ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 31 July 1899)

§ * MR. TREVELYAN () Yorkshire, W.R., Elland
I beg to move to leave out from the word "Act" in page 3, line 11, to end of clause. The object of my Amendment is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Blind and Deaf Children Act of 1893, on which this Bill is framed. This Act contains the following provision: A school shall not be certified by the Education Department as suitable for providing elementary education for blind and deaf children…unless it is either managed by a school authority, or the annual expenses of its maintenance are to the extent of not less than one-third defrayed out of sources other than local rates, or moneys provided by Parliament, and are audited and published in accordance with the regulations of the Education Department. In other words, this Act recognises that public control should go with public money, and I hope that the House will be inclined to see that the principle is not contravened in the case of this Bill. I do not think there is any reason why any different course should be taken in this Bill from that taken in the case of the Blind and Deaf Children Act. The London School Board, which has paid the very greatest attention to this subject—in fact, I think it may be regarded as the promoter of this special legislation.—protested the other day against this part of the clause. I may say that it would not in the least affect the Voluntary schools in the country, and I think it is only in accordance with established practice that there should be control of public money by some public body.

§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University
said that he was very sorry that he could not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that the money in question was subject to the public control of the Education Department.

§ MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
There is one question which I would like to bring before the notice of the Vice-President. The Bill provides that no requirement should be made as to the proportion of the expenses to be defrayed out of private sources. Under the provisions of the Act which has been referred to that requirement was at least one-third. Is it understood now that a school may be under denominational management, even though the local subscriptions may not amount to more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., or perhaps nothing at all? If that is the case, I think there is great force in the contention of my hon. friend, because I think if we make an additional grant of public money we certainly ought to have control of the schools. Many of these schools are managed locally by one person only, and I think it would not be right for us to make a large grant of public money without proper control. With the main object of this Bill I am in entire and most cordial agreement, but I think the local schools ought either to be placed under public management, or, if they are to be under private management, there ought to be a certain proportion of private expenditure upon them. That is a principle to which I think we on this side of the House shall all be prepared to assent. I do not think we ought to set up in this Bill an additional number of schools, the management of which may be placed in the hands of a single individual. I should, however, be glad to hear from the Vice-President that I am wrong in that respect. If I am 938 not I hope my hon. friend will go to a Division.

§ * MR. TREVELYAN
I still think that my Amendment is one which ought to be introduced into the Bill. However, in view of the fact that the Government intend to oppose it, and that this Bill is of an exceedingly valuable nature, I shall not press it.