VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL. (Hansard, 1 March 1897)

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
moved, "That clause 1 be postponed." He said he thought they ought to know exactly what would be done with Clause 2, which proposed to repeal the 17s. 6d. limit, before they could properly proceed to consider Clause 1, because any change in Clause 2 would profoundly modify the attitude of the House towards the various points which arose under Clause 1. The Government had departed from the order which had hitherto obtained by providing for the grant first and the machinery of administration next. The framework of the clause was such that it was necessary for the Government to have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

§ MR. REGINALD MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.)
seconded the Amendment. In the Resolution on which the Bill was founded there was no definition of the term "voluntary "; and the consequence was that the House had decided that an undefined amount should be allotted to helping undefined schools. Before Clause 1 was considered the Committee ought to have a definition of "Voluntary School."

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said it was, no doubt, unfortunately the fact that whenever a Bill was brought in, one clause must precede another. [Laughter.] There must, too, be something in the second clause which had a bearing on something in the first, and until it was certain what was to be done with the second clause it was impossible to be sure about the first. That was true whatever were the clauses; and, 1354 with a few verbal alterations, he could adduce the very same arguments as those of the hon. Member for postponing the second clause. The first was the most important and far-reaching clause in the Bill, and it was in accordance with the practice of draftsmen that it should be put first.

§ MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W.R., Rotherham)
said that if the money were granted in the first clause, and the authorities were set up in the second, the Bill would be in harmony with most Acts of Parliament dealing with these questions. Clause 1 was most unusual compared with other education and local government Bills and this was a local government Bill in part, for it set us compulsory local authorities. The authority should be set up first, and the money grant should be provided for afterwards.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
That is not the proposal before the Committee. The proposal is to postpone the first clause to the end of the Bill.

§ MR. ACLAND
said that it was very difficult to raise what was an extremely important point. The grant and the authority were both dealt with in a single clause, which was almost without precedent.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Anyone who introduces a Bill is entitled to draft it as he thinks best. There is no precedent for an Amendment to postpone parts of a clause. That would be a most inconvenient course. Indeed, there is no machinery for working a Bill in that way.

§ Mr. J. HERBERT LEWIS
rose to speak again, when

§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Cries of "Ok!" and laughter.]

*THE CHAIRMAN
withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question. Debate resumed.

§ MR. LEWIS
, continuing, said that the First Lord of the Treasury had only partly answered his arguments, and he should press the Amendment.

§ MR. D. F. GODDARD (Ipswich)
urged that the machinery of this Bill was most important. A number of new bodies were created with delicate and important duties, and everything ought to be clearly defined.

§ MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
moved at the beginning of the clause to insert the words During the continuance of this Act, that is to say, the period of two years after the thirty-first day of March next, after the passing of this Act.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said the Amendment was out of order.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
said he hoped that before the Chairman finally ruled the Amendment out of order, he would allow him to state very respectfully the grounds upon which he submitted it was not out of order at this point; and might he express his great regret that the communication which he sent to the right hon. Gentleman on Saturday, giving the references to the precedents on which he should rely, had, unfortunately not reached him. The Standing Order passed in 1849 provided that the precise duration of every temporary law should be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill, but he respectfully submitted that there was a long line of precedents which showed that the Standing Order had been interpreted in this sense—that it was passed by the House of Commons, as lawyers said, ex abundanti cautela, that was, to secure that in a matter so all-important as the duration of an Act of Parliament there should be no ambiguity or doubt, but that it did not in any respect preclude that House from deciding and limiting a statute at any point which might be convenient. One of the precedents, which he submitted was on all fours with the present case, occurred no longer ago than last Session. He referred to the Agricultural Lands Rating Rill. When this Rill was considered in Committee, with the Chairman in the chair, the President of the Local Government Board proposed to insert, at the commencement of the Bill—precisely where he proposed to insert the present Amendment—these words:—"During the continuance of this Act—that is to say, for a period of five years." With the substitution of two for five his Amendment was based on that precedent. His second precedent was the Statute passed in 1888 for the Better Protection of Sand Grouse. 1356 In that case the duration of the statute was enacted in the principal enacting clause, and there was no distinct clause limiting the duration of the Act. The third precedent was very much like the present Bill, in that it was a grant of public money. The Glebe Lands (Ireland) Act, 1870, the third clause of which said, "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Public Works of Ireland, during the continuance of this Act." His last precedent was in 1865—The Locomotives on Roads Act, the first section of which provided that the Act should not come into operation before the 1st of January 1865, and should cease to have effect on the 1st of September 1867. There was also a technical point which he thought he was entitled to take. In this first line it was provided that a grant "shall be annually paid." The words "annually paid" would imply a payment year by year for ever. There would, he submitted, be a repugnancy in first enacting that this grant should be annually paid, and then at the end of the Bill introducing a limit into its duration. He submitted, therefore, that the words introduced by the draughtsman, "annually paid," distinctly raised the duration of the Bill and let in his Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said he thought it rather an unusual thing to argue the point, but as he unfortunately did not receive, prior to coming into the chair, the communication to which the hon. Member had referred, he thought it right he should state his case. It seemed to him it was perfectly clear. There was a Standing Order which said that the precise, duration of every temporary law should be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill. He could not get over that. The hon. Member proposed to make this a temporary law, and he proposed to state the precise duration of it by his Amendment. That being so, it was perfectly clear, according to the order of the House, which he had no authority to set aside even if he wished to do so, that the clause must come in at the end of the Bill. The hon. Member had referred to precedents. He could not answer for those in which ha was not concerned, but the hon. Member quoted the precedent of last Session. His attention was not called to the wording of the Standing Order when that Amendment was moved, and he could only say 1357 it must have slipped into the Bill, as the lawyers said, per incuriam. [Laughter.] He was not then so familiar with the Standing Orders as he had since become, and probably if the proposal were made again from any quarter of the House, it would not be admitted. He felt obliged to rule the Amendment out of order.

§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
presumed the Chairman would not rule the Amendment out of order if it were proposed in the form of a new clause?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said certainly not. It would probably be in order as a, new clause at the end of the Bill. The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George)—to leave out the words "For aiding," and to insert the words, "in order to establish a fund out of which the Education Department may aid necessitous "—and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. Herbert Roberts)—to leave out the words "For aiding," and to insert the words "To necessitous"—appeared to be precisely the same as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. Lambert). The two hon. Members first mentioned had very ingeniously attempted to raise the question before the proper time, he therefore proposed to call upon the hon. Member for South Molton. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green ought properly to be raised on line 12, subsection 2. The Amendment immediately following to leave out "aiding" and insert "supplementing voluntary subscriptions constituted towards," and the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway ought to come in on line 13.

§ *MR. GEORGE LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)
moved, after the word "Aiding" to insert the word "necessitous." He said it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the grant of public money about to be made to Voluntary Schools should not be restricted to necessitous schools, for the reason, that if they were not necessitous he did not see why they wanted money. He could point to many instances where Voluntary Schools were in an extremely flourishing condition, schools which did not require any grant whatever, in addition to the annual and fee grant, schools that were altogether 1358 outside anything like a condition requiring an extraordinary grant such as the Bill proposed for the benefit and efficiency of education. There was only one reference in the Bill to the case of necessitous schools, the aid grant was to be distributed in manner and amount— as the Department think best, for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency. It was important to notice that it was impossible for the Education Department to distribute or exercise efficient control over the distribution of this grant to the various schools. In the Debate on the Education Bill of last year the Vice President of the Council said it-was impossible for the Central Department to discriminate between schools and schools, that it was impossible for that body to make selection of those schools that really required aid, that could only be done by local authorities. That being so, the Education Department was precluded entirely according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman from the ability to discriminate as to schools being necessitous or not. As he understood the Bill the Education Department would have no power whatever to withhold money from an association provided that the association was constituted in a manner of which the Department approved. Suppose 100 schools in an association, 75 being non-necessitous and not requiring aid, and 25 necessitous. If the association did distribute the money according to the needs of the schools, then the necessitous schools would receive at the rate of £1 a head of scholars, and the 75 non-necessitous schools would get nothing. If that was to be the case, what was the use of inserting in the Bill an annual grant at the rate of 5s. per scholar. It seemed to him, it would be a waste of public money to put into the hands of an association a grant they would have to distribute among schools necessitous or not, and there would be no security for economy. In several districts, and in such a constituency as South Molton, where there were 47 Voluntary Schools, and 31 Board Schools, if the grant went to all Voluntary Schools, non-necessitous as well as necessitous, there would be very great jealousy on the part of the 31 schools getting nothing at all. School Boards might be quite willing that necessitous 1359 schools should secure the 5s. grant, but there would be a strong sense of the injustice of the proceeding if non-necessitous schools were relieved while they received no assistance. He could give many instances of the flourishing condition of Voluntary Schools. Some of them received very few subscriptions, and according to the latest Return there were 1,061 Voluntary Schools with no subscribers. If that was so it proved that these schools were in a flourishing condition, for if they were not their friends would rally round and subscribe for their assistance. Then there were nearly 5,000 schools having subscriptions of less than 5s., and there the same argument applied; if these schools were necessitous then the friends of the Church of England or other schools would increase their subscriptions. In larger schools, having the largest number of scholars, there were the smallest subscriptions, the subscriptions to Voluntary Schools in the Lancashire boroughs averaged only 3s. 2½d. per head. If his Amendment were carried and only necessitous schools were aided, there would be something like half this money saved, and he regarded that as a very important matter indeed. The House had been told by the Secretary for the Colonies the other day, that the Government were pledged, and if only reasonable time were given them they would deal with Board Schools. By this proposal the Government would have money as well as time, for according to the best calculation he could make, a, very considerable sum would be saved for the assistance of other than non-necessitous Voluntary Schools.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said there were one or two statements made by the hon. Gentleman which might, under different circumstances, call for some comment, as indeed they excited considerable surprise in the minds of those who heard them. He laid down the proposition, that where subscriptions were small, schools were more flourishing.

§ MR. LAMBERT
said they ought to be.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that was an educational and financial paradox the hon. Gentleman would find it hard to sustain in argument. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, said the Education Department had not the means of determining 1360 whether Voluntary Schools were necessitous or not, but inasmuch as he proposed by his Amendment to confine the grant to necessitous schools it seemed an odd way to recommend it, to say there was no way by which necessitous schools could be discovered. But he passed by this as being part of the outworks of the hon. Gentleman's position, and came to the citadel or central strength of the proposal. The hon. Gentleman wished to limit the amount of the grant which would be given to Voluntary Schools, and wishing to do that he had set to work in exactly the right way to do it. No doubt there were a certain number of Voluntary Schools which could not be described as necessitous, and if they were excluded from all claim to it the total amount of the grant would be diminished to that extent. Upon this the Government joined issue with the hon. Gentleman, he wished to diminish the amount of money to relieve the necessities of Voluntary Schools, the Government desired to make it even greater if possible. This being the fundamental difference of opinion, he, thinking that the grant of 5s. per head for children in necessitous schools would be sufficient, while the Government did not, there being this broad difference of opinion, it was hardly possible to carry on the argument with profit. If the hon. Member however would consider the amount thought absolutely necessary for education in Board Schools, and the amount Voluntary Schools had the power to spend, he should come to the conclusion to which the Government had already arrived, that this round sum of £600,000 odd was nothing too large for the needs of the schools which would receive the benefit of the grant. The hon. Gentleman said School Boards would feel a, great sense of injustice and ill-usage if Voluntary Schools in districts which needed nothing received grants from the public funds. He was as anxious as the hon. Member that none of this money should go to Voluntary Schools that did not require it, but this was not the part of the Bill where this point should be raised. The Committee were now discussing the total sum to be applied, and he felt bound to oppose an Amendment which proposed to dimish that amount.

§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)
remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had assured them on one point 1361 which arose in connection with this Amendment, and that was as to the purpose of the Bill, which, the right hon. Gentleman said, was to aid those Voluntary Schools which were necessitous. If that were so he could not help thinking that, as a matter of clearness and convenience, and perhaps as a matter of substance, it would be well that this Amendment should be accepted. The Chairman had ruled that they could not re-draft section one so as to enable them to discuss the machinery—the hand which was to be kept over the machinery—of this grant until they came to that part of the clause. That being so, one did not like to start the commencement of the Section with the words as to aiding Voluntary Schools. They had it now from the First Lord that the purpose of the Bill was to aid necessitous Voluntary Schools, and why should not that purpose be expressed in the very initial words? It looked as if the draftsman of the Bill had further and ulterior purposes than that of aiding necessitous schools, and as if the Bill were meant to be a fulfilment of those very wide promises which were given in the course of the discussion in the country to the supporters of Voluntary Schools—not merely "necessitous," but Voluntary Schools generally—that some special consideration would be given to them by the Government which had received great support from them at the time of the General Election. The words "for aiding Voluntary Schools," would seem to have reference rather to this promise than the promise expressed in the Bill. He could not see why the Amendment should not be accepted so as to make the clause run "for aiding necessitous Voluntary Schools." Then at the end of the clause they could introduce the limiting words they wished, and could make provision as they went on, which would render clear what was intended. He was confirmed in that view by the extraordinary language which had been used in the drafting of Sub-Section 2:— The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools. Surely that was extraordinary language in which to instruct the Department to help necessitous schools. It looked as if 1362 the purpose were to enable the Department to grant money to the richer Voluntary Schools on terms that they should send the poorer scholars to necessitous schools. That could not be the purpose of the clause, and he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of making the governing words of the Bill quite clear at the very commencement.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE) (Carnarvon Boroughs
understood there was a perfect agreement that the money was to be appropriated entirely to the relief of Voluntary Schools which were necessitous. If that were so why should not the money be paid in proportion to the necessities of these schools? The Amendment proposed that the money should be paid to the necessitous Voluntary Schools.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
In proportion to their necessities? Is that what it means?

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that might come afterwards. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed, however, was not that the schools should be subsidised in proportion to their necessities, but in proportion to the measure of the prosperity of their neighbours. If there were half-a-dozen schools in a district, five not being necessitous and the sixth being really necessitous, then they would pay that necessitous school, not in proportion to its real need, but in proportion to the amount of prosperity of the other five schools. That was a principle that had been incorporated in no other Act of Parliament, and was one which was absolutely indefensible. He objected to the Government's proposal on another ground, namely, that it treated Voluntary Schools unfairly. Something had been said about necessitous Board Schools. Necessitous Board Schools were to be subsided. Were they to be subsidised in proportion to the number of scholars in School Boards where there was no need for an aid grant? If not, why should there be a distinction drawn between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools in this respect? They should subsidise both in proportion to their needs. The only argument which had been adduced in support, of this proposal was that it placed Board Schools and Voluntary Schools practically on the same basis, and that it enabled Voluntary Schools to compete with Board Schools. But he would point out to the Committee that in several counties in North Wales 1363 the result of this proposal, if carried, would be that, by giving 5s. per child in average attendance at Voluntary Schools, they would be paying more to Voluntary Schools than to Board Schools—while the income of the Voluntary Schools would be greater than that of the Board Schools—by something like 2s. 6d. per child. That was to say, that in these School Board districts the people would be penalised for their great sacrifices on behalf of education. What the Government were going to do by their proposal was to give this 5s. per head indiscriminately, whether the schools were necessitous or not. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Could hon. Gentlemen opposite point to a single provision in the Bill which would enable the Education Department to enforce the provision which was made subsequently, that this money should go to the pocket of necessitous schools alone. There was absolutely no provision of any sort or kind which would insure this. There was a sort of indication of the intention of the Government that the money should go to necessitous schools, but the whole clause was very loosely worded, and, unless at the very outset they confined the benefit of this clause to the necessitous Voluntary Schools alone, there was nothing that would enable the Department to compel these associations afterwards to limit the amount of the grant and subsidy to such schools. For that reason he protested strongly against the clause in its present form.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
was glad to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say that it was intended that this money, so far as it went, was to be applied to the needs of the necessitous schools.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I have said so in every speech I have made.

§ MR. BUXTON
said it was because the Opposition were anxious that that should be the principle of the Bill, that they desired the adoption of this Amendment, so that the exact purpose of the Bill might be clearly defined. It ought to be stated at the very commencement of the Bill that the money which was to be given was to go to the necessitous Voluntary Schools, and the amount to be so given ought to be based on the existing number of necessitous schools. He, for one, 1364 thought there would be great difficulty thrown on the Department and upon these associations in arriving at the fact as to what was or was not a necessitous school. The Government themselves stated that they were able to discover this, and that being so the basis on which this Bill ought to be placed was not that it should go forth to the public that there was to be 5s. for all the children in average attendance at the Voluntary Schools, but that the money was to be devoted simply and solely to the necessitous Voluntary Schools. Unless some such Amendment as this were accepted, and unless they took steps to discover the necessitous schools, and then gave them a grant in aid of the children in average attendance, they would have great inequalities as between school and school, and district and district.

§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
submitted that, if the word "necessitous" did not precede the words "Voluntary Schools," there would be no limit to the aid intended to be given. The First Lord of the Treasury, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, explained that it was not meant that 5s. per head should be given to every child, but the 5s. was mentioned to ascertain the gross total to be divided according to certain rules. On that side of the House they objected to the mode of distribution. They did not believe it would secure what the clause intended—that necessitous schools should be helped and non-necessitous should not. They desired that the object of Parliament in voting the money should be clearly stated—that it was to aid necessitous Voluntary Schools only. The Government had said all along that their only object was to help the necessitous schools and not wealthy schools. If they were sincere they would accept this Amendment, which sought to secure the real intent of the Bill by limiting the aid grant to schools that really needed assistance.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said there was no difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as to the schools to which the money should go. The difference was as to drafting. The Government thought the amount of money to be given should first be determined, and that the machinery for distribution should be dealt with subsequently.

§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
insisted that the grant should be restricted to "necessitous Voluntary Schools," and that this should be made clear. Voluntary Schools generally were only regarded as a basis of calculation as to how much the aid grant would come to in the aggregate. The insertion of the word "necessitous" before "Voluntary Schools" would make the meaning of the Bill more clear to the country.

§ MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
also agreed that the grant should be clearly restricted to necessitous schools, otherwise the Education Department would have pressure brought upon it by the supporters of schools that were not necessitous that these schools should participate in the grant. He did not support the insertion of the word "necessitous" to restrict the gross amount of the grant. Really necessitous schools should have more than 5s. per child. He would prefer that the 5s. which wealthy schools might claim should go to necessitous schools, so that these might have 10s. per child and the wealthy schools nothing. If the word "necessitous" did not precede "Voluntary Schools," there would be no guarantee that the schools which most needed aid would receive it.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)
supported the Amendment, saying that if the object of the Bill was to assist necessitous Voluntary Schools the words referred to, as they stood, misstated that object. If the object of the Bill was to help necessitous schools only, why should the Government object to that being made clear? The object of the Bill of last year was "to assist public elementary schools requiring special aid." If the Government would not agree to the words of the Amendment, perhaps they would agree to the insertion of similar words to these. If not, those words were used as a blind, and they were so misleading as to be dishonest and almost fraudulent. The Government had £610,000 which they wished to give to the Voluntary Schools. Why did they not state their purpose plainly? What was the reason of their including in their calculations the number of scholars in schools that were not necessitous? The fact was, that the Government were afraid to tell the country frankly that they were giving, 1366 not 5s. per child, but, in many cases 10s., and even 15s.

§ MR. G. G T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
thought that the insertion of the word "necessitous" would frustrate the object of the Bill, for there were many schools which were not absolutely necessitous, but nearly so, and to which the grant ought to be given, in order that they might be made more efficient. The Amendment would exclude such schools from the benefit of the grant.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD (York)
said that the observations of the hon. Member for Islington had thrown a flood of light upon the intentions of the supporters of the Bill. The hon. Member said frankly, "Do not put in the word necessitous, because, if you do, it will be acted upon, and necessitous schools only will receive this relief," which, however, was the thing which the Government said that they wished.

§ MR. BARTLEY
I said nothing of the kind.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD
I understood the hon. Member to plead on behalf of schools that were not necessitous.

§ MR. BARTLEY
I said that they wanted money in order that they might be made efficient.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD
Quite so. The hon. Member said, "Do not put in the word 'necessitous,' because there are many schools which are not necessitous, but nearly so." But the Leader of the House had said that the object of the Bill was to relieve schools that were necessitous, and the hon. Member had based his opposition to the Amendment upon the ground that it would prevent schools which, in fact, were not necessitous from receiving relief. The hon. Member's contribution to the Debate showed more than anything else that had been said how necessary this Amendment was.

§ MR. MCKENNA
pointed out that the third sub-section of the Clause said that associations of schools were to receive a share of the aid grants, "according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association, at the rate of 5s. per scholar." But among those schools there might be no school which was necessitous, and yet if the Amendment were rejected the Education Department would not be able to refuse the grant to the association. The Amendment was actually necessary, in 1367 order to protect the Education Department in carrying out what the Government affirmed to he the object of the Measure.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
moved to leave out the word "voluntary," in order to insert the words "sectarian and British." He said his object in asking the Committee to adopt this Amendment was for the sake of accurate statement. "Voluntary" was not an accurate description, one authority on that point being the right hon. Member for Bodmin, who preferred to call them "denominational" schools. He quoted from a Return of the county of Glamorgan, showing that at Aberavon the amount per head contributed was 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5½d.; in other schools the amount was 2s. 10¼d., 11d., 2s. 4d., 1s. 11¼d., and at St. David's, Cardiff, the voluntary contribution was a halfpenny per child. In another school it was 8½d., 4½d., and in the Swansea higher grade schools the voluntary contributions amounted to 2d. per head. The Government had therefore no right to call these schools "voluntary."

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, which was purely verbal. The Amendment might have been substantial if it had been moved in its original form, but as altered it was wholly indefensible. The suggested alteration in phraseology would not be an improvement upon that contained in the Bill. The meaning of the word "voluntary" was perfectly well understood, and its scope was well defined in the Bill. [Cheers.]

§ *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)
asked the right hon. Gentleman to omit the word "voluntary" and insert "other than Board Schools." There was great objection to the use of the word "voluntary," owing to the very large number of schools which received no subscription, whatever. As a, matter of fact, there were 1,061 Voluntary Schools which had no subscriptions, 674 had less than 1s. a child, 1,095 had less than 2s. 6d. per child and more than 1s. 1368 per child, and 1,967 had between 2s. 6d. and 5s. per child. These figures indicated that 4,797 out of the 14,155 schools had less than 5s., and it was absurd to speak of these schools as Voluntary, when practically the whole cost of many of them was borne by the State.

§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
thought that the use of the word "voluntary" was a most objectionable one for the purposes of the Government. It was difficult to tell exactly what was the meaning of the word, though everyone vaguely thought that he knew what the word meant. In an Act of Parliament, however, they ought to aim at accuracy of definition. Was there any precedent in educational legislation for the use of the word "voluntary." He did not think there was, and in his judgment the Government were dragging in a new word. Why not make use of the word "denominational"? It was much better than "voluntary." He confessed that he did not altogether like the suggested word "sectarian."

§ MR. ACLAND
thought the word "voluntary" was not a proper definition of the class of schools, and did not agree that the objection raised to its use in the clause was a frivolous one. He quoted a statement made by the Duke of Devonshire 20 years ago, the effect of which was to show that thenceforward the word "voluntary" had no proper meaning. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any particular objection to inserting the words "not provided by a School Board" after the word "school," instead of retaining the word "voluntary." He thought that would really meet the case.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, he would say a few words. What the draughtsman of the Bill had done was to use in the Bill itself the phrase which was most familiar and most easily understood by all who had to deal with these matters. ["Hear, hear!"] He had in the definition clause given a perfectly clear and precise definition of what that phrase meant. A more usual or more convenient course he could hardly imagine, and the whole purpose of the definition clause would be destroyed if they were to take out of that clause a long periphrasis, and shovel it bodily 1369 into the Bill. It was fax more convenient to leave the Bill as it was; it would read far more smoothly, and there could be no possible doubt as to what the Bill meant.

§ MR. REES DAVIES (Pembrokeshire)
said he strongly objected to the term "voluntary." They did not think that the term was correct as applied to these schools. He was at a loss to understand why the Government would not adopt the words "public elementary schools not provided by a School Board." He thought the attitude of the Government would not tend to accelerate progress.

§ MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)
said there were quite a thousand of these schools which received no voluntary subscriptions at all, but nine people out of ten believed that the word "voluntary" was intended to apply to Voluntary Schools and nothing else. He did not care whether it was denominational or sectarian, but what possible objection could there be to the words "other than Board Schools?" Unless it was with the intention of misleading people in the country, there could be no reason for retaining the word "voluntary."

§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
said that if the Amendment were adopted some 252,000 children would be deprived of the benefits of these grants. There were schools still classed as Voluntary Schools which were distinctly set out in Departmental returns as British, undenominational and other schools.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said the Amendment suggested the words "sectarian and British."

§ MR. GRAY
thought the Amendment was perhaps useful as an indication of the spirit in which the Bill was being opposed. [Cheers and cries of " Oh!"] A very large proportion of these thousand schools which had been referred to were heavily endowed. He had one in mind—a small school of about 54 children in Wiltshire, which was endowed to the extent of 92s. odd per child. He quite agreed that such schools should be without voluntary subscriptions; yet, on the other hand, the endowment should be put against the subscription. The arguments brought forward in favour of the Amendment were of a frivolous character.

§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)
said the phrase "Voluntary Schools" was a popular one which no 1370 doubt two generations ago represented an actual fact, but that was the case no longer. These schools were in no true sense of the word "voluntary." A great number of them only existed because of the threat of a School Board. The parents would all be glad to have some control over the schools, but when it was proposed the clerical party threatened them with all sorts of pains and penalties, with 1s. in the pound rates, and so forth. To call such schools voluntary was an absurd misnomer. It was notorious that many railway companies and limited companies subscribed to so-called Voluntary Schools with the object of lessening the rates upon their shareholders, but to suggest that they were influenced in such action by any desire to assist sectarian teaching would be to impute to them the grossest malversation of their funds. He would point out, moreover, that a school which used its endowments to save the rates or the voluntary subscribers was committing a breach of trust, these endowments having been intended for the improvement of education. They were asked for the first time to give a new meaning to the word "voluntary."

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD
asked the Chairman whether the first Amendment that would be put to the Committee would be to leave out the word "voluntary."

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Yes.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD
said in that case he should certainly vote for the Amendment, although he did not think he could adopt the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.

§ MR. MCKENNA
said he was in the same position as his hon. and learned Friend. No satisfactory reason had been given why words of definition should not be here inserted, and if they were he thought it would actually save time.

§ SIR BENJAMIN BAKER (Portsmouth)
pointed out that though the word "voluntary" was used in the House to apply to Church Schools, it was not so used outside. He thought its application to Church Schools was inaccurate.

§ *MR. R. W. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)
thought the Government should give some explanation why they had adopted "voluntary" instead of the more accurate and legal word "denominational?"

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
British schools are not denominational.

§ *MR. PERKS
said that in 8,000 parishes there was no choice for parents but these denominational schools, and it was desirable that they should be designated what they were—sectarian establishments.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that no reason had been advanced why those schools should not be called by their proper name. The hon. Member for North West Ham, who had described the Amendment as frivolous, had not used a single argument against the word "voluntary." There was no excuse for the use of such a word in the Bill. He would suggest that instead of "voluntary" the words "elementary schools other than Board Schools" should be used; and he certainly intended to ask the sense of the Committee as to whether "voluntary" should stand part of the clause.

§ *MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)
said it had been admitted by several speakers on the Government side of the House during the previous Debates that the word "voluntary" was not suitable as a description of the schools to which the Bill applied. He thought the words "public elementary schools," which he had placed on the Paper in the next Amendment, if coupled with "other than schools provided by School Boards," would be a more accurate designation of the schools.

§ MR. GODDARD
said that an examination of the income of those so-called Voluntary Schools would show how misleading the word "voluntary" was in such a connection. The total rate of income per scholar in the Church of England schools was £1 18s. 10¾d.; but the only part of that sum derived from voluntary subscriptions was 6s. 9fd. How could such schools be called Voluntary Schools? Again, in the case of the Wesleyan schools, the total rate of income was £1 17s. 7d. per scholar, while the voluntary subscriptions were merely 3s. In the Roman Catholic schools the total rate of income was £1 16s. 10½d. per scholar, and the voluntary contributions 8s. In the British schools the total rate of income was £2 1s. per scholar, and the voluntary contributions 6s. 6d. To call these schools "voluntary" was therefore a misnomer, and yet the Government proposed to perpetuate the term 1372 in a Statute that would make the schools less and less Voluntary Schools.

§ *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,) Mansfield
said he could understand why the Government were sticklers for the term "voluntary" rather than "denominational" or "sectarian." The use of one or other of the latter terms would be calling things by their right names, and that would not commend itself to the promoters of the Bill. He would suggest that the object of the supporters of the Amendment could be better accomplished by a change in the definition clause, and he had given notice of the following Amendment to that clause:— Clause 4, page 2, line 39, after "Board" insert "and which are maintained by voluntary subscriptions to the extent provided for by this Act. If that principle were adopted the schools would really be Voluntary Schools, and would be properly so-called in the Bill.

§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
proposed, after the word "schools" to insert the words "in existence at the passing of this Act." He explained that the purpose of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Bill to such Voluntary Schools as were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. In the case of new Voluntary Schools the 5s. grant would be an unfair premium given to them, whereas he urged that Voluntary Schools and the Board Schools ought, as far as possible, to be given equal chances. ["Hear, hear!"] Already he had heard, since the Bill was introduced, that there were districts in the country which delayed having a School Board, because otherwise they would lose the 5s. grant under the Bill. That was tantamount to putting a premium on the Voluntary Schools. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said he could not accept the Amendment. Voluntary Schools could not be established unless the money was provided for building and maintaining them—["hear, hear "]—and even after this 5s. grant was made, those who were interested in the development of the 1373 voluntary system would find it a matter of great difficulty to keep that system in pace with the growth of the population in new districts in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as equality of the two systems was concerned, the Voluntary system was at present enormously handicapped, and it would be only slightly relieved by the present Bill. In the circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

§ MR. ACLAND
said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when a new Voluntary School was set up in a district it would receive 5s. per head per child in average attendance as proposed by this clause.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
The new Voluntary Schools will be just like the old ones. [Cheers.]

§ MR. ACLAND
said that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was remarkable. If the new schools were to be like the old, it meant that when the choice lay between building a Board School or a Voluntary School, the latter would be recommended by the hope of getting the 5s. grant.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
Of course it will not be in the power of those who wish to start a new Voluntary School to foresee what the Education Department will do in regard to the grant.

§ MR. ACLAND
pointed out that though the extra grant earned by the new Voluntary School might not be paid to that school, it would be paid to some other in the same association. Up till now, Board and Voluntary Schools had been on an equality. [Cries of " No!"] When there had been a desire to start a Voluntary School, the School Board of the district had always been only too willing. But if this money was to be used as a building grant—[Cries of " No!"] Well, since building grants had ceased a Voluntary School had always meant a school built by volunteers. Was that to be the case in the future? Why should the new schools be brought in at all?

§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN
said that there was nothing to prevent the grant from being applied as a building grant. But it was not necessary to raise a building fund for the establishment of a Voluntary School. A school, however, might be rented. There was a case in 1374 his own constituency where a building had been employed as a school to provide accommodation in an outlying district. The building had been condemned by the Department, but it could be acquired and put in order for a small sum. The parishioners would like a School Board, but that would be extremely obnoxious to the clergyman and other Churchmen, although the parents of every single child attending the school were Nonconformists. The inequality had all along been in favour of Church schools, and this provision really put a premium on the establishment of Voluntary Schools.

§ MR. J. A. PEASE
pointed out that in a growing district, if this Amendment were not accepted, there would be an inducement to the ratepayers to place all new schools under Voluntary management. This would exclude popular control and discourage the parents from taking an interest in education.

§ MR. REES DAVIES
said that the argument generally employed by those asking for subscriptions to Voluntary Schools was, "Do something to keep them up and save us from the rates." The whole object was to avoid the School Board, and, if the Bill passed in its present form, not only would the existing Voluntary Schools receive a great stimulus, but a great incentive would be given to the establishment of other Voluntary Schools.

§ MR. BUXTON
urged that the Committee was entitled to some answer from the First Lord of the Treasury. Under one of these associations new schools accommodating, say, 1,000 children might be built. That would mean that the association would earn an extra grant of £250 a year. The necessitous schools were already amply provided for under the Bill. What would be done with the additional £250 a year?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his interruption. The Government had always held that the grant ought to be made variable and elastic, in proportion to the number of schools to be dealt with. It was conceivable that the number of Voluntary Schools might diminish, and that the necessities of those remaining would at the same time increase. In that case this grant would be insufficient. It was also conceivable that the number of schools 1375 would increase, and that the new schools would be so rich that the increase in the amount given by the Exchequer would be more or less wasted. But, broadly speaking, there was not a better plan for varying the lump sum to be given each year than by making it proportionate to the number of schools. [Cheers.] No one could foresee whether the new schools to be erected would be necessitous or not. But the fears expressed lest the ratepayers should, in order to get an additional £250 a year, build schools at a cost to themselves of £15,000 were rather idle. [Cheers.] Some of the new schools would, no doubt, be in rich districts, and would not want the 5s. grant. Others might be necessitous, and so be a drain on the resources of their neighbours. It was impossible to obtain perfect equality and smoothness of working; but no better or simpler plan than that in the Bill could be found. He was glad to hear from the late Vice President of the Council the admission that Voluntary Schools had been built by volunteers.

§ MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)
said that the Amendment must be considered in its effect on the future supply of school accommodation. The Opposition had never objected to aid being given to existing necessitous schools. [Cries of " Oh!"] In every School Board district where accommodation was lacking it had to be supplied by the School Board. His right hon. Friend might shake his head, but that had been the custom up to now. If a 5s. additional grant was to be given to all Voluntary Schools that might hereafter be called into existence it was practically a bribe—

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
It is not necessarily to be given.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said that if the schools were necessitous they were to receive the 5s. per head; therefore this was a bribe to call into existence necessitous Voluntary Schools. [Cheers.] The argument of the clergyman would always be, "Do not take a Board School, but rent our Sunday school, for then you will get the grant of 18s. or 19s. per head, the 10s. fee grant, and, in addition, this 5s. bonus." That meant the keeping down of the quality of education. [Cheers.] The object of all this was to stop the growth of the Board Schools, and to prevent the extension of that education which Board Schools gave. In 1376 short, there was to be a bonus for the provision of schools that would just fulfil the demands of the Department, but nevertheless be inferior schools.

§ *MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
said the assumption was that the Bill was to meet the necessities of the Voluntary Schools. It was obvious that the additional money for scholars in new schools would not be wanted unless necessitous Voluntary Schools would be brought into existence purposely. The assumption of the Government was, that the new Voluntary Schools would not be necessitous—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY "That is not my assumption "]—and therefore the money would be paid over to give assistance which, under the Bill, was not required. More money would go into a district containing new schools, and the inducement would be great to create Voluntary Schools in order that a larger amount might go to the Association.

§ MR. YOXALL
said there was a great number of certified efficient schools that were not recognised by the Department for grants for several reasons. The first was, that the ground was already covered by existing schools; the second was, that the school premises were unsatisfactory; and the third was, that the education was not altogether satisfactory. Under the Bill, unless this Amendment were adopted, the Department would be inundated with applications for the recognition of these schools, and he did not see very well how recognition could be refused. There would be a stoppage of the growth of satisfactory education under School Boards in favour of cheap, nasty, and marine-store education—["Oh, oh!" and cheers]—in schools that, up to the present, had not been recognised as fit for children to enter.

§ *MR. PERKS
said the Bill put a premium upon the transfer of Board Schools to the National Society, or some other sectarian management. The other day the Bishop of Winchester took part in the ceremony of transferring a Board School to Anglican control, and said that was the first of a series of such transactions which would probably take place under this Bill. In Lincolnshire there were 130 or 140 villages in which there were fairly efficient schools under the control of School Boards. The schools did not, perhaps, give as good education 1377 as Board Schools in towns, but they were certainly superior to the National schools in those villages. Why should a premium be placed upon the transfer of those schools to their former conditions? They had thrown over the fetters of ecclesiastical management, and at present were efficiently conducted by farmers, shopkeepers, and labourers. Why should the Government, through the provisions of this Bill, place an inducement before the ratepayers to hand the school back to the bad management and sectarian control of the Church of England? The First Lord of the Treasury told them some minutes ago that one object of the Bill was to prevent the transfer of Voluntary Schools to School Board management. He thought the clergy would manage them better than the parents and ratepayers. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "I never said anything of the kind."] He certainly gathered from the interposition of the right hon. Gentleman that that was one of the objects of the Bill. Let him cite the case of a village he knew very well. There were 240 children in the Anglican school, the only school in the place, and, of the 240, at least 215 were the children of Nonconformists. Suppose the Methodists who were the parents of those children were to say: "We are tired of this sectarian control; we want to run our own school, and, under this Bill, we propose to do it. We got a 10s. grant a few years ago, and we are to get 5s. per head under this Bill." "No," said the right hon. Gentleman, "you are not to be certain of that 5s. It will only be given where, through the agency of these federations, we are persuaded that the schools are effectively managed." Lid they think that, under the aegis of the present Education Department, the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, or any body of Dissenters would be permitted to start their anti-sectarian or anti-Anglican school? ["Why not?"] And be sure of the 5s. grant? [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] Did the right hon. Gentleman say they might be sure of the 5s. grant? [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "If they are necessitous."] Who was to say they were necessitous? It was because the Amendment would, to some extent, prevent invidious and illiberal treatment of Nonconformist schools that it was worthy of support.

§ SIR F. LOCKWOOD
said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in reply to the Member for Sheffield, that it did not follow that the money raised on this principle of 5s. per head per child should be given to all schools.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
Not necessarily to new schools.

§ SIR F. LOCKWOOD
thought that it would necessarily be given to new schools. The money voted might not be needed for the existing schools, and then, it would be spent on scholars attending the new schools. He understood that the amount of the grant was not to be distributed with reference to schools being necessitous or non-necessitous, but only with regard to the number in the association area, and that by the erection of new schools the amount to be distributed could be indefinitely increased. He should like to hear the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) on this point, because he had told them that the money would be paid on the basis of the number of children included in the association area.; it was not to be in regard to the number of necessitous schools or non-necessitous schools in that area. They were to take the number of children with the association area and have no regard to whether they were necessitous or not. So far from this being a, Bill which was intended to relieve Voluntary Schools it was a Bill intended to create Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he desired to ask the Chairman a question on a point of order—whether if would be competent to move an Amendment providing that any portion of this money should be used for the purpose of schools which are not now in existence? Looking at the words of the Resolution and the words of the Bill now in Committee, he submitted that it was perfectly clear that both the Resolution and the Bill were intended to refer solely to existing schools. How could they "increase the efficiency" of schools if they did not exist? ["Oh, oh!"] How could they have regard to "the maintenance of schools "if they were never established? [An HON MEMBER: "Annually!"] He asked whether it would be in order to move such an Amendment? He submitted that the Bill was confined to existing schools.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not like to give an opinion on an abstract question. It is for the Committee to judge whether the Bill deals only with existing schools or with schools that may be opened in the future. That is not a, question of order. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said no one dreamt when this Bill was introduced that the money was to be applied to schools that were not in existence, and he believed that Members would be perfectly astounded to hear the statements which had been made. [Cries of "No, no!"] Could anyone point to a, single statement in the Measure which indicated in the slightest degree that the money would be used for the maintenance of schools not in existence at the present moment? He challenged the Member for West Ham, who had interrupted him, to point out a single statement in one of his speeches to this effect. They were told that the policy was to relieve the intolerable strain," but schools which did not exist could not suffer from "intolerable strain." The fact of the matter was, that the Government and those who supported them were absolutely insatiable. They had got their large majority—["hear, hear!"]—but that did not make what was wrong right. This policy was not before the country when they got their majority. Did anyone say that they were going to erect new schools for the Church of England out of public money? Lord Salisbury, who always spoke plainly, and he wished his example was followed in that House, said their duty was to capture Board Schools, but now they were going to destroy Board Schools. Say that a Board School existed in a village, a wealthy landowner would say, "I shall build a Voluntary School, because I know it will be paid for, and I want you to get rid of the Board School." Take the case of London, where the great majority of the children were educated in Board Schools. They made it possible to establish any number of schools, not primarily for education, but for educating children in the established Church. He wanted to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a very plain question. What was there to prevent an association saying "We are rich; we shall allocate the money for building grants?" [An Hon. MEMBER: "They can't!"] Well, they 1380 had a right to know. Supposing £2,000 was given to an association, £1,000 of that might be allocated to the building of new schools. He asked, could that be done?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
The grant can only be given to schools in existence at the time the grant was allocated. It cannot be given to future schools in that sense.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
asked if there was any power to prevent the £1,000 going as a building grant?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
Of course there is.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
accepted that entirely. Perhaps words would be introduced to make it clear.

§ *SIR HENRY FOWLER
said he did not see the President of the Local Government Board present; for, if he was, he thought he would regret his Bill of last year was not conducted as this Bill was being conducted so far as money was concerned. Last year the grant to rates was confined to existing schools. This year the grant was not to be confined to existing schools, but new schools were to share in it. A couple of days ago the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the grants to Board Schools would be made with two limitations—namely, the limit of time and the limit of money. But this Bill, in dealing with the Voluntary Schools, contained no limit of either time or money. Passing from that point, he would say that the Debate had shown the justice of the complaint that had been made as to the order in which the clauses of the Bill had been placed. They were now granting this money, and when they proposed certain limits for the division of the grant the right hon. Gentleman met every suggestion by saying that under the machinery to be set up by the Bill such and such things could not be done. But there was not a word in the Bill to show what that machinery was to be. It was quite evident that it was the intention of the Government to place the money in the hands of the diocesan associations. That meant in the case of the Church of England, the Bishops; in that of the Church of Rome, the Cardinal Archbishop; and in that of the Wesleyans, the Wesleyan Conference. He objected to any one of those individuals or bodies 1381 having the control of this public money without being subject to limitations as to the manner in which it should be applied. He complained that the Government had throughout this Debate shown a disposition—he would not say to enter into a conspiracy of silence—but to refrain from replying to the arguments that were put forward by the Opposition.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that he had already spoken.

§ *SIR H. FOWLER
said that the right hon. Gentleman was the authority upon the matter—with him it was "sic volo sic jubeo"; but in a matter affecting every parish and every district throughout the kingdom the House of Commons had a right to expect that it would be fairly argued on both sides. ["Hear, hear!"] If the arguments of the Opposition were wrong, by all means let them be answered, and not met by the Government saying, "We have a big majority, and we do not care a brass farthing about what you say. We shall go into the Lobby and register our mandate, and it is by the result of the divisions that we are prepared to stand or fall." That might perhaps be regarded as a wise and a strong policy, but it would recoil upon its authors and in course of time upon the House of Commons itself. He was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself fully realised the operation this Bill would have upon the future Voluntary Schools. Was the Bill to be turned into a scheme for extending the Voluntary Schools at the public expense and not the Board Schools?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that the promoters of Voluntary Schools went about the country erecting them wherever they liked. A more absurd hypothesis he had never heard put forward. Under the Bill a school not yet completed, or, if built, not actually filled with children, could not get a single shilling of the grant. Moreover, under the existing law, a Voluntary School could not be built or recognised in any district where there was not a deficiency of school accommodation. The idea that Voluntary Schools could spring up in districts where Board Schools existed was preposterous, and was founded on ignorance. The suggestion that the managers of Board Schools were going to spend a large capital sum in 1382 building in order to obtain the grant was entirely illusory.

§ *SIR H. FOWLER
said that the new Voluntary Schools might be created by the utilisation of the existing Sunday schools, and then there need be no building grant whatever.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that when he saw the Government Board Schools Bill, which he hoped would be soon, he would find that the two Bills were absolutely alike, and that, as this Bill dealt with the Voluntary Schools, the other Bill would deal with the poor Board Schools.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
With all Board Schools?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that it would deal with poor Board Schools to be called into existence in the future, as well as with Board Schools which were now in existence. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. MCKENNA
said that he considered that the Bill would offer a bribe of £25 per hundred children for the creation of Voluntary Schools as opposed to Board Schools.

§ *MR. J. A. PEASE
said that the First Lord had not referred in his reply to the effect which would be produced in those districts where a transfer could be easily arranged from a Board School management to private management. The matter was one of great importance, and unless the Amendment were accepted, they would promote educational retrogression, for in many places in the north of England the colliery owners had handed over their schools to the School Board in order to promote the interests of education. He thought that the Bill would induce the colliery owners to allow their schools to be handed over to private management in order to obtain the larger grant.

§ *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
said that this Debate had thrown a new and a strong light on the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. This Measure had been avowedly brought in for the maintenance of the Voluntary Schools, but now it had been shown to be a. Bill for their extension. The new Voluntary Schools would very soon become necessitous, and would be making an appeal for their share of the grant, and so the 1383 anomalies of the system would be indefinitely extended.

§ *MR. CHANNING
said that this was a matter of the gravest importance to the education of the country, and ought to be discussed on its merits. [At this point the VICE PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL rose from his seat.] He would ask the Vice President of the Council not to leave the House. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a public scandal that when a question of the gravest importance as to the details of the administration of the Education Department was raised—a question in which the First Lord of the Treasury, as he would himself admit, was not versed—the Committee did not receive any advice or aid from the Minister for Education—[cheers]—especially after the grave statements made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, whose weight and authority on questions of details of educational administration could not be questioned. His right hon. Friend was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, whose position in connection with the Teachers' Union also gave him great authority in the matter. It was stated that Sunday Schools and other unsuitable buildings would be placed on the grant list. These were administrative questions of first-class importance, and the Committee had the right to demand to have some light thrown upon them by the Minister for Education. The second Sub-section of the Bill said:—"The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency." He would ask whether those words did not give a basis and foothold to the Education Department to deal with some of the cases to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham had referred? ["Hear, hear!"] Suppose the managers of a. Voluntary School wished to add a class-room, the words of the Bill did not afford any check against such an application of the money; and moreover, according to the wording of the Bill, even the question of auditing was left permissive. The Committee ought to have some further assurance from the Minister who had to interpret the Statute for the 1384 work of his Department as to whether the words in the Bill would not permit an association to enlarge existing Voluntary Schools or create new accommodation. ["Hear, hear!"] This Amendment had brought a really vital issue before the House. It was simply a scandal that the money of the country should be voted, not for the relief of necessitous schools or for the provision of education where it was not provided now, but to enable the denominational system to be extended throughout the land. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated in reply to his hon. Friend that where there was sufficient accommodation in a parish a Voluntary School would not be started. He knew that schools had been started even where there was sufficient accommodation. Such schools had been maintained privately for a year or two, and had received grants, and in those circumstances the statement of the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be accepted without qualification, and that qualification had a most important, bearing on the Amendment before the Committee, because, as a matter of fact, what would follow if the Amendment was rejected? Diocesan associations all over the country would clearly have great power placed in their hands. It was possible they would not be able to give a building grant for starting a Voluntary School, but there were other ways in which they would be able to aid these schools if started afresh. ["Hear, hear!"] Unfortunately in the future these associations would have very considerable discretion with regard to the disposal of the money, and would be able to favour certain schools to the exclusion of others. It would be the policy of these associations to start new Voluntary Schools as far as the law and the Education Department would allow them to do so. ["Hear, hear!"] This was a question of considerable importance to Wales, because there the proportion of Nonconformists to the general population was very large, and if these associations were given the power to carry out the policy which this Bill evidently aimed at, it would largely increase the number of Voluntary Schools. He did not know whether the hon. Member for West Ham had anything to say on this question, but he should think it 1385 would operate very prejudicially to the teachers, and on their account as well as on the ground of the insufficiency of the instruction given in Voluntary Schools, he hoped the Amendment would be carried. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
moved after the word "schools," to insert the words "situate in School Board districts." He said the last Amendment he moved had reference to a, time limit; the present Amendment was a space limit, confining the grant to Voluntary Schools situated in School Board areas. He supported the Amendment by two reasons. The first was that in these School Board areas there was, no doubt, some kind of competition between the Board School in receipt of rates on the one hand, and the Voluntary School which depended to some extent on subscriptions on the other. In so far as that competition told upon the education given in the Voluntary School, and in so far as it might be necessary to supplement the subscriptions which the Voluntary School got, he quite admitted there was something to be said for allowing that school something from Government grant. But where there was no competition, where the Voluntary School was in possession of the field, those were a set of circumstances which did not justify the Government in going out of its way to assist the Voluntary School. He might also add that in those cases where the Voluntary School had no competition to fear and no particular standard up to which to live, the Voluntary subscriber ought to subscribe something for being allowed to monopolise the education of the district in winch he lived. The second reason for the Amendment was this. He understood the Bill was introduced to relieve a certain alleged intolerable strain which fell upon somebody or other. The somebody or other, so far as he could find out, was supposed to be the man who lived in a School 1386 Board district and paid rates to the School Board, and also paid a voluntary subscription to the Voluntary School. He proposed to limit the grant to those cases where there was this intolerable strain. That was the object of his Amendment. At the Church House Conference, which he took to be a reflection of the diocesan conscience on education, a great point was made of the fact that in the districts to which he had alluded there was this intolerable strain he had tried to define, and he, adopting this opinion, expressed on the authority of high ecclesiastical dignitaries, proposed to relieve that strain, but where there was no such strain the relief would not apply. He, therefore, hoped that the Attorney General, who, for the time was in charge of the Bill, would look with a conciliatory spirit on the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
said with every wish to conciliate the hon. Member, it was impossible for him to, accept the Amendment. In the first place, to do so would reduce the amount of the grant by one-half. Speaking roughly, he believed that half the Voluntary Schools were in School Board districts and half were in distrcts where there were no Board Schools, and that fact he hoped hon. Members would remember in reference to certain other Amendments not altogether consistent with the present one. In the first place then the Amendment would reduce the grant by one-half. Then the hon. Member had put a construction on the expression "intolerable strain" which he would not for a moment say did not apply in certain places and under certain circumstances, but it was not the ordinary meaning attached to it. The "intolerable strain" was this that having regard to the demands to keep up educational efficiency, and having regard to the growing, he was glad to say the ever growing re-quest for better education, it was impossible for Voluntary Schools to keep pace with the proper demands of the Education Department. That was the intolerable strain under which Voluntary Schools suffered, and, although undoubtedly it was a hardship to many ratepayers to support their own schools as well as Board Schools, that was not the "intolerable strain" understood as necessitating the grant. But he did not deny that 1387 the hon. Member was entitled to; take that view. In many rural districts Voluntary Schools had maintained the whole burden of education, and maintained it notwithstanding depressed times, from the wish to have education coupled with religion, and this connection he hoped would never disappear, whatever might be the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those who wished to have education coupled with religion had made an effort to keep education going without the necessity for establishing School Boards. In such districts the strain had been severely felt, where from the very proper demands for improved buildings', better equipment of schools, and better teaching, it had been very difficult for school managers to meet requirements, having regard to the fact that there were no rates to fall back upon. He hoped the hon. Member would not think he was treating his proposal with disrespect if he said, on the ground that it would reduce the grant by one half and prevent assistance being given where it was most needed, it was impossible to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. BUXTON
said the Attorney General described the strain as great on Voluntary Schools, because they had to spend larger sums on education than they spent a few years ago, and that was perfectly true. But on the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten that the schools had far larger resources to meet that strain than they had a few years ago. Of course, all would recognise, in fact, the Bill was founded on the recognition, that there was considerable strain, an intolerable strain the First Lord of the Treasury had called it, on managers of schools, but the Attorney General, in giving a definition of that strain, must have forgotten that during the discussions of last year's Bill the Government stated that the schools where the greatest strain was felt were those in districts where the rates were high and subscriptions were high, and in the small rural schools. The first mentioned class of schools this Amendment was designed to meet. The Bill as it stood was in no sense of the term intended to relieve the rates, so that part of the strain would remain, and as regarded high subscriptions, which were mostly high where the school rate was high, they, under the Bill, would receive less proportion of relief 1388 than they would under existing conditions. Then, as had been pointed out, in small rural schools, where relief was most needed, less in proportion would be received than in urban schools.

§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
said pro rata that was not so. The gross sum allocated might be larger in towns than in the country, but no rural schools under the Bill would be injured in the distribution of the grant as compared with a town school.

§ MR. BUXTON
said no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had some knowledge of the intention, no doubt he was consulted in reference to the Bill.

§ SIR W. HAUT DYKE
said he was not.

§ MR. BUXTON
was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so, as the First Lord of the Treasury distinctly said that the greater relief would go to urban schools.

§ SIR W. HAUT DYKE
said the sum would be larger.

§ MR. BUXTON
said his point was that the real strain was in the rural districts, and there the School Boards would receive nothing and the Voluntary Schools would receive less than those schools would in urban districts. So far as the Amendment was concerned, this point was raised because it was asserted by the Conference, to which reference had been made:—the Conference in which the Archbishop, the bishops, and clergy took part—and it had been asserted in all quarters that when there were School Boards the pressure, was greater. Take as an illustration the position of a subscriber in London, and compare it with the position of a subscriber in a Lancashire borough, where there was no School Board, the subscriber in London would have to pay a rate of something like 11d. or 1s. in the £ and besides his average subscription would be something like 10s. per child, while his colleague in Lancashire, where there was no School Board or School Board rate, would only pay, as was the case in Preston, something like 1s. 6d. per head. So then, under the Bill, the relief given would be most unequal, and the purpose of the Amendment was to equalise matters. There was also this point to consider. One suggestion made at the Conference by the representatives of the so-called Voluntary system was that if they obtained 1389 relief from the rates they would be content that the aid grant should be equal to Board and Voluntary Schools.

§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
dissented.

§ MR. BUXTON
said the Conference unanimously passed a Resolution that if the Voluntary system received aid from the rates for Voluntary Schools they would be quite content that some substantial part in aid should be given to Board Schools.

§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said that was carried by a majority.

§ MR. BUXTON
said at all events the majority of the representatives of the voluntary System came to that conclusion. But he did not want to put too much weight on their recommendation, the Amendment was proposed on the ground that the burden was heaviest, and in fact only intolerable in cases where the rates were high, and where, in consequence of competition, subscriptions were also high. It was not right or just that in those places in which the School Board rate had been evaded, by very often continuing schools which, in no sense of the term, could be called efficient, that in those places where the strain was slight the greatest relief should be given, and those places where the strain was heaviest should receive less in proportion.

§ MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)
said the Attorney General had used the best argument that could be conceived in support of the Amendment, when he said that if the proposal were carried it would have the effect of reducing the proposed Treasury grant by half the sum contemplated in the Bill. That should commend itself to the First Lord of the Treasury who, in replying on the case of necessitous Board Schools said, among other things, there was a difficulty about the money, and that he could not pledge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money. There were some schools, the Attorney General admitted, which were more necessitous than others. Very well; let them use the money where it was wanted, and not for the sake of the dead level of uniformity throw it about where it was not wanted. The hon. Member for Anglesey had come to the rescue of the Government, and had offered them a way out of their financial difficulties. Those who followed closely the proceedings of 1390 the Convention would remember that the arguments for increased assistance to Voluntary Schools had been based from the very commencement of this agitation upon the competition of Voluntary Schools with the Board School districts, and the intolerable strain upon the so-called Voluntary Schools caused by their competition with the Board Schools. Hon. Members on his side of the House were not unprepared to admit that Voluntary Schools were imposing upon themselves great difficulties and contending against great competition. But that was their own fault, and they could have joined the Board Schools if they had thought proper, and thus have done away with the competition of the two systems. He wished the First Lord of the Treasury had been present, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman with his philosophical knowledge and power of mind would have seen that this Amendment was really an opportunity for him to serve two purposes at one time. He did think the arguments in suport of the Amendment were quite unanswerable, and if it were not accepted it would not be because it was not founded on reason and justice, but because of the stubborn determination of the Government not to improve their own Measure when they had the opportunity of doing so with the assistance of their political opponents.

§ MR. MCKENNA
observed that the First Lord of the Treasury in the Second Reading Debate admitted that this Bill acted unequally locally. Taking that admission, they had before them an Amendment calculated to reduce that unequal local action of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs
It would increase it.

§ MR. MCKENNA
could prove to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would decrease it. What were the facts with regard to their educational system? Prior to 1870 there were 1,800,000 children in Voluntary Schools. That was to say, in half the school districts there were then in existence Voluntary Schools sufficient to supply school accommodation for the children; consequently all the buildings and all the grants, whether from Parliament or private sources, had been supplied prior to 1870. The result of that was that in the Voluntary School districts 1391 at the present day where there was no School Board, the Act of 1870, instead of adding a new burden had been an exoneration, for those schools had received a Parliamentary grant which they had not received before. The Act of 1870, so far as the pure Voluntary School districts were concerned, had been a Measure which had given an enormously increased Parliamentary grant to those districts, and the Act of 1876 still further increased it. They had consequently the position that in pure Voluntary School districts in which there was no School Board the effect of the Act of 1870 had been one of relief which had been increased by the Act of 1870. As a contrast to that, they found in the pure Board School districts the inhabitants had had to supply not only the maintenance of the schools, but the whole buildings and any expenditure necessary beyond the grants, so that if they gave to the pure Voluntary School districts an increased grant of 5s. per child they would be giving to those very districts which were the best off an increased grant which had been refused to the Board School districts. It was said that the increased grant was necessitated by the increased strain on the Voluntary Schools owing to the demands of the Education Department. Hitherto the strain had been met by increased voluntary subscriptions. These, since 1876, when the Parliamentary grant was last increased, had increased 1s. per child, which represented the measure of the increased demands of the Department. Unless the Amendment was accepted the Committee would give 5s. per child in respect of the increased strain of 1s. in districts where there was no School Board rate, and where since 1870 the strain had been least. He appealed to the Attorney General to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. LOUGH
said he represented a School Board district, and there, he admitted, the Voluntary Schools needed some assistance. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] The basis of the Bill was that in School Board districts the schools had the benefit of the "bottomless purse" of the ratepayers. In districts where the bottomless purse was available the Voluntary Schools were to have 5s. per head. The Bill was a mean scramble for money, because it was said that, if the Amendment were accepted, 1392 the money Voluntary Schools would get would be cut down half. Every Amendment was rejected on the ground that it would deprive the Voluntary Schools of money. He contended that there was no foundation for the argument that if the Amendment were adopted the amount to be given under the Bill would be reduced by half. Most of the money to be given under the Bill was to be distributed in country districts where the strain from competition with Board Schools was least. Property owners in country districts saved money by keeping out Board Schools. If they had Board Schools they would have to pay ten times as much as at present.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
did not agree with the learned Attorney General that the adoption of the Amendment would mean the cutting down of what the Voluntary Schools would receive by half. If parents in a district where competition between Board and Voluntary Schools was keen preferred sending their children to the latter while they also paid School Board rates, he admitted that it was a case of hardship. It was a hardship that they should have to maintain Voluntary Schools to which from conscientious motives they sent their children, and yet pay School Board rates. To such cases the Amendment would justly apply. But in many isolated districts in Wales Nonconformists had to send their children to denominational schools because they were the only schools available. It was said that education should mination, and those who were not adjected to its being coupled with the religion of a particular Church or denomination, and those who were not adherents of the latter having to support it.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
supported the Amendment, saying there were parishes in the county of Carnarvon where Church of England and Roman Catholics, besides maintaining their own schools, contributed to the maintenance of Board Schools. He was against subsidising sectarian teaching in any form, but there was a difference in a case of this kind. In another parish in the same county nine-tenths of the people were Nonconformists and there was no subscription towards the Church Schools. He contended that in the case first mentioned the Voluntary Schools were far more entitled to consideration than in parishes where the 1393 majority of the people were Nonconformists. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a case. His hon. Friend and himself were opposed to every form of sectarian endowment, but for the sake of argument they were bound to accept the principle of the Bill loyally. The House had unfortunately committed itself to the principle of giving a further endowment of 5s. per child to sectarian schools. There were two classes of schools, one which had certain merits, and the other which were practically privileged schools. In the latter case they had got their privileges, but they were not entitled to say that they must be further subsidised.

§ *MR. PERKS
proposed, after the word "schools," to insert the words "in which no charge for school fees is made." He said that the object of the Amendment was to limit the new aid grant to schools which were really free. Most of them had seen at the last General Election—at which the Government alleged they had received a mandate to introduce this Bill—placards on the walls, asking, "Who gave you free education?" They knew perfectly well that nobody had, so far, given them free education. The Tory Party no doubt by the Act of 1891 gave it to a considerable extent, but there were many elementary schools, especially in towns, where free education was not at present given, and, there-fore, the Tory Party, in claiming to have established free education, claimed the credit of giving a benefit to the working classes of the country which was wholly illusory. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] The object of the Amendment was to secure in England and Wales what was universal in Scotland. In that country there was not a single child attending an elementary school that did not receive his education perfectly free. But if in some of the towns of England and Wales children claimed free education they were, first of all, subjected to a most humiliating inquiry as to the pecuniary condition of their parents; and, after having passed through that ordeal, they 1394 were told that if they wanted free education they must avail themselves of the free places that were provided in some sectarian school utterly obnoxious to their parents. In such towns as South-port and Rugby, for instance, the children of Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists were told that if they wanted free education they must go to the free places in Roman Catholic schools. He did not wish to say a word against those schools, but they were not schools to which Nonconformists desired to send their children, any more than Roman Catholics wished to have their children educated in Nonconformist schools; and it was a monstrous thing that children should be compelled to go into those sectarian schools, if they claimed the right, given them in an illusory way by the Act of 1891, to have free education. The Amendment, if accepted, would not make anything like a serious demand on the schools of the Church of England. The overwhelming majority of those schools were at present absolutely free. In only about 18 per cent. of them was any charge made. It was, therefore, not too much to ask that the legislation of 1891 should be carried this one step further. The total amount at present received by the Church of England Voluntary Schools for fees and books was, £162,553. The probable amount they would receive under the Bill was £461,000; so that, even if they were to make all their schools free, they would have a clear gain under the Bill of £300,000. The time would come when the change would have to be made. Was it possible that in large towns they could continue to have two classes of children in the elementary Voluntary Schools—one class paying fees and the other class not paying any? ["Hear, hear!"] The two systems could not work well together, and it produced a state of things that was not fair to the artisan class. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to refer particularly to the cases of Rugby and Southport. In Rugby there was no School Board, and the Voluntary Schools there, which were fee-paying schools, had been, to a large extent built and maintained by contributions from the North Western Railway. A working man had written to him from that place stating that a largo number of parents whose children used to go free 1395 to school (the St. Matthew National School) had recently had their children sent home, and that the children had been refused admission unless school pence were paid. "After correspondence with the Education Department," continued the writer, "we were at last told that if we wanted free education we were to send our children to St. Mark's Roman Catholic School, so we thought it best to wait and see what fortune would reveal itself." This Bill certainly revealed no better fortune to that man or to men of his class. If they wanted free education for their children in Rugby they must send them to the Roman Catholic School. Was that fair or just? ["Hear, hear!"] Then as to Southport, which was supposed to be an enlightened town, though he thought some doubt must be entertained on the point—[cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter]—he had received a letter from Mr. Taylor, the hon. secretary of the National Education Association at Southport, and he wished to read a portion of it to the Committee. Mr. Taylor wrote:— The whole of Southport belongs to two or three persons, and they have inserted clauses in the deeds, when they have leased the land for Nonconformist Sunday Schools, prohibiting the use of most of them as day schools. The Roman Catholics and the Church of England have never suffered these restrictions, so that to-day nearly all our day schools are managed by the Sacerdotalists. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question!"]

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
rose to a point of order. Was the hon. Member in order in introducing the question of sacerdotalism on this Amendment? [Cheers.]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I think the hon. Member is pursuing the matter at an unnecessary length. I am sure he might state his case more concisely. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ *MR. PERKS
said the writer of the letter now came to the point. [Laughter.] Mr. Taylor added:— About 900 children recently applied for free places in these schools, and Sir George W. Kekewich told me recently that if any wealthy Catholic would provide sufficient free places to meet these demands, the law would require him to 1396 recognise these Catholic schools as suitable for all denominations. A Methodist preacher here actually has been compelled to send his child to a Catholic school. When the Education Department received applications for the 900 free places, the Southport School attendance officers went round to verify them, and ordered all parents to apply to the clerical school managers. About 200 did so, and they were asked impertinent questions as to their income and their ability to pay school fees, and after submitting to these humiliations free places were provided. But this deterred the other 700 applicants, and they refused to wait upon the clergy, so they have not got free places, and never will, for they refuse to go and ask as a favour what the law declares is a right. You will readily see that free education for those 700 children is now practically impossible. They will not comply with Sir John Gorst's interpretation of the law, and the local school managers will only deal with those parents who submit to make special application to them. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he had shown that no great sacrifice would be required on the part of the Church of England to offer free education in every school under their control. One of the objections taken to this course was that parents wished to pay some fees, that they would rather pay fees than not. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He attached little importance to that objection, but he believed the parents could contribute and would contribute in the form of subscriptions if they were not called upon to pay fees. ["Hear, hear!"] And the great advantage of this would be that the parents, as subscribers, could have some share in the management of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of the Amendment was to make real what was at present illusory, and to afford children, under the protection of the clause, free education from one end of the kingdom to the other. He hoped, therefore, the Government would regard the Amendment with, favourable consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said the hon. Member could hardly have anticipated that the Government would favourably receive the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. He would first remind the hon. Gentleman that it was hardly germane to the purpose of the Bill to make it a lever, or an instrument of torture, as it were, to compel 1397 managers of schools to do that which, under the existing law, they were not obliged to do with regard to charging fees. ["Hear, hear!"] In the second place, he would remind the hon. Member that it was undoubtedly the fact—and experience had proved it, not only in England, but in Scotland also—that there were parents who preferred to send their children to a fee-paying school rather than to a non-fee-paying school, and it would be acting very arbitrarily to make that impossible of attainment. ["Hear, hear!"] The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the total amount given to Voluntary Schools. It might or might not be right to introduce provisions making free education universal and compulsory; but, if that were to be done—and he thought it ought not to be done—the place to do it was not where it would have the effect of arbitrarily limiting the total amount of relief for necessitous Voluntary Schools. Was the hon. Member really serious in representing the charging of fees as a discredit to the managers who did it? The whole of the hon. Member's speech was framed on the hypothesis that the managers who charged fees committed something like a crime against education. The hon. Member himself belonged to a great religious communion—the Wesleyans—in whose schools fees were almost universally charged. [Cheers.] The result of the Amendment would be to exclude from any benefit of the grant the majority of the schools of the communion to which the hon. Member belonged. [Cheers.] That was not a reason why the hon. Member should not press the Amendment; indeed, it showed that he was extremely disinterested. [Opposition cheers.] But it also showed, as the hon. Member would admit, that those who were most zealous for education, and most anxious for the benefit of the children and of the parents, thought it not inconsistent with those principles to charge fees. [Cheers.]

§ MR. ACLAND
said that his hon. Friend had a perfectly reasonable desire— 1398 namely, that the Free Education Act should be made more of a reality. When Parliament was asked to vote more money to any class of schools it was only right to consider whether free education was really as fully available as it ought to be.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into the question of whether free education is in full force or not. The only purpose I had in admitting this Amendment was that I thought the hon. Member wished to limit the grant.

§ MR. ACLAND
submitted that he was only following the hon. Member for Louth.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I listened to the hon. Member to gather his reasons for introducing the subject of free education. [Laughter.] Having heard them, I am clearly of opinion that it cannot be further gone into.

§ MR. ACLAND
said that the question was whether the grant ought to be allowed to schools in which free education was not given. The free places available in schools were not nearly as numerous as was supposed, and there was no doubt that many fee-paying scholars, were such not by their choice. The present head of the Education Department could testify—if he would testify to anything—that this was so. His experience told him that there was reasonable foundation for making this grant dependent on the number of non-fee-paying scholars.

§ MR. BUXTON
pointed out that the Amendment, by excluding from the grant all schools where fees were received, would lay down a definition of what Parliament considered to be a necessitous school. The Amendment would not really be a lever for abolishing fees. This was the first opportunity the Government had had of showing what they really meant by necessitous schools.

§ MR. GRAY
said the hon. Gentleman had altogether overlooked the fact that 1399 the clause under discussion fixed the aggregate amount to be paid to Voluntary Schools, and that if the Amendment were adopted the effect would be that the sum which might be distributed amongst necessitous schools would be reduced. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. BUXTON
said they did not in any sense by this Amendment propose to limit the amount.

§ MR. GRAY
held very strongly that this was an attempt to diminish the amount that should be rendered available for the necessitous Voluntary Schools, and that it would have, as the hon. Gentleman himself had shown, no influence whatever on the schools which were now charging fees. He was convinced that in many districts the parents desired a continuance of the fee system. The Education Department had power to not only sanction a continuance of fees, but to actually sanction an increase of fees for the benefit of a particular district, and many of those schools, necessitous as they were in spite of the fees, gave a higher education, employed a, better class of teachers, and—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said the hon. Gentleman was in order in dealing with the question of the limitation of the amount, but not in going into the general question of free education.

§ MR. GRAY
said he might, perhaps, be allowed to add that if the proposed treatment were meted out to Voluntary Schools it ought also to be meted out to Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. CHANNING
thought the Amendment had hardly met with the full consideration it deserved. Take the case of Lancashire. Under the Bill about £115,000 would go to Lancashire, yet what were the facts concerning that county? In the case of Church of England schools in the principal towns the average amount of school fees, including the charges for books, was 4s. 2¾d., in certain towns the amounts were 6s. 1d., 5s. 1d., 6s. 6d., 6s. 5d., 6s. 7d., and so on. At the same time the Lancashire 1400 Voluntary Schools received a very small subscription. What the Amendment really proposed was that there should be an honest attempt on the part of the managers of Voluntary Schools to meet the grant given by the State to enable them to carry on their schools, by some reasonable sacrifice of their own.

§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
regretted that, owing to the Chairman's ruling, the Opposition were unable to enforce their argument by pointing out that the operation of the present law was forcing Protestant children into Roman Catholic schools. If they could not enforce this argument here they should elsewhere. It was a very common argument on the other side that they ought to have freedom of choice in order that children might be brought up in the religion to which they and their parents were attached. He approved of this Amendment in the main because, if adopted, it would be a declaration that the relief should go rather to those who could least afford to pay the money, than to those who could best afford. They proposed by the Bill to give relief to the subscribers and not relief to the poor.

§ MR. CHARLES SEELY (Lincoln)
appealed to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to withdraw it. He expressed his sympathy with the object aimed at.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the hon. Member had, on a previous occasion, expressed his sympathy, but voted in the other Lobby. He hoped he was not going to repeat that to-night. The Bill was not so badly draughted as the hon. Member for West Ham seemed to suppose. They were told that there would be absolutely no inducement if they passed this Amendment—that they would not punish the rich schools, they would punish the poor schools, but there was a very substantial and practical inducement. What would happen? Suppose a school, where a fee of 2d. or 3d. was charged, the association would bring pressure on the manager to reduce the 1401 amount of the fees and make it a, free school altogether. If they took the schools of Liverpool, why should 5s. be paid if—

§ *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)
rose to a point of order. He said the subject was the total amount to be paid to Voluntary Schools generally, but the hon. Member was speaking about its distribution, to particular schools.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEAN'S
said, as he understood the Amendment, it raised a very simple and small question, and he had endeavoured to keep the discussion to it.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said what he was pointing out was that the schools which charged expensive fees would get less than 5s. per child, and no doubt the Member for Walsall, who would be an influential member of the Diocesan Association, would point out that they were losing, £200 or £300 a year because the school managers charged 6d. or 9d. in fees. He had no doubt that the eloquence of the hon. Member would have its effect on his clerical friends, who would stop the fees and thus add £200 or £500 to the Diocesan Association. [Mr. GEDGE dissented.] He regretted the interposition of the hon. Member for Walsall as it rather tended to prolong his remarks. In one school that he knew of in Liverpool there were 793 children, and he found that the fees paid by children amounted to 25s. per head per annum. That was a school in one of what were called the respectable districts of Liverpool, in which it was expected that the respectable children were not to mix up with the poorer children. If this money was intended to be granted for the maintenance of necessitous schools, why was it to be applied in order to keep up class distinction. The fact was, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was strongly in favour of the Amendment. He might refer to another Liverpool school, in which the fees paid amounted to 37s. per head per annum of the children. The fact was, that these schools 1402 which were for the benefit of the middle classes, were not elementary schools at all; they were really secondary education schools, and they ought to have the benefit of a grant that was intended for necessitous elementary schools only. If schools intended for a select class only were to participate in the grant, the money would be applied, not for the relief of necessitous schools, but for the relief of the subscribers to the better class schools. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that in view of the ruling of the Chairman, he would like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for Education, as to whether the members of free schools and of the scholars belonging to the Voluntary School class were increasing or diminishing. He directed the right hon. Gentleman's attention to certain statements which were set forth in page Li of the introduction to the Report of the Committee of Council for Education. Those figures showed that there was not a very strong desire on the part of the parents that their children should attend Voluntary Schools. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman by how much the grant would be limited if this Amendment were carried. How was it that according to the last Return the total number of children attending fee schools was 4,340,000, as against 4,519,000 attending the free schools. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he had been able to get at the bottom of the question he was now putting to him for himself, he should have done so, but he had not the time to get up the subject that the right hon. Gentleman had. He hoped that he had put the question as clearly as he could. Then with regard to the Amendment. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] He hoped that he was making himself understood. It might be that if the Amendment were carried the grant might be distributed among a smaller number of schools. He submitted that the Committee were 1403 not necessarily bound by the words of the Amendment as it stood, and the £020,000 might still be allotted in respect of scholars, the division taking place amongst a smaller number of schools. If that were so, he would have much more pleasure in supporting the clause, because everything that tended to uniformity in Elementary Educational matters was a good thing and anything which operated indirectly on the managers of Voluntary Schools to compel them to put in force the Free Education Act of 1891 would have his cordial approval. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an explanation of the extraordinary figures to which he had referred, and so enable the Committee to say what was the limitation that would take place if the Amendment were adopted. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,) Cambridge University
, who was received with ironical Opposition cheers, said that one figure quoted by the hon. and learned Member referred to average attendance, and the other to the number of free scholars upon the books. The number of free scholars on the books was, of course greater than the average attendance. [Laughter.]

§ MR. H. J. WILSON (York, W.R., Holmfirth)
thought the Committee were entitled to an exposition of the views of the Government on the question before the Committee. He remembered in the year 1891 being in Dorsetshire when a bye-election was going on, and the following lines were placarded about the constituency:— Remember, remember the month of November, There have been no school fees to pay. Good Mr. Goschen has brought in his Motion— [Cries of "Question."]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is not saying anything relevant to the Question. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. H. J. WILSON
said he wanted to know whether the Government were frankly in favour of the free school system or not.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I have ruled two or three times that that subject cannot be entertained.

§ MR. LOUGH
said he thought the Vice President might have given a little more satisfactory reply to the very reasonable question put by his hon. and learned Friend. The First Lord of the Treasury said he objected to the Amendment because it would reduce the amount the Voluntary Schools would get. The Opposition wanted to know by how much, that was to say, they wanted to know the number of free scholars in Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] His own point was that it would be much better if less cant was talked on the other side of the House. [Cheers and "Question!"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Question.

§ MR. LOUGH
said he was doing so. The Chairman had laid down that the effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the amount given to Voluntary Schools, and it was urged on the other side that it would be a crime so to reduce the amount. That, he considered, was only cant. ["Hear, hear!"] Just as much good might be done with £500,000 properly applied, as with £620,000 given in a lavish manner. He contended that if the effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the amount, that was a reason for its acceptance. But that was not the only point. The hon. Member for West Ham said that the parents preferred to pay fees.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that he had been compelled to interrupt the hon. Member for West Ham. It was not in order for hon. Members to discuss the general question of free education.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ MR. LEWIS
wished to move to leave out the words, "in the aggregate." He said he could not quite understand why the words appeared in the clause, and it appeared to him they were totally unnecessary.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
rose to order. He did not quite understand that the Chairman had ruled out of order the proposal to omit the word "annually." He desired to omit the word, not that he objected to the annual grant, but in order that he might move a proviso to provide that payments should be made quarterly.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
ruled that the word "annually" must remain as applying to the Parliamentary aid grant. Such grants could not be made quarterly. There was nothing to prevent the proposal of a proviso that payments out of the grant should be made quarterly.

§ MR. CHANNING
desired to know if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesey would be in order to insert the words, "in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight."

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
repeated what he had said at the beginning of the sitting, that any limitation of the duration of the Act must be proposed in a new clause.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
said that before the Amendment was moved he desired to ask a Question as to the exact meaning of the words, "not exceeding in the aggregate." A great deal of misapprehension had been felt in the country owing to the use of these words, and, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of giving some explanation of their meaning, he would move their omission in order to insert the words "equal to." Some persons had 1406 fancied that a sinister purpose lay behind the words "not exceeding in the aggregate" 5s.—though he did not share that view—and that the intention of leaving the matter open, as it were, might possibly be to enable the Government or their successors to give something less than the 5s. per child. He understood that this was a mere use of a formula, but it would reassure a great number of persons interested if they could have an assurance from the Government that there was no such intention as had been suggested lying behind those innocent words. He begged to move the Amendment.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
could assure the noble Lord that the words had been introduced in accordance with a time-honoured Parliamentary custom, by which, in all cases where annual grants were made, the phrase was used that the amount should be one "not exceeding" a specified sum. Of course, it was not meant that a less sum should be given. ["Hear, hear!"] The intention was precisely that which would be carried out by the introduction of the words the insertion of which the noble Lord had moved, and in adopting the words in the Bill the Government had been guided by Parliamentary precedents. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. MCKENNA
looked upon the words, the omission of which the noble Lord had moved, as one of the possibly slightly redeeming features of the Bill. As he understood it, "not exceeding" meant that Parliament might provide in any year for a less amount, having regard to the fact that the distribution of the money was only to be to necessitous schools. If, therefore, by some public spirited persons large sums of money were granted to Voluntary Schools, whereby they could be relieved of their necessity, as he read the Bill there would be no duty upon Parliament to continue to provide this extra 5s. grant to Voluntary Schools which, under these circumstances, could no longer be considered 1407 necessitous. He should be very much obliged if the First Lord of the Treasury could assure him, in spite of his last observations, that these words, "not exceeding" did not bind Parliament in every year to provide this sum of money. In the event of the necessity not continuing, and of no such thing existing as a necessitous Voluntary School, there would be no occasion for the expenditure of money; therefore, there would be equally no necessity for Parliament to provide it.

§ MR. DILLON
thought there was great force in the noble Lord's point. The words in the ordinary Estimates, which he understood the First Lord of the Treasury had referred to, set forth that a sum not exceeding such an amount should be granted. But in such instances very frequently surpluses were returned to the Treasury by surrender. The point in regard to the Estimates was, that the Minister in charge of the spending department had not to exceed the sum mentioned therein; but he might, and frequently did, spend less. But this was a totally different case. The object of the present Bill was to secure for Voluntary Schools that the full sum of 5s. per head should be given apart altogether from the question of whether it was wanted or not. [Opposition cheers.] He was stating the case from the point of view of the Voluntary Schools. He himself considered the sum of 10s. would be wanted every year, and they wanted to make sure that this five shillings was the minimum. He believed the words to which the noble Lord had called attention would not prevent a subsequent Administration saying, "We do not want 5s., we shall give less," and surrendering the balance to the Treasury. He thought it ought to be made perfectly clear that no such thing was contemplated by the Government.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
considered that an answer should be given to the two hon. Members who had last spoken. It was one thing to have the words in an Act 1408 of Parliament and another to have the words "not exceeding" in an Estimate. In the latter case, as the hon. Member for Mayo had pointed out, Parliament did not know how much was going to be spent, and it was stated that the sum should be one "not exceeding" such and such an amount, and if it was desired to spend more Parliament had to be asked for a Supplementary Estimate. He regarded the words as meaning in plain English the maximum sum of 5s. The words should be dealt with in just the same way as words in any other Bill. He invited the Law Officers to say whether, if the words remained, there would be any obligation on the Education Department to pay the full sum of 5s.

§ MR. BARTLEY
argued that the words as they stood were quite correct. The whole object of the Bill was to secure efficiency, and if in a certain school the education was not satisfactory the full grant would not be paid.

§ MR. DILLON
pointed out that money withdrawn from any school which did not deserve the grant would not be surrendered to the Exchequer, but would be redistributed among the associated schools.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said he still believed he was right. [Laughter.] An associated school would not get more than 5s. under any circumstances, and if a certain school was not efficient the sum withdrawn would surely not be handed over to an association to which that school did not belong.

§ MR. DILLON
said the hon. Member evidently had not studied the Bill, and was wrong in all his points. [Laughter.] He repeated that money withheld from any associated school would be redistributed.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
assured hon. Members that their fears were groundless.

§ MR. DILLON
said the country associations got less.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said the hon. Member appeared to 1409 think there would be pure country associations. Any residue would go back, not to the Treasury, but to the other schools, and therefore the whole amount would be distributed. Nothing in the Bill could compel the House of Commons to vote the money, and of course he had never suggested so unconstitutional a course. But if the money was voted the fear that it would be kept back from the schools by the Education Department was perfectly illusory.

§ MR. MCKENNA
said the right hon. Gentleman said the money would be paid to the associations, but that was not so under the Bill. The money was to be allotted, not paid, to them. The money was to be distributed by the Education Department, but only to necessitous schools.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said the Solicitor General was present, and he really must press for an answer from him.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I have answered on his behalf.

§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said the right hon. Gentleman had not really answered the question. The hon. Member for Islington had said that the Education Department might keep back from any one school the proportion to which that school would be entitled if the school was not efficient. He saw nothing in the Bill which enabled any portion of the grant to be kept back in respect of any particular school because the education in that school was not efficient.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said the words had been introduced in accordance with the usual form. The provision made for disposing of the sum showed that the intention was that the aggregate amount of the grant should be 5s. per child in all cases.

§ MR. EVANS
objected to the Amendment being withdrawn, as he wished to know first whether these words compelled the Education Department to give 5s. for the number of children in average attendance.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
said he was of course quite satisfied with the explanation the Government had given, and had 1410 only raised the question to get a public explanation. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.