachers. How, therefore, the purposes of the Vice President were going to be defrayed out of a grant of 5s. per child he entirely failed to see. There was nothing in the Bill or in the speech of the Vice President which would prevent the money being spent more and more upon rates, taxes, fuel, lighting, and cleaning. They must give the district auditor power to go behind the strict legality of a charge and ask himself: Is this not only a legal but a reasonable charge? They did not give the auditor that power, and therefore these unfair charges would continue to go on. He would give a few examples. Take a large school in Lancashire. The accounts of the school, according to a return submitted to this House in 1894, showed that the cost of teaching was 25s. per child, while 20s. per child was spent on fuel, lighting, cleaning, and rent. Take the case of St. Andrew's, Grimsby Last year, and for several years, it received £1,000 of public money. The contribution to the expenses of the school from other sources was £10, and the charge upon the school income for rent was £125. What was there in the Bill or in the statement of the Vice President to prevent that £125 becoming £250? There was no safeguard and no assurance. They were pouring this money into a sieve; they were providing more money in the shape of rent, lighting, fuel, and cleaning for the churches and chapels in connection with those schools. He saw not long ago on the door of a school a copy of the balance sheet for the year. He copied down two items:—"Salaries of teachers, £170," "Fuel, lighting, cleaning, and rent, £174"—and he knew from his own personal knowledge that for fuel, lighting, and cleaning a charge of £30 or £40 would be really a fair charge. The rest passed to purposes entirely outside the school; it was not given to the salaries of teachers; it went into parochial funds to be spent upon—whom? He left the House to judge. ["Hear, hear!"] In nearly all cases the cost of warming, lighting, and cleaning the building was charged wholly on the day school account; in some cases an attempt was made to bring about a balance of justice by making payments to the day school account in respect of lighting, cleaning, &c., incurred by the use of the premises for other purposes than those of the day school. Take a case near London. There a Sunday school met twice on the Sunday, 104 times in a year—a school containing several hundreds of children. How much did they suppose the Sunday school paid towards the day school expenses? £5 a year. But there was an evening continuation school which met 24 times in the year, for two hours at, a time, and which contained about 20 children. Yet this school, maintained entirely out of public money, was made to contribute for fuel, gas, and cleaning £25 a year. Parliament might give £6,000,000 or £16,000,000 in additional grants, but they would not improve education in the Voluntary Schools unless regulations were laid down in the Bill to prevent the leakage of the money from the purposes of education to all sorts of purposes, proper in themselves, but not educational. There was only one thing to prevent that leakage, and that, was to give some direct public representation on the management of the schools. Why did not School Boards offend in this way? And he challenged the production of a single case. It was simply because they were public institutions with the light of publicity on them. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not approve of this misuse of public money voted for education; and he asked them to believe that popular representation—which need not interfere with the denominational character of the schools—was the only remedy. On some Protestant and Catholic schools this representation had already been given. Then as to the teachers in the Voluntary Schools, no one approved of their being badly treated, but the Vice President had repeatedly declared that the Department had no authority to interfere. Until representatives of the public were placed on the managing Committees it would be impossible to prevent teachers—blameless in life, and efficient in, their profession—from being dismissed by a single man or a small non-elective Committee for other than educational reasons. In the very school of St. Andrew's, Grimsby, which he had already mentioned, the mistress of the girls' department became engaged to one of the curates in the parish. But the Vicar did not approve of it, and the curate had to leave, and the mistress of the school was dismissed. He gave this merely as an instance of what went on in these schools, and of what would go on in them as long as no representative element was introduced in the Managing-Committees. As to the question of these associations, unless the Education Department were empowered to prevent it, a large proportion of the £600,000 would go, not in school expenditure at all, but in the official expenses of these associations. They were evidently to be diocesan, and would cover two or three counties each. There were diocesan boards at present which were maintained out of Church funds and subscriptions. He hoped that these would not in future be financed out of the State grant.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

It is quite impossible under the Bill.

*MR. YOXALL

said that under the Code it would be perfectly possible to pay the expenses of the organising master and the diocesan inspectors out of this money. The Preston Voluntary School Committee formed a Federation, which drew up rules; and under these power was given to rent an office, and appoint a secretary, an organising master, and other paid assistance. It was impossible to have the schools of these counties organised without paid assistance, travelling inspectors, and so on, and that would take a large slice out of the money that ought to go to the schools. Last year the London Diocesan Board gave, in aid of poor schools, £2,265, though that sum was inadequate, and the schools were now practically starving. He agreed that the Voluntary Schools did need more money; but he wanted the money voted to reach them, and not to be spent in machinery. The expenses of the London Diocesan Board last year were—School inspection staff, £662; office staff, £441; rent of office, £70; office expenses, £71; printing, £120; inspectors' postages, £20; total, £1,384, which included the cost of inspecting the schools in religious knowledge. If the aid grant were divided in the same proportions as in the case of the London Diocesan Board, GO per cent. would go in expenses, and only 40 per cent. would go in actual aid to the schools. He hoped that in Committee clauses would be inserted to safeguard the schools against such a possibility.

*MR. JEBB (Cambridge University)

said that hon. Gentlemen opposite talked at one moment as though they were entirely in the dark as to what the machinery of the Bill would be, and at another moment they talked as though a careful scrutiny of its provisions enabled them to forecast with absolute precision its disastrous operations. They ought to choose whether they would pose as agnostics or Jeremiahs. He was not so sanguine as to suppose that the very few observation with which he should trouble the House on the machinery of the Bill were likely to be satisfactory to his hon. and right hon. Friends opposite, but he ventured to think that they might at least suggest an answer to some of the questions which had been raised in the course of the Debate. Now, the cardinal feature of the machinery of the Bill was, of course, the principle of association for the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] It appeared to him it was not adequately recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite that some such grouping of Voluntary Schools as was proposed was a matter of necessity for the purpose of distributing the grant. There were upwards of 14,000 Voluntary Schools, and the grant was to be given according to the needs of schools. It would be practically impossible for the Department to deal individually with the varying needs of 14,000 schools. The whole country would be too vast an area of comparison. For comparison and discrimination there must be limited areas, but these areas must not be too small. And, why? Because too small an area might fail to be representative of the average need. Therefore the Department had a veto on proposed areas. It had been suggested that no area should be smaller than a million of acres or a million of population. In the case of Church of England schools the obvious area was the diocese. He observed that the very mention of the word "diocese" appeared to excite apprehensions and suspicions in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [A laugh]. The diocese was recommended not only by its relation in size to the different districts of the country, but also, of course, by the existence of those diocesan boards to which his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham had just referred. What would the procedure be? Each diocese was divided into rural deaneries. The managers of voluntary Schools in each rural deanery would meet and nominate a certain number of representatives on the governing body of the association for the diocese. But the constitution of this governing body was subject to the approval of the Department. For example, the Department might require that the governing body should include a certain proportion of laymen. It could decide whether the governing body should have the power of co-opting additional members. His right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham predicted a "limited clerical control." He forgot that the control in the formation of these governing bodies rested, not with the managers of Voluntary Schools, but with the Department. Did he think, then, that the Department over which he had presided had a blind and exclusive preference for a limited clerical control? It was urged that there ought to be "a popular representative" element on these councils of the associations. Those who made this claim seemed to mean that there ought to be such an element on the managing body of the individual Voluntary School. But the proposal in the Bill had nothing to do with the managing bodies of the individual schools. [Cheers.] It did no deal with them. It simply provided that these individual bodies should nominate representatives on the councils of the associations for the purpose of submitting schemes for the allocation of the grant. The subjection of these councils to the approval of the Department was the public guarantee that they should be suitably constituted. Ought the association to have been made compulsory? The reason against making it so was that a particular school might have a valid reason for declining to join. One such reason was noticed in the Bill. It might be locally isolated in respect of its denomination. A Roman Catholic school should not be forced to join an association composed wholly or mainly of Anglican schools. Another case was that of a Voluntary School which did not want the grant. For such a school, the federation should be optional; even though there might be reasons which would induce it to join. But, it must be asked, was it likely that large numbers of schools would stand aloof? It was not likely; because associated necessitous schools would get more, on the average, than non-associated; and an unassociated school would run the risk of getting nothing, if its reason for not joining would not bear strict examination. The Bill had taken the right course in making association, not, indeed, compulsory, but in the highest degree advantageous. Now what was the function of associations? They were to submit schemes for distributing the grant among their schools according to need. The Department could check this scheme at every point. It had exact local knowledge, through returns from the schools, and through its inspection. The Bill directed it to aim, not merely at relieving needy schools, but at increasing their efficiency. When it was said that this plan opened the door to favouritism and jobbery, there was not a shadow of ground for the charge, which was really an imputation on the Department. How would it be possible to have a better guarantee than the stringent control of the Department gave against the misapplication of this money? But the use of the associations would not be confined to helping the Department in the distribution of the grant. Incidentally, they would be of great educational value. By bringing the managers into common counsel and common action, they would quicken the local interest in educational work. They would tend to keep up the amount of voluntary subscriptions. They would tend to raise the standard of efficiency. [Cheers.] All friends of education must rejoice to see Voluntary Schools delivered from the evils of isolation. Did hon. Gentlemen grudge Voluntary Schools some portion of the advantage which Board Schools had derived from School Boards? Union was strength in all things. In educational matters it was both strength and light. But a more sweeping objection had been taken to the machinery of the Bill. It was objected that it left too great a discretionary power to the Education Department, and that in doing so it gave it functions which found no analogy in the functions which the Department had hitherto exercised. Hitherto, it was said, the Department had had only to administer certain fixed rules embodied in a Code. He wondered whether those who urged this remembered the history of the Department. It was created in 1839 by an Order in Council establishing a Special Committee of the Privy Council, when a special staff of officials was engaged. For 21 years after that there was no Code at all. The Department merely published occasional Minutes, thus formulating from time to time the rules to which experience gradually led it. These Minutes were first collected and arranged as a Code in 1860, when Mr. Lowe was Vice-President. During those 21 years, from 1839 to 1860, the Department was exercising, under greater difficulties than would meet it now, a larger range of discretionary power than this Bill conferred on it. It was performing, in regard to all the Elementary Schools of the country—which then were all denominational, most of them under the National Society, or the British and Foreign School Society—tasks certainly not less difficult or delicate than any that now fall to it in respect of Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] In particular its task was to foster local effort and to develop local responsibility. It proved equal to that work. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no reason to doubt that it would prove equal to this, for which all its traditions had moulded it, and for which its accumulated experience had equipped it. ["Hear, hear!"] Objection had been especially taken to the fact that the Department was instructed by the Bill to have due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. This, it was said, was not strict enough. In reply, it might be asked—was any one prepared to suggest a cast-iron rule as to the amount of such subscriptions to be exacted, which would not operate unjustly in many places—being impossibly severe for some places, perhaps unduly lenient for others—while in all it would be liable to frequent readjustment and revision? ["Hear, hear!"] It should be remembered that as to two thirds of the whole population of the country, the same ratepayers who paid for the Board Schools included the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] That very inequality in the incidence in the education rate which hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced, was one of the reasons why it would be unjust to demand a fixed and uniform proportion of subscriptions. This was pre-eminently a matter which should be left to the discretion of an impartial Public Department, armed with accurate knowledge of local circumstances, qualified by long experience to decide fairly, and responsible to Parliament and to the country. [Cheers.] In conclusion, he would state as shortly as possible what he apprehended to be the main issue before the House. Public opinion demanded that Voluntary Schools should continue to exist at the side of the Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The number of children attending both classes of schools was the proof of this. [Cheers.] The so-called compromise of 1870 would not have lasted as long as it had done but for the existence of the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Each of the two sets of schools declared a grievance and put forward a claim. These claims, however, were distinct in kind, and different in their bearing on education. For the Voluntary Schools, it was urged that, with their present resources, very many of them could not meet the increased demands of the Department, and many of them were threatened with extinction. The Educational Department had raised its demands; and rightly so, in obedience to public opinion; but, for that very reason, the Voluntary Schools were entitled to increased consideration by the State. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been denied that they had suffered from the competition of Board Schools. It had been denied that such competition depressed them even in School Board areas. As to non-School Board areas, how, it was asked, could there be competition at all? Those who spoke thus seemed to mean competition for pupils. But there was also competition for teachers. ["Hear, hear!"] And this competition for teachers—which went to the very core of a school's efficiency—was necessarily not confined to School Board areas. It covered the whole educational market. It affected districts where there were no Board Schools. Higher salaries meant, as a rule, more efficient teachers. ["Hear, hear!"] More efficient teachers meant an increased power of earning Government grants. And thus the command of the rates helped the board Schools to get more from the Exchequer. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no class of teachers in the country more deserving than the teachers in Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] They had often made large sacrifices. He hoped that one result of further aid to Voluntary Schools would be to improve the position of the teachers. [Cheers.] There was another reason why the relative depression of Voluntary Schools claimed consideration by the State. The; power of many of their supporters to contribute was limited by the fact that they also paid rates for the support of Board Schools. They formed, in fact, a large portion of those very bodies of ratepayers for which Gentlemen opposite demanded relief. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had used an argument on this point which he wished to notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that the payer of a School Board rate, who also subscribed to a Voluntary School, had no more right to complain than a man had who paid a Poor rate and also subscribed to some charity. But the analogy between the two cases was limited to the fact that the Education Rate and the Poor rate were alike compulsory. ["Hear, hear!"] Private charity was optional. But the State compelled a parent to send his child to some Elementary School; and if he could not conscientiously use a Board School then he must use a Voluntary School. ["Hear, hear!"] Then as to the grievance under which it was contended the School Board system laboured. He granted that in regard to certain School Board districts there was a reasonable grievance. Let them take a School Board area where the rateable value was low and the population dense—conditions which often went together. There was a rate, let them say, of 2s. or 3s. in the £. The ratepayers there certainly had a strong case for claiming some relief, when it was considered how unequally the burden of the Education rate is distributed over the whole country. ["Hear, hear!"] The ratepayers in one place might be paying six times, or even twelve times, as much as those in another place. But he would remind the House that this was altogether a ratepayers' question. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a question, as in the case of the voluntary system, which affected the efficiency of the schools. The relief claimed was not for the School Board or for the Board Schools, but for the ratepayer. Nothing could imperil the efficiency of the Board Schools, much less their existence, short of a general strike against the Education Rate. So long as that rate was levied, the Board Schools were safe Let them be quite clear as to this fundamental difference between the case of the Voluntary Schools and that of the Board Schools. In the case of needy Voluntary Schools, the question was whether one indispensable element in our primary education should or should not be preserved. In the case of School Board areas, where the rate was oppressive, the question was not whether the Board Schools should or should not remain efficient—they were bound to remain so—but whether their efficiency should be maintained at a cost to the local ratepayer which was greater than could fairly be cast upon him. Justice in this case did not require that a necessarily equal sum should be given in precisely the same form of grant to Voluntary Schools and Board Schools alike. ["Hear, hear."] Justice demanded that an adequate measure of assistance should be given in each case, and in a form suited to the particular circumstances of each case. To the Voluntary Schools they must give such graduated aid as would preserve them all in efficiency and save the weaker among them from extinction. To the ratepayers who paid for the Board Schools they might also give relief according to the amount and the produce of the rate in different localities, so as to redress in some measure at least the great inequality in the pressure of this burden on different parts of the country. But to mix up these two perfectly distinct problems was not to observe the principle of equality. It was rather to aggravate the inequalities which already existed. It was not to dispense even-handed justice; it was rather to obscure the very first conditions on which in this case true justice depended. The two problems being distinct, the machinery required by them distinct, and the Bills therefore necessarily distinct, the only question that remained was, which of the two Bills should have precedence? He answered that that Bill deserved precedence which represented the greater educational urgency. ["Hear, hear."] The Bill for the Voluntary Schools represented the greater educational urgency, and should therefore come first. ["Hear, hear."] He should welcome, as heartily as any man in any part of the House, the introduction of a Measure for the relief of those ratepayers on whom the incidence of the rates was oppressive. Meanwhile he should vote with entire confidence for the Second Beading of this Bill, in the belief that it was vital to the welfare of their system of national education. [Cheers.]

SIR HENRY CAMPBELL - BAN-NEBMAN (Stirling Burghs)

said that the few remarks which he would address to the House would be devoted principally, if not exclusively, to that question of equality between the two classes of schools with which they had to deal, to which his hon. Friend who had just sat down had devoted his concluding observations. He was satisfied he should be confirmed when he said that the announcement of the provisions of this Bill was received in the greater part of the community with surprise and even amazement. There was a well-known saying, applied to a great European family which had occupied a prominent place in history for many generations, that they learned nothing and forgot nothing. Her Majesty's Government had somewhat improved on that condition of mind, because it seemed to be true of them that they learned nothing and forgot everything. Laughter and cries of "Oh!"] One would have thought that the legislative events of last year were striking enough legislative events of last year were striking enough to have impressed themselves upon any mind, and one would naturally have expected that her Majesty's Government would have learned the very easy lesson which those events were calculated to teach. Why was it that the Education Bill of last year had to be withdrawn amid circumstances of discomfiture, of disappointment, and even, he might say, of humiliation? What was the outstanding defect which wrought the ruin of that Bill? What was the taint which, not only to the regular Opposition, but to the great majority of the House and of the country, vitiated the possibility for good which that Bill might have been believed to contain? It was the inequality of its dealings with the two great classes of schools which they had in this country. (Cheers.) It was the unfairness and even hostility towards the system of Board Schools which could be read within the lines of the Bill if not actually expressed in the Bill, and which were even more unequivocally displayed in the utterances of some of its more ardent supporters. (Cheers.) And if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been an apt pupil in the school of affliction through which he had passed—(laughter)—if he had been wise to discern the sign of the times—surely he would have endeavoured, above all things, to avoid the rock upon which he made shipwreck last year, and he would have endeavoured, not only fully to recognise this principle of equality of treatment of the two classes of schools, but even to raise no suspicion that there was any intention of its being departed from. ("Hear, hear?") The right hon. Gentleman was sincerely, even ardently, anxious to give financial assistance to Voluntary Schools. Did he not see that the easy way, in fact the only way, in which he could attain that object speedily would have been to avoid this suspicion of inequality, and yet, after pondering upon the matter during the whole of the Recess, he introduced a Bill which exhibited this characteristic even more flagrantly than the Bill which was rejected last year. (Cheers.) He confessed he could not admire the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman, merely regarded as tactics. He spoke of the right hon. Gentleman because he had made himself personally and specially responsible for this Measure. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] They did not know how far they could speak of the two Members of the Government who had a direct official responsibility in connection with this subject. They did not know how far they were associated with the right hon. Gentleman. They could not speak of the Vice President because they did not know where to find him, either in a physical or in a moral sense. [Laughter.] He was now here and now there—now in one part of that House and now in another; now writing in one magazine or in another, but never, until last night, taking any part in the explanation of this Bill to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He had become, in fact, a sort of Parliamentary will-o'-the-wisp. [Laughter] And he did not know that any great satisfaction would be derived by Her Majesty's Government from the defence he made of the Bill yesterday when he spoke. ["Hear, hear!"] He said nothing of the Amendment now before the House. He said nothing of the main points of attack which had been directed against the Bill, but he wove a hypothetical web which, with his great powers of ingenuity, he embroidered with all sorts of gorgeous colours, showing what the educational associations might become if he had a hand in their formation and direction. And he observed that his hon. Friend, the Member for Nottingham, and even the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, appeared to have taken that declaration of his opinions very much as if they were part of the Bill now before them, whereas, if there was any force in it at all, this was an entirely new Bill. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman invented it out of the somewhat nebulous proposition which the Bill contained. He remembered the time when, if an hon. Member responsible for the Department affected had made such a Bill at that box, some one would have been ready, and with some show of justice—and probably the House would admit that it was a reasonable thing to do—to move that the Bill, after the second reading, should be committed pro forma in order to insert the Amendments foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] If they turned from the right hon. Gentleman to a more august quarter, where the Lord President sits apart, on Olympus, controlling, with no direct responsibility to the country, at once the education of its children and the defence of its empire—[laughter]—if they ventured to turn to him, he was afraid they would get no further or better guidance. Last year the Lord President laid down a proposition that was received with satisfaction by the country at large when he made a strong declaration in favour of the statutory equality of Board and voluntary schools. "Statutory equality" was a good mouth-filling phrase, but he doubted very much whether the Duke of Devonshire, when he chose that imposing adjective, had the slightest conception of what immense use it would be to him before the year was out. Just imagine where he would have been if he had not used it, because the other day, when the necessities of the Measure required that he should be put forward to disclaim the ordinary meaning which everybody had put upon that inconvenient dictum, he was able to whittle away the substance by giving some small technical interpretation to his adjective. ["Hear, hear."] He explained with elaboration that when he spoke of statutory equality he meant it only in some departmental sense. It was not very well done. Among the many admirable qualities with which the Duke of Devonshire was endowed, and which were nowhere better appreciated than in the House of Commons—among those admirable qualities there could not be included, he was afraid, facility in the splitting of straws. [Laughter.] He was not good at quibbling, and although everyone who knew him, or who had watched him, knew perfectly well that he had brought himself to believe that he meant last year what now he said he meant, the mass of his countrymen knew him better, and could recognise in the declaration the Liberal Party adhered to, if the Duke of Devonshire did not, an outburst under his present depressing circumstances of his earlier better self. ["Hear, hear."] The point of inequality was the great impediment to the easy passage of this Measure, and was the objection he offered to the Bill. It was stamped with the vice of inequality. But then they were told that a Bill would be introduced providing for Board Schools. ["Hear, hear."] But why were they put off with a mere promise of a Bill, and what guarantee was there that if the Bill was introduced—and he did not doubt the honest intention of the Government—that it would ever become law or prove satisfactory? Only one tenable reason was at one time urged in favour of separate treatment of the two classes of schools. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had with great ingenuity invented some more reasons. [Cheers of "Oh, oh."] Well, he had found some reasons—he did not use the word "invented" at all disrespectfully—the hon. Gentleman had found some reasons, but no one would have been more surprised than his hon. Friend a few months ago if he had heard of such a thing as this separation proposed. One general reason was that there was no time to pass both Bills before the end of the year, and that it was necessary that this Bill should pass before the end of the year. The right hon. Gentleman told the House some days ago, in the earlier stages of this Debate, that it was doubtful, if not impossible, that the Bill would pass, and one wondered why he did not discover that sooner, for anything that could now militate against the opportune passing of the Bill surely could have been foreseen some months ago. If it was not foreseen, did not the right hon. Gentleman see the conspicuous letter from Sir C. Ryan, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) referred some nights ago, and which was given a prominent place in The Times, and in which that high authority with great knowledge and impartiality said he did not see how it was possible this money could become available for its purpose from the surplus of the year? The First Lord of the Treasury ought to have known these facts, and, if so, surely there ought to have been some indication of this change of view. But, whether or not, this fact blew to the winds the reason for a separate Bill for this purpose. What was the reason for legislation on this subject at all? It was the intolerable strain upon the supporters of schools caused by fresh and extended requirements enforced by the central authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President said last night what was well known, but which they were glad to hear on his authoritative dictum, that these causes of increased expenditure were not the expression of wanton caprice on the part of the department, but were in obedience to the demands of the public opinion of the country. The truth was the art of education, like other arts, was continually developing, and we must make every effort to prevent the educational gap between ourselves and other nations being increased, new requirements were enforced, all deemed necessary, and enforced alike on Board and Voluntary Schools; so that help, if required, was required by both. It would not be difficult to show that if any difference was to be made between Board and Voluntary Schools in this respect, or if any preference should be given it should be given rather to Board Schools—["Oh, oh!"]—and for two reasons. In the first place because the strain which was complained of fell upon the voluntary subscribers. He would not say a word in depreciation of the public spirit of the Voluntary School subscriber, who gave his money either for the sake of education or for the sake of the religious body to which he belonged or with which the school was connected; in either case it was a public-spirited, unselfish motive. But, after all, it was a voluntary contribution, and it could be diminished or increased as circumstances required. But in the case of the Board Schools they were maintained by a compulsory rate which was exacted from everyone, whether he could afford it or not; and if they were to look at the matter closely, it was the ratepayer rather than the voluntary subscriber who was entitled to complain of the intolerable strain. [Cheers.] His second reason was because all the future was, surely, on the side of schools under popular representative control; and a system of Voluntary Schools under clerical management, however necessary its continuance might be, was after all, a survival from the past. ["Hear, hear!"] The Solicitor General had said that the State at present was not neutral as between Voluntary and Board Schools, that the Board Schools had at their back rates on which the State had enabled them to draw as far as they wanted for the purposes of education, and he asked, Had the Voluntary Schools such an exchequer at their back? That argument, which he had often heard, involved a complete misapprehension of the settlement of 1870. It was never supposed for a moment that the two classes of schools were to be set up as of equal value, and to be run, as it were, against each other. It was because the Voluntary Schools were in existence and were honourably recognised as having every title to consideration that they were not interfered with, but the condition of the arrangement that was made was that there should be no fresh calls made upon the public funds, unless in a case where the increased requirements for educational purposes bore heavily on all concerned with education. ["Hear, hear!"] They who opposed this Bill did so because they upheld the settlement of 1870. He had heard the most extraordinary sentiments expressed with regard to the School Boards. It was often implied that they were a strange machinery invented by the enemies of religious education, and above all by the enemies of the Established Church; and that idea was at the bottom of a great deal of the hostility with which the School Boards were regarded. What were the facts? Would anybody doubt that in 1870, if they had had a tabula rasa, if the field had been unoccupied, Parliament would have proceeded to set up in England, as two years later they did in Scotland, a School Board in every parish? ["Hear, hear!"] There was no doubt of it; and if there had been any doubt that doubt would have been removed now, because between 1870 and 1897 they had seen a prodigious development of this principle of local representative government under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Act of his right hon. Friend near him. ["Hear, hear!"] But they did not have a tabula rasa. The ground was in a large degree occupied, and occupied to her everlasting-glory, be it said, by the Church of England. ["Hear, hear!"] The Church of England had stepped in when there was none to help, had seen the wants of the people for elementary education, and had attempted to the best of her power to meet those wants. ["Hear, hear!"] She had established schools, erected buildings and maintained them, and what the Parliament of 1870 felt was that it was quite impossible to ignore that fact and do anything which was likely to injure the system which she had created or deprive her of the position she had established for herself in educational matters. ["Hear, hear!"] That was the reason of the compromise and settlement of 1870. The status quo was respected and School Boards were to be established wherever the field was not occupied. But where Voluntary Schools existed, or could be established and maintained to the same degree as those which existed, there they were allowed to establish themselves, on the condition that no new burden was imposed on account of them. When the School Boards were spoken lightly of he would ask, where should they have been if it had not been for the School Boards? ["Hear, hear!"] In saying this he did not speak merely of the 2,000,000 children whom the School Boards were educating and saving from ignorance and savagery, but he spoke of the impulse given to educational interests throughout the country by these representative bodies. What he and those who thought with him wanted was to be true to the original settlement, but for that purpose they must insist on certain points in any new legislation such as this. Ill the first place they must have an equality in treatment as between the two classes of schools. He did not know that the Government themselves had, on previous occasions, shown any disposition to make a distinction such as they had attempted to draw now. The year 1891 was not long ago, and Section 9 of the Bill of 1891, dealing with education, said:— Nothing in this Act shall give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board. [Cheers.] That contained the whole principle for which they were contending. His second point was that, in giving money to the one school or the other, precaution must be taken—which they did not discern in the Bill—that the money should be applied to increase the efficiency of the school or make it better fitted for complying with future requirements. Another condition they were certainly disposed to insist upon as of great consequence was that there should be some representation of popular feeling and interests, and that the schools should not be left to mere clerical management. [Cheers] They declared no hostility whatever to religious teaching, but they had a disbelief—and he was much mistaken if there was not in all parts of the House a considerable disbelief—in purely clerical control. [Cheers.] In the view of the opponents of the Bill the school should not be the handmaid of a sect, however great, vigorous, and worthy that sect might be. For this purpose they had confidence in their countrymen if elected to some share in the control of the schools. He could appeal on this ground to the case of his own country, with which naturally he was more familiar. In Scotland, as hon. Members knew, there was a School Board in every parish. He had never heard of any jealousy of School Boards in Scotland, or of any complaint as to the treatment of scholars, or unfair or injurious interference with Voluntary Schools. He believed the religious teaching in the schools in Scotland was almost identical with that given in the schools in England, and of a kind calculated to benefit the scholar without instilling into him the doctrines or peculiar dogmas of a particular sect. However that might be, let the House mark this difference—that religious teaching was not imposed in Scotland by any Act of Parliament. The only provision was this passage in the preamble of the Act of 1872:— Whereas it has been the custom to give instruction in religion, and so on, and it is expedient that the managers of public schools should be at liberty to continue the said custom, be it enacted, etc. The managers of the schools were the elected members of the School Board—[cheers]—and their experience in Scotland was that they could with perfect safety leave to the elected members of the community at large this thorny question, sometimes found so difficult in England. What was the result? Voluntary Schools and religious bodies left the School Boards entirely alone, and all schools were rivals, not in the petty, sordid intrigues of sect against sect, but in their common, overmastering devotion to the cause of education. Two questions had been addressed to the Government as to the amount of money that would be devoted to Scotland in consequence of the considerable grant to England. Enigmatical answers had been given. He made bold to say he was speaking on behalf of his hon. Friends in every quarter of the House when he said there were two things they would be always agreed upon. The first was that, whether the money was given to them on any fixed scale, such as they had been accustomed to or not, they would insist upon having their full equivalent share of the money granted to England. The second point was that if the Government were looking about for means of expending that money they must remember that in Scotland they were not content to be brought up to the English average. They were far above that average; they had always been so, and meant to continue that pre-eminence; and, moreover, they in Scotland had never recognised any deep artificial line of distinction between elementary and secondary education. They had run the one into the other, and regarded, as they had done for generations, the whole course of training, from the elements up to the end of the University curriculum, as one staircase up which it was the right of every youth in the country to climb. [Cheers.] It was because this Bill fell short of nearly all the conditions he had named, because there was no guarantee of fairness towards Board Schools, because where not actually reactionary it ignored the tendency to develop the movement towards local control over our modern institutions, and that there was a danger of the interests of the school being subordinated to clerical interests—it was for these reasons they on the Opposition side of the House were bound to offer to the Bill their most strenuous opposition. With regard to the particular Vote which would be given at the close of the Debate, when every hon. Member would be invited to say "Aye" or "No" on the question of justice to the Board School—[Ministerial cries of "No" and Opposition cheers]—whatever might be the character or nature of the decision in the House of Commons, the overwhelming voice of the country would be with them. [Cheers.]

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

, who rose amidst Ministerial cheers, said: Mr. Speaker, it has been my fortune to have to address to the House two long speeches already upon the subject of this Bill. In the first I explained and defended its provisions before I was aware of the special line of attack that would be directed against me. In the second of those speeches I answered, to the best of my ability, one of the ablest speeches made against the Bill and dealt seriatim and in detail with the various arguments against it, and I confess that it seemed to me that, at all events, as far as I could forecast the future course of the Debate, the subject was a nearly exhausted one. At all events I had nothing more to say to the House of an instructive or interesting description unless some new objections hitherto unforeseen, hitherto undeveloped, were advanced from the benches opposite. I have been a patient listener to the three nights' Debate that we have had since Thursday last, and I confess that nothing has fallen from hon. Members opposite which was not foreshadowed and indeed enunciated at great length in the previous Debate. If we waited for the summing up of the case against the Bill in the speech we have listened to, as I have waited for materials for my reply, the difficulty I am placed in is considerable, not owing to the strength of the arguments advanced against me, but to the paucity of material for my reply. [Cheers and laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman's objections to the Bill, as far as I could summarise them, fell under one of two heads, one head of which he developed at a certain length, the other of which he passed by in a most summary manner. The first objection was that there was no equality preserved in the Bill between Voluntary Schools and Board Schools. On that theme or text he based three-quarters of the address which he has just delivered.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

There happens to be an Amendment before the House.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Yes, and the right, hon. Gentleman was aware that it was not absolutely necessary to confine his speech to the Amendment. If it had been, at least a third of his speech would have been out of order. [Laughter.] I presume, therefore, his arrangement of material was dictated not merely by his view of the Amendment on the Paper or of the proportion which ought to exist between the two branches of the argument which he so unequally developed. His attack was mainly directed of what is called the inequality of treatment provided by this Bill for the two classes of schools, by telling us that, like a great dynasty, we neither learn anything nor forget anything, and he explained that this Bill was likely to be wrecked upon the same rock which had proved disastrous to its predecessor in the course of last year. He led us to believe that the real reason why it did not meet with that Parliamentary success which it undoubtedly deserved—[cheers and laughter]—was that it did not contain that absolute equality of treatment between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools which appears now to be the cardinal principle of hon. Members opposite. I do not remember that in any of the speeches of last year that was made a cardinal ground for the opposition that was directed against the previous Bill. [Cheers.] The Bill of last year was in Committee for a Parliamentary fortnight, and we had the pleasure of hearing the Leader of the Opposition every night—[laughter]—at great length—[laughter and Opposition]—and with great eloquence—[Cheers and laughter]—discussing the first three lines of the Bill. [Laughter.] I am perfectly aware that it has boon the habitual practice of hon. Gentlemen opposite to interpret a single cheer which I once rashly gave—[laughter]—imprudently and improperly gave—[Laughter]—to a speech made opposite—I will never cheer any speeches opposite again. I do remember that that cheer was interpreted as a party declaration of hostility to the whole system of School Board education. [Cheers and counter cheers] I have since had an active correspondence with almost every part of the country upon that subject. Apart from that single and misinterpreted cheer no sentence was uttered on this side of the House hostile to the School Board system.["Oh!" and cheers.]

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no clause in the Bill restraining the expenditure of School Boards, and which placed it under the control of another body? [Cheers.]

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

It is perfectly true that the Bill of last year did, under certain circumstances, deal with the expenditure of School Boards, and gave a certain control to bodies elected by the same constituency, but under a method of protection "which, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite themselves, is far more fitted to give the true opinion of the constituencies than the system which at present obtains. I am not going to waste the time of the House by discussing the Bill of last year; I should not have alluded to it if we had not been taunted by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with having in this Bill fallen into the same error as we fell into with regard to the Bill of last year. But in the Bill of this year we have not fallen into the error into which we fell last year—a Parliamentary error which ended, no doubt, in the abandonment of that Bill. The fault of the Bill of last year was not that it dealt unequally with Board and Voluntary Schools, not that it was hostile to School Boards, not that it was otherwise than most favourable to the general interests of the education of the country. The Bill of last year had one fault, and one fault alone—[Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers]—and that fault was that it gave too large a natural field for the eloquence and the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Ministerial laughter and cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill of this year has fallen into the same error; I am not prepared to deny it until I see the event, but all I can say is that I have done my best in drawing up the Bill to limit the subjects with which it deals, and at all events we shall not be precluded by the great length of the Debates which it provokes from carrying it into law at an early date. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman having given us this warning, thought it then worth while, not for the first, second, or third time in the course of these Debates, to make an attack upon the President of the Council, and he endeavoured to insinuate that there was a division of opinion between the Duke of Devonshire and the rest of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the statutory equality established by the Act of 1870. This attack has been made more than once, and I am almost ashamed to occupy the time of the House in meeting it again. The question can really be disposed of in a sentence. If anybody takes the trouble to look back at the Duke of Devonshire's speech he will see that when he talked of statutory equality he referred to the equality of what is known as a fixed grant. ["Hear, hear!"] The fixed grant is now by statute given on precisely similar terms to Board Schools and to Voluntary Schools, and the Duke of Devonshire rightly said that it would be a very serious thing to interfere with that statutory equality, and that he for one was not going to be responsible for any such change. That is all he said, and to suppose that he said anything more is to imply an ignorance of the Act of 1870 which may possibly be pardonable in Gentlemen who though they have been in office are now in Opposition, but is not likely to be shared by any Gentleman now holding high office in the Education Department. There is, as has been pointed out over and over again, no statutory equality between Board and Voluntary Schools except in regard to the fixed grant; in every other respect—in respect to rates, in respect to assistance to poor schools, and in respect to other matters—there never has been since the Act of 1870 came into force any statutory equality whatever between the two classes of schools, and it can hardly therefore be maintained that the Duke of Devonshire made it a cardinal point in his creed that an imaginary statutory equality which has never existed should be maintained during an indefinite future. ["Hear, hear!"] Are the right hon. Gentlemen and the Opposition serious in their demands for statutory equality with regard to any assistance given to these schools? I can never make out what their demand is. Sometimes they ask for assistance to poor Board Schools corresponding to the assistance to poor Voluntary Schools. That is an intelligent policy, but it is not one which requires an equal sum to be given to the average attendance in Voluntary Schools and Board Schools. The policy recommended by hon. Gentlemen opposite does not appear from the Amendment. The Amendment has a happy ambiguity about it which reflects the happy ambiguity of hon. Gentlemen opposite who, when it suits their game, have the flag of the poor School Board, the over-taxed ratepayer, and the impossible burden of education in certain poor districts, but who, when the plan of attack seems to fail, change their ground and would lead us to believe that the policy they advocate and which they would carry out if they were in office is an equal grant to every school, rich and poor, Board or Voluntary. Is that their policy? [An HON. MEMBER: "With control!"] Yes; but this is the second branch of the right hon. Gentleman's attack upon the Bill an now dealing with the policy of giving financial aid to those schools, and I want to know whether hon. Members opposite are serious in pressing upon the Government and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of giving to every Board School in the richest parts of the richest counties the same amount of aid as they would give to the poorest schools in the poorest counties. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes; if you give it to all!"] But we do not propose to give it to all. The hon. Gentlemen who made that observation can scarcely have read the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Is the taxpayers' money to be given where it is not needed? ["Hear, hear"] By universal consent aid is needed more by the poorer Voluntary Schools than, by any other class of schools—[loud Opposition cries of "No!"]—and because it is so much required by them we propose by this Bill to give it to them. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite sat down without telling us what he meant by equality of treatment. Between the two principles we have no hesitation in choosing, and we say boldly that, if you ask for equality of treatment in the one sense, we do not mean to give it. [Cheers and ironical cheers.] I hear the right hon. Gentlemen opposite cheering that statement ironically. This is an Amendment upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but the Debate upon the introduction ox the Bill was conducted in a different spirit. Then we heard of nothing but the poverty of the poor Board Schools. Is that equality of treatment? Is that giving the same amount to every child alike in the rich and poor schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course it is not. ["Hear, hear!"] We support the policy of giving something to the poor School Board areas. In dealing with either Board Schools or Voluntary Schools we say we must look at the necessities of the people to be helped and that an indiscriminate charity which gives as much to the rich as to the poor schools would be a squandering of the ratepayers' money. ["Hear, hear!"] If that is the issue on which we are imdiately about to divide I have no hesitation in saying that not only will every man on this side of the House support the principle we lay down, but that there is not a voter in the country who will be bold enough to say, "You must give as much, to the rich as to the poor." ["Hear, hear!"] There was a part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which, in a brief and a perfunctory manner, he referred to the question of control, and he went into a long disquisition on the subject of the Scotch School Board system. It is a curious fact that two hon. Members on this Bench, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and myself, are both Scotchmen, and that we have two other hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, one of whom is a Scotchman and the other a Scotch representative—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—and perhaps it is owing to that fact that we have in the course of this Debate discussed the Scotch system of education rather more at length than might have been expected from the educational interest involved in this Bill lying on this side of the Border. ["Hear, hear!"] But while the right hon. Gentleman showed us that the Scotch system was so admirable in character that it excited no animosity in Scotland, he showed us also some evidence of not having followed the Debate as closely as I have been obliged to do. He was evidently not in the House when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool made one of those speeches with which we on this side of the House are so familiar, in the course of which he showed a great dislike for Voluntary education and a great desire to be disagreeable to Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The two objects are not always to be reconciled in the case of this Bill. I confess it would have been better for the hon. Gentleman to have reserved the second until some favourable opportunity when the Measure is disposed of. [Laughter.] But it was a Scotch parish—the parish of Port Glasgow—which, the hon. Gentleman instanced as an illustration of the injustice to which, as he contended, the Roman Catholic communion are subjected. He stated that a third of that parish were Irish Roman Catholics; that they were in a minority; that they paid a very large percentage of the rates; and that they had to support out of their own pockets Roman Catholic Schools, while they paid rates not merely in support of sectarian education, but of denominational Presbyterian education. And so, undoubtedly, they have. I will not discuss whether that is right or wrong. But lot the right hon. Gentleman listen to his own side before he tells us that the Scotch system—which I support—is one that receives universal favour from all sections of the community in Scotland. The truth is that the Scotch system is one which, on the whole, is eminently suited to Scotland. It gives denominational education, which you refuse to give to England. [Cheers.] It gives that denominational education partly at the cost of the State and partly at the cost of the ratepayers; and it gives it according to the will of the majority of the parish in which the school is situated. [Cheers.] That system is undoubtedly, speaking generally, a system which suits Scotland, where there is no great divergence, speaking broadly, between the religious beliefs of the population in most parishes. Whether that system would suit England I do not know. Two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite have said they would like to see it introduced into this country; but my belief is that any Government that tried to introduce it into England would receive determined opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] They talk about popular control; but a popular control which enabled the people of a district to give whatever religious education they liked, to teach whatever formularies they liked, does not, and would not ever, command the general assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] If that is so—and I hear no dissenting cheers from the other side—what is the value of all this talk about the importance and the justice of popular control? [Cheers.] Popular control, in the Scotch sense of the term, which is the true sense of the term, is, whether good or bad, altogether outside the scope of this Bill; and when hon. Gentlemen opposite come forward with a plan like the Scotch plan, they will not find in me a vehement opponent. [Cheers.] But if popular control in that sense is excluded, and properly excluded, from the Bill, I should like to know from some speaker opposite whether we are to modify the government of Voluntary Schools because we increase the grant from the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb), who, for a second time this evening, has made a most interesting contribution to our debates on the Bill—[cheers]—said that, in his judgment, popular control was the correlative of popular support; and that Imperial control was the correlative of Imperial support. We are giving support out of the Exchequer—we are not giving it out of the rates—and therefore the Education Department, which is responsible to this House, is the department which properly exercises control over the grant which we are giving. [Cheers.] But, while we have not given way to any of the schemes which have been advanced from time to time for giving the parents control, or the ratepayers control, or any other control of that kind, for which we think there is no justification, in the management of Voluntary Schools, we have laid the foundation for an organisation which will have at least as great an effect upon elementary education in Voluntary schools as any possible local control which you can contrive could have. [Cheers.] I admit that these associations are voluntary. I admit that we have not laid down detailed regulations in this Bill for their organisation or constitution; but has anybody on either side of the House any doubt that these voluntary associations will be constituted? ["Hear, hear!"] And can anybody doubt that when they are constituted voluntarily they will have a most excellent effect upon the general elementary education given by the Voluntary Schools? ["Hear, hear!"] These associations will fulfil two great and two necessary objects. They will, in the first place, relieve a. Government Department of a great part of the burden which, in their absence, would fall upon the shoulders of the Department, and which the Department would be ill able to bear; and they will, in the second place, form a centre where the managers of Voluntary Schools—not necessarily clerical managers, as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think—[cheers]—where managers and all those interested in the education of these schools will meet together, will be able to compare notes, will be able to agree upon a system by which the schools are to be improved, the general level of education to be raised, the difficulties of particular schools to be met, and by which the whole system of voluntary education may be brought to a higher perfection than is possible under the existing system—["hear, hear!"]—each manager acting on his own initiative, and on no other than that derived from the support and advice of the Inspector of the Department. I think, now, I have travelled over, to the best of my ability, the two objections, and the only two objections, raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I take him as suming up the whole of the objections to this Bill as formulated by the Opposition. I would appeal for my part, not merely to Gentlemen on this side of the House, but to Gentlemen on both sides of the House, to support this Bill on far more substantial grounds than have been urged by Gentlemen opposite for opposing it. I appeal, in the first place, to education. The right hon. Gentleman who was once Vice President of the Council, ill the earlier hours of the evening occupied more than an hour of the time of the House in telling us how inefficient was the present system of education ill Voluntary Schools. 1s that an argument against the Bill? [Cheers.] I confess that it was with the utmost difficulty that I restrained my natural enthusiasm and prevented myself from cheering the right hon. Gentleman at every stage for the able speech he made in defence of the Measure. [Cheers and Laughter.] If the education in Voluntary Schools be inferior to the education in Board Schools, why is it inferior. It is inferior because they have smaller means. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of posing as a great advocate of democratic institutions: but the most admirably tried democratic institution has never yet proved a substitute for pounds, shillings, and pence—[cheers.]—and if you want to have a good teacher no popular control will enable you to get one unless you pay for him. [Cheers.] If you want to get a good building no popular control will enable you to get it unless you pay for it; and if you want efficient equipment no popular control will enable you to get it unless you pay for it. [Cheers.] And it is because the Voluntary Schools in many cases cannot pay for it, and for no other reason whatever, that their education is open to the criticisms levelled against them by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] Now, Sir, this money will go in the main to education. It will go in the main to improving education, and I ask, therefore, every educationist, including the hon. Gentleman the member for Nottingham opposite, to vote for it. How the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham can deliberately vole against a Measure which will increase the resources of the most hard-pressed schools in the country passes my understanding—["Hear, hear!"]—and until I see him go through the bobby, and deliberately record his verdict against this great addition to the educational machinery of the country, I shall be unable to believe that anybody representing the great educational interest that he docs can possibly adopt so paradoxical a course. ["Hear, hear!"] While I appeal with equal confidence to the educationist, surely I may appeal with equal confidence to the ratepayer? [Cheers.] I have never brought forward this Bill as a ratepayers' Bill. I think there are higher interests concerned than the interests of the ratepayers, but nobody can doubt that it is of enormous assistance to the ratepayers. I grant that it dots nut act equally, and it cannot act equally, tinder our present educational system, in every part of the country. But when I heard the right hon. Member for Sheffield say that his borough would get nothing, or only a comparatively trifling sum, I listened to him with amazement, for the children in the Voluntary Schools in Sheffield are not so far short of the number in the Board Schools. [Mr. MUNDELLA: "One-third."] No, two-thirds. I have made inquiries in quarters which I believe to be accurately informed, and I am told that while there are about 30,000 or 32,000 children in Board Schools in Sheffield there are about 20,000 in the Voluntary Schools. Does not the right hon. Gentleman assent to that? [Mr. MUNDELLA: "No."] Well, those are the facts that I have obtained from what I believe are authentic sources. ["Hear, hear!"] But I am not going to peddle over the details of this borough or of that borough, this county or that. I admit that this Bill acts unequally. Of course it acts unequally, because it deals with an unequally system, and no ingenuity will prevent its acting unequally, and no system will give assistance where assistance is required which does not act unequally. But, while making that admission in the frankest way, I assert that this is a Bill which is, on the whole, of enormous assistance to the ratepayers of this country. [Cheers.] It is an assistance to the ratepayers in every locality where Voluntary Schools exist, and where they are in danger of extinction. When I remember of how large a portion of England that statement is true, I think I am justified in appealing not merely to educationists, but also to the ratepayers. Those are two great classes, but there are others also to whom I appeal. I appeal to those in this House who regard the existing system of Board School education, with all its limitations, as an essential privilege of the Nonconformists of this country. [Opposition cries of "No!"] It is a cardinal point of faith with a very large body of opinion, chiefly Nonconformist opinion, that you ought not to teach the formularies of any particular religious denomination in any public elementary school—["hear, hear!"]—and those who hold that attitude find their views satisfied by the Board School system of this country. Now, I say boldly that that system cannot be maintained, the forces existing in our society being what they are, if you permit the Voluntary School system to be destroyed. [Cheers.] The two methods of education are correlative. I believe that the country might possibly tolerate the Scottish system, under which you have universal School Boards and denominational teaching; I believe the country might tolerate the Irish system, under which practically all the expenditure of schools is met out of the Imperial Exchequer, and the teaching is denominational practically in every case. It would submit, I believe, to either of those systems. The system I am quite certain it would never submit to is a system under which School Boards were universal, but denominational teaching was impossible. [Cheers.] Whatever else would happen, that system would never be tolerated. Impose it by a majority—and you might have a majority which could impose it—the opposition in the country would never rest until it was upset. [Cheers.] There fore, hon. Members will sec that I really am not pushing my argument too far when I say that in support of this Bill I have a right to appeal, not merely to the educationist, not merely to the ratepayer, but also to the supporter of the existing English system of Board School education. But if I may appeal, as I may with confidence, to those three classes, with still greater force surely I may appeal to those who think, as I do, that, at all events, the possibility of denominational education should be an essential portion of every national system of education. [Cheers.] I do not pretend, and never have pretended, that this Bill will for all time settle the education question in England. That question, in every country where it has been debated, has for generations proved fruitful in strife between the two opposing parties; and I am aware that, in parts of the country at all events, the financial straits to which the Voluntary Schools have been subjected under our existing system is so great that it may well be even this assistance, generous as it is, may not be sufficient permanently to preserve them as part of our educational machinery. But though I do not advertise my wares as being of a kind to meet every need, or to last for all time, I do appeal to those who for the most part sit on this side of the House, who think as I think on the subject of primary education, whether it is not the best and most practical scheme which in the existing condition of English politics we can present to the House? [Cheers.] Some hon. Members would prefer to see the whole cost of primary education borne by the State. There is much to be said for it; but I should be sorry for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who should attempt to carry it out. [Laughter.] Other Friends of mine, deeply impressed by the unequal lot which falls on the Board and Voluntary Schools in our great towns, would like to see Mr. Forster's first Bill of 1870 revised, by which local authorities could supply out of the rates assistance to denominational schools. A great deal is to be said for it, but I think they will admit that in the present position of public opinion such a scheme, however valuable, however important, is not one which any responsible Government would venture to bring forward. [Cheers.] If these two plans be put aside for one reason or the other, then I respectfully venture to say to them that no better plan can be contrived than that which we have brought before the House to-day; and, as I have appealed, I hope not in vain, to the educationist, to the ratepayer, to the upholder of the existing Board School system, so now I appeal with even greater confidence to all those who think as we think on the great question of religious education to support the Government not merely on the Second Heading of the Bill and in the discussion of its details, but when the happy moment arrives when we shall dace it on the Statute Book. [Cheers.]

MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

, who spoke amid continued cries of "Divide!" and interruption, and whose remarks were for the most part inaudible, said that this question was pre-eminently a poor man's question. Tie had no intention of detaining the House very long—[Ministerial cheers]—but he had a large number of working men in his constituency, and he felt it his duty to make a few remarks on this Bill. ["Oh!"] And, first of all, he wished to say how glad he was to find a latent spark of candour which had obliged the Government to call this, not an Education Bill, but a Voluntary Schools Bill. [Disorder.] In spite of what the Leader of the House had said, he did not presume that there were many people in the House—and he was sure there was not a man in the country—who imagined that this Bill had been introduced in the interests of education. [Disorder.] It might have been introduced to pacify the parsons or for the sake of the Church, but the sooner they got rid of the pretence that it had been introduced in the interests of education the better. [Disorder.] No one would declare that the education which was being given in the Board Schools was unnecessarily elaborate; and, on the other hand, those who had made a careful study of the subject, like the Vice President of the Council, were bound to admit that the education which was being given in the Board Schools was inferior to that being given by continental nations. [Disorder.] To whom was it proposed to hand over the money to be voted under this Bill? Not to the people who were deeply impressed with the necessity of better education, but to those who deprecated education, and who declared over and over again before the Agricultural Commission that Education was ruining the agricultural labourer. Some few years ago this House—[interruption]—granted money to be devoted by the County Councils to technical education. [Cries of "Divide"! and interrption.] The county he represented—["Divide, divide!"]—joined neighbouring counties in providing a dairy institute with the view of enabling landowners and farmers to compote with foreign productions, [Cries of "Question," and interuption.]

*MR. SPEAKER

said he hoped the hon. Member would see that the House was impatient. [Cries of "No, no!" and cheers.] The hon. Member stood waiting until there was quiet restored. He was afraid that to get complete quiet at the present hour and in the present state of the House was quite impossible. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that the hon. Member would not, in the present temper of the House, prolong his remarks unduly. [Cheers.]

MR. LOGAN

, who was again received with cries of "Divide, divide," said he did not propose to detain the House very many minutes longer. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition, cries of "Move the Adjournment!"] He was saying that a few years ago the House granted money for technical education, and that Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire provided a dairy institute for the purpose of aiding the farmers in those counties in their competition with the foreigners. What had been the result? At, the present time there were in that institute only five students from Nottinghamshire, seven from Derbyshire, and none from Leicestershire. That showed the interest which landowners and farmers took in education. ["Oh, oh!"] It was the farmer and the landlord—[ironical laughter and cries of "Divide"]—to whom this money would be handed over for expenditure. [Interruption.] The Vice-President of the Council very well understood this phase of the question. [Cries of "Divide!"] He spoke of the landowner exhibiting their dislike to intellectual progress—[loud interruption]—which was peculiar to the territorial class. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] The aim of the Bill was to strengthen and perpetuate such a condition of things, and that was why he objected to it. [Interruption.] There was only one other point he wished to deal with. [Loud cries of "Divide," and ironical laughter.] He was not in agreement with many of his hon. Friends on that side of the House who objected to the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. [Cries of "Divide!"] To his mind it was an unwise thing to put a limit on expenditure for elementary education. Children had a right to the best possible education a nation could give them, and such a duty ought not to be left to private individuals to discharge. [Cries of Oh, oh! "Divide!" and laughter.] He thought hon. Members on his side of the House, therefore, were not well advised in insisting on the 17s. 6d. limit. [Loud interruption.] After this grant was made, he believed the Voluntary Schools would be back again before long asking for more money—[ironical laughter]—but, possibly, the people would be fully awake to the im-

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Carlile, William Walter	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Carson, Edward	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Allsopp, Hon. George	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan
Ambrose, William (Middlesex)	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Arnold, Alfred	Cayzer, Charles William	Engledow, Charles John
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cecil, Lord Hugh	Fardell, Thomas George
Arrol, Sir William	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Farquhar, Sir Horace
Ascroft, Robert	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mancr)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Charrington, Spencer	Fielden, Thomas
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chelsea, Viscount	Finch, George H.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Baird, John George Alexander	Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Balcarres, Lord	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Fisher, William Hayes
Baldwin, Alfred	Coghill, Douglas Harry	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Flannery, Fortescue
Banbury, Frederick George	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Flower, Ernest
Bass, Hamar	Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)	Flynn, James Christopher
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Folkestone, Viscount
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Forster, Henry William
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants)	Crilly, Daniel	Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.
Beckett, Ernest William	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Bemrose, Henry Howe	Gross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Fry, Lewis
Bethell, Captain	Currie, Sir Donald	Galloway, William Johnson
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)	Garfit, William
Biddulph, Michael	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Gedge, Sydney
Bigham, John Charles	Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)
Bigwood, James	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Bond, Edward	Dane, Richard M.	Gilhooly, James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Darling, Charles John	Gilliat, John Saunders
Boulnois, Edmund	Davenport, W. Bromley-	Godson, Augustus Frederick
Bousfield, William Robert	Denny, Colonel	Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Gordon, John Edward
Brassey, Albert	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dillon, John	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Brown, Alexander H.	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bullard, Sir Harry	Donkin, Richard Sim	Graham, Henry Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Butcher, John George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)
Campbell, James A.	Drage, Geoffrey	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Carew, James Laurence	Drucker, A.	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

portance of the matter by that time, take the question into their own hands, and once for all abolish private control in the work of education. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] It might be that private individuals who gave money for purposes of education might claim a certain degree of control; but he contended that public education provided out of public funds, whether wholly or partially, should be subject to public control, and—[loud cries of "Divide!"] The Bill was bad and unjust in principle, and he therefore opposed it. [Ironical cheers.]

The House divided:—Ayes, 355; Noes, 150.—(Division List—No. 30—appended).

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Carlile, William Walter	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Carson, Edward	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Allsopp, Hon. George	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan
Ambrose, William (Middlesex)	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Arnold, Alfred	Cayzer, Charles William	Engledow, Charles John
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cecil, Lord Hugh	Fardell, Thomas George
Arrol, Sir William	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Farquhar, Sir Horace
Ascroft, Robert	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mancr)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Charrington, Spencer	Fielden, Thomas
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chelsea, Viscount	Finch, George H.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Baird, John George Alexander	Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Balcarres, Lord	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Fisher, William Hayes
Baldwin, Alfred	Coghill, Douglas Harry	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Flannery, Fortescue
Banbury, Frederick George	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Flower, Ernest
Bass, Hamar	Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)	Flynn, James Christopher
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Folkestone, Viscount
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Forster, Henry William
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants)	Crilly, Daniel	Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.
Beckett, Ernest William	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Bemrose, Henry Howe	Gross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Fry, Lewis
Bethell, Captain	Currie, Sir Donald	Galloway, William Johnson
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)	Garfit, William
Biddulph, Michael	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Gedge, Sydney
Bigham, John Charles	Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)
Bigwood, James	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Bond, Edward	Dane, Richard M.	Gilhooly, James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Darling, Charles John	Gilliat, John Saunders
Boulnois, Edmund	Davenport, W. Bromley-	Godson, Augustus Frederick
Bousfield, William Robert	Denny, Colonel	Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Gordon, John Edward
Brassey, Albert	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dillon, John	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Brown, Alexander H.	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bullard, Sir Harry	Donkin, Richard Sim	Graham, Henry Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Butcher, John George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)
Campbell, James A.	Drage, Geoffrey	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Carew, James Laurence	Drucker, A.	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)
Gretton, John	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Russell, Sir George (Berksh.)
Greville, Captain	Macaleese, Daniel	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Gull, Sir Cameron	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Rutherford, John
Gunter, Colonel	Macdona, John Cumming	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Maclean, James Mackenzie	Saunderson, Col. Edw. James
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Maclure, John William	Savory, Sir Joseph
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Hardy, Laurence	McCarthy, Justin	Seely, Charles Hilton
Harrington, Timothy	McDermott, Patrick	Seton-Karr, Henry
Heath, James	McKillop, James	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Heaton, John Henniker	Malcolm, Ian	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Helder, Augustus	Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.	Sidebottom William (Derbysh.)
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter	Marks, Henry Hananel	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Smith, Abel (Herts)
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hobhouse, Henry	Milbank, Powlett Charles John	Spencer, Ernest
Hogan, James Francis	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Hopkinson, Alfred	Milton, Viscount	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Hornby, William Henry	Milward, Colonel Victor	Stephens, Henry Charles
Houlds worth, Sir Wm. Henry	Minch, Matthew	Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTaggart
Houston, R. P.	Monckton, Edward Philip	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Howard, Joseph	Monk, Charles James	Stock, James Henry
Howell, William Tudor	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Strauss, Arthur
Hozier, James Henry Cecil	More, Robert Jasper	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Morrell, George Herbert	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Morrison, Walter	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)	Mount, William George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Isaacson, Frederick Wootton	Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Muntz, Philip A.	Taylor, Francis
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Murdoch, Charles Townshend	Thorburn, Walter
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute)	Thornton, Percy M.
Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Murray, Charles J. Coventry	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Myers, William Henry	Usborne, Thomas
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Valentia, Viscount
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford	Verney, Hon. Richard Greville
Kemp, George	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Warkworth, Lord
Kenny, William	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Kenrick, William	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Kenyon, James	O'Malley, William	Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Kilbride, Denis	O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Kimber, Henry	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Wharton, John Lloyd
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Parkes, Ebenezer	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Knowles, Lees	Parnell, John Howard	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey	Pender, James	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lafone, Alfred	Penn, John	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Pierpoint, Robert	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Willox, John Archibald
Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lecky, William Edward H.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'shire, N.)
Lees, Elliott (Birkenhead)	Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.)	Pryce-Jones, Edward	Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Leighton, Stanley	Purvis, Robert	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)	Pym, C. Guy	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)	Rankin, James	Wylie, Alexander
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Wyndham, George
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Richards, Henry Charles	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)	Richardson, Thomas	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lopes, Henry Yarde Butler	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.	Younger, William
Lorne, Marquess of	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Lowles, John	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Round, James
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

NOES
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Owen, Thomas
Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Gold, Charles	Paulton, James Mellor
Allen, Wm. (Newc, under Lyme)	Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Allison, Robert Andrew	Griffith, Ellis J.	Perks, Robert William
Arch, Joseph	Haldane, Richard Burden	Pickard, Benjamin
Asher, Alexander	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Harrison, Charles	Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Price, Robert John
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Hazell, Walter	Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Bainbridge, Emerson	Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Baker, Sir John	Holborn, J. G.	Randell, David
Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. Blair (Clackm	Holden, Angus	Reckitt, Harold James
Barlow, John Emmott	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rickett, J. Compton
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Jacoby, James Alfred	Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)
Birrell, Augustine	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Joicey, Sir James	Robson, William Snowdon
Brigg, John	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Broadhurst, Henry	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.	Scott, Charles Prostwich
Bryce, Et. Hon. James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burns, John	Kitson, Sir James	Sinclair, Captain John (Forfar)
Burt, Thomas	Labouchere, Henry	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Lambert, George	Souttar, Robinson
Caldwell, James	Langley, Batty	Spicer, Albert
Cameron, Robert	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accr'gton)	Strachey, Edward
Causton, Richard Knight	Leng, Sir John	Tennant, Harold John
Cawley, Frederick	Leuty, Thomas Richmond	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Clough, Walter Owen	Lockwood, Sir Frank (York)	Ure, Alexander
Colville, John	Logan, John William	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy	Lough, Thomas	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Crombie, John William	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Walton, John Lawson
Dalziel, James Henry	McEwan, William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	McKenna, Reginald	Wayman, Thomas
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	McLaren, Charles Benjamin	Wedderburn, Sir William
Dixon, George	McLeod, John	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Doughty, George	Maden, John Henry	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Dunn, Sir William	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Wills, Sir William Henry
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Woodall, William
Fenwick, Charles	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf'ld)
Ferguson, E. C. Munro (Leith)	Morton, Edward John Chalmers	Woods, Samuel
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John
Fowler, Et. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'th)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.
Fowler, Matthew (Durham)	Oldroyd, Mark	Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur

Bill Read a Second time, and committed for Thursday 25th February.