§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,652,548, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid."
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL,
continuing his speech, said when the Committee adjourned he was dealing with the question of the pupil-teachers. When he read the words "pupil-teachers" in his notes he was reminded of the warm sympathy with which his old friend Mr. Forster regarded these boys and girls, and how he had always looked forward to the time when they would enter on their career under happier circumstances. That time had come, and all felt great satisfaction at the fact that their labour would be less arduous and that their prospects were more hopeful. They had had exactly the same difficulty with regard to the pupil-teachers as that which had occurred in the case of the day-training colleges. They had to 1250 carry on, on the one hand, special training, and on the other they had to have regard to the general culture of the teacher, as without technical knowledge he would fail in teaching, and without general information and culture he would fail no less lamentably from a different cause. As regards general culture, the attention of educationists would no doubt from time to time have to be turned to that difficult problem. He was not certain that some of those engaged in training colleges did not exaggerate the importance of technical training.
Coming to the question of children under the age of five years, he said that historically the addition to the schools for the accommodation of children under five years of age was not voluntary on the part of the localities but forced upon them by successive Governments. This was one of those questions in which the Administration would have done wisely to pay attention to local opinion rather than their own views. In dealing with this question of infants between the ages of three and five years, they were confronted with two facts which could not be ignored. The children were there, and the schools were there, and it would be quite impossible to leave these young creatures on the streets to tike their chance. Whether the institution was called a crèche, a nursery, or a school, these institutions must exist. The children must receive due attention, and expense must be devoted to their welfare. He believed from many visits he had paid to schools that many of these baby rooms were nothing more than nurseries. Upon the last occasion he visited such a department he asked the teacher what they did, and her answer was "we mostly play." That was, he believed, a literally true and accurate account of what took place in these baby rooms. It was important that great attention should be paid to the health of these young creatures, but the Committee must not be oblivious to the fact that these babies had mental faculties which might develop somewhat more rapidly than many believed.
He congratulated the Government on the simplicity of the new code. All the parents had an interest in the 1251 Code adopted in the elementary schools, and such was now the composition of the Code that everybody could understand what it contained, and would know what was going on as regarded the children. The system of endowed schools had undergone a great change in the last few years. The endowed schools were now regarded as part of the great educational system of the country and no longer treated as separate compartments. This was a subject on which the Government must congratulate themselves. By the present action of the Board of Education as regards these schools they were between two forces. On the one hand, they had those who desired technical education and on the other those who confined their attention, perhaps unduly, to the classical side of education. The education of this country ought to embrace both. The mere classical scholar was apt to become a narrow pedant, as was also the mere man of science. What was desired was a combination of both sides.
He rejoiced in the new rules respecting buildings; they were more elastic than formerly and they were more to the advantage of education. He believed that when they had had regard to the proper amount of cubic space and the sanitary conditions and ventilation generally they had reached the end of their necessities and that when they went beyond that they injured the cause they were desirous of promoting and wasted money.
He believed that solid progress was being made under the Act, although there were some who did not regard the operation of the Act as he did. But each must be guided by his own experience, and his experience had been a happy one. No doubt there were difficulties and struggles and antagonism, but he believed those difficulties would pass away and that the more interested people were in the progress of education the less inclined they would hi to enter into those quarrels, some of which were so trifling that it was difficult—except to a heated imagination—to recognise their existence. He hoped they would be able to concentrate their whole attention on the education of the people 1252 of the country, but he could not see any hope of a solution of the-educational problem if they were to restrict themselves to. a system of secular education. He was perfectly convinced that secular education was odious to the mind of this country, and that peace and harmony would never be secured by such a system. He believed one result of the Act of 1902 had been to create in the country a wider and more intelligent interest in education, and that in years to come the citizens of this country would enter on their various duties with minds much better prepared than those of their predecessors. They would be better acquainted with the noble literature of their own tongue, and would be more familiar than at present with the history of that land of which, they ought to be proud to be citizens. He believed that in the future all difficulties would be removed and this very perplexing problem solved. Of course they could not foretell the future, but he felt sanguine in regard to it; and of this he was perfectly certain, that peace would, never come upon the educational world by the abolition of an Act of Parliament or by the fall of one Government.
§ SIR ALFRED THOMAS (Glamorganshire, E.)
said that if the hon. Baronet who had just sat down felt any difficulty with regard to the future of the training colleges in reference to religion he would recommend him to take a leaf out of the book of Wales. In Wales they had no difficulty with regard to that question. They had settled it, and settled it in a way that was entirely satisfactory to all. They had been denounced as reckless agitators and as having but one object in life, which was to excite their fellow-countrymen into rebellion. It might be news to some of the supporters of the Government to be told that, speaking for colleagues with whom he was associated, he could say that for the past two years they had been the restraining force that had kept several Welsh counties from open revolt. Also it was but scant justice to say that his hon friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had done all in his power to find some means to bridge over the gulf that now divided the friends of provided 1253 and non-provided schools. In fact, they at one time thought he had succeeded, and he would have done, had the other Bishops and clergy been as wise in their generation as the prelate of St. Asaph. So anxious was the Member for Carnarvon to meet the scruples of Churchmen that he was prepared to go further in that direction than the majority of Free Churchmen desired. Though he himself would not have volunteered to offer the terms presented by his hon. friend, yet he would have had no hesitation in affirming that so wishful were the Nonconformists of Wales to terminate the strife that they would have faithfully and loyally carried out the St. Asaph concordat. But as those terms were rejected by the other Bishops and clergy he was now quite certain that if approached by these gentlemen who refused the concordat to come to terms on the basis of the draft agreement the Free Churchmen of Wales would refuse even to discuss the question. The Church people had lost a golden opportunity, one that would never recur again, and it was only fair to say that the great majority of Nonconformists were not sorry that such was the case. But let it not be forgotten, in all the bitterness that might yet arise, that the friends of sectarian education were given the opportunity of securing a system of religious instruction which was approved by the ablest leader of the Church in Wales, and that they had not the good sense to take advantage of the concession.
The Government were warned time after time what would be the result of that measure, a piece of legislation enacted in defiance of the expressed disapprobation of the people. He had no hesitation in saying that no measure enacted in face of so much opposition ever received more lenient treatment than the Education Act of 1902. If they wanted proof of that they had it in the statesmanlike letter of Mr. Mansel Franklyn to the Board of Education. That document showed how anxious the county council of Glamorgan were to give managers of non-provided schools ample time to comply with the requirements of sanitary regulations. It also showed the partiality of the Board of Education in encouraging 1254 non-provided schools to evade the requirements of the county surveyor. Indeed, if the Board of Education were as anxious to smooth the path of the Act as they had been to pile up obstacles and difficulties, even the Act as it stood might have been workable. Whether it was the wish of the Board that such should be the case it was not for him to say, but if we were to judge by the action of the Board, the last thing they desired was the peaceful and satisfactory administration of the Act in the Welsh counties. They especially desired to draw the attention of English Members to the demeanour of Mr. Mansel Franklyn, for in him they would see how a gentleman in a perfectly independent position, who was neither a Nonconformist nor, he believed, a Liberal in politics, viewed the question. When the history of this great strife was written, his name would be placed among the most highly honoured, as one of the boldest and bravest champions of freedom of conscience. They had been blamed for not advising county councils to put the non-provided schools upon the rates. Had those who advocated such a policy seriously thought what would be the result of such a policy? It would result in making four-fifths of the Welsh people passive resisters. Surely they did not wish the Liberal councillors to stultify themselves and their friends and become self-made revolters? No, it had been their wish and ardent desire if possible to repress and not to incite strife. They again said that it was in the power of the Board of Education to so adjust matters as to make it possible to proceed without coming to a dead-lock. If that were the desire of the Board of Education then they might reckon upon the Welsh Members as their allies. But if they were determined to make the Act as odious and distasteful as possible to the Welsh they would find that Welsh Members would not desert their friends but would be with them in fighting the battle of the people. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,652,448, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Alfred Thomas.)1255
LIEUT. COLONEL PRYCE JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)
claimed the indulgence of the Committee to reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He wished to compliment the hon. Member upon his brilliancy in debate and upon possessing a soft and persuasive voice, and he was only sorry that upon this occasion the hon. Member was not advocating a cause more worthy of his great abilities. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member bad forgotten that at the present moment there was a Government in power which believed in retaliation. Why should the Board of Education, who represented the Government, not exercise full control aver the grants given by the Government? Surely they were entrusted with full powers in regard to the money devoted to educational purposes in all parts of the country. Two-thirds of the money for elementary education came from the National Exchequer, and it was only right that the Board of Education should have full control over that money. Did the hon. Member for Carnarvon believe in using his influence to administer the Act properly? He challenged him on that point.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Of course I am in favour of administering the Act properly, but my notion of what is proper may not be the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member.
§ LIEUT. - COLONEL PRYCE -JONES
said that the non-payment of the salaries of the teachers when they were due was a deliberate evasion of the law and a defiance of that House; it was a defiance of the Act of Parliament passed in the year 1902 for the improvement of education all over the country, and yet by adopting the course they had done the Welsh county councils were now breaking and had actually roken their own contracts with the school teachers in order to further some end which he was quite at a loss to understand. In Montgomeryshire the Act had not been administered as it ought to have been. It might interest the Committee to know what had been done in that county. the education authority there consisted)f the whole of the members of the county council, including the aldermen, 1256 nine-tenths of whom were gentlemen who voted according to the orders of the Party of which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was the distinguished leader; and besides these there were some twenty co-opted members and most of these also acted under the same orders as the members of the county council; so that the minority were always out-voted and their position was not an enviable one. The minority had loyally abided by the Act, and they had always supported the majority whenever they believed that they were acting in the interests of education, and they had never retaliated in any way. The majority had appointed a number of clerks and sub-clerks to fill the different positions under the education authority, as the fruit of their victory, and it was extremely hard for the minority to find that they had been treated in the way they had been. Some of the most capable educationists in the county were numbered amongst the minority. Only a few weeks ago this authority decided that they would not pay the teachers' salaries although the minority loudly protested against that course being taken.
The hon. Member for Carnarvon had stated that the Act would come to an end when the present Government gave up office. The same thing was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Agricultural Rating Act, but it had been renewed several times since that prediction was made, and he ventured to say that the Education Act would continue in force even after His Majesty's Government had ceased to exist and had given way to a Government which might be better but would probably be much worse than the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: That is impossible.] What chance was there of the Education Act being amended in the direction which extreme Nonconformists desired, whatever Government or whatever Party were in power? What chance was there of any Party altering the main principles of the Act of 1902? That Act was passed by the very large majority of 237, and even the Defaulting Act passed subsequently did not cause a single Member of the Front Opposition Bench to speak in opposition 1257 to it. The provision made in the Act was the only way in which they could have denominational schools, and, while people insisted upon denominational teaching, such accommodation would have to be provided. As the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) said on the Second Beading of the 1902 Act—If the denominational schools are taken over, denominational teaching must go on.How were hon. Members on the opposite side to get over that stile?
The hon. Member for Carnarvon had complained that the Education Act threw the management of education too much into the hands of officials, but in his own county the Party opposite were themselves to blame for this state of things, because instead of allowing the old voluntary managers to remain as in the past, the friends of hon. Members opposite insisted upon appointing district committees in a small county and appointing clerks at good salaries, thus burdening the ratepayers with unnecessary expense. The charges made by the hon. Member against the administration of the Education Act did not appear to him to be well founded. He did not think that the Nonconformists would be any better off after a settlement of this question by the Party that may be returned at the next election, and he was as anxious as anyone that they should have a compromise now which would meet the views of moderate men of all sides. He only wished that the faddists and extremists on both sides would leave this question to others to settle in an amicable spirit. He was extremely obliged to the Committee for the patient hearing they had given him, and he hoped hon. Members would again show their determination to back up law and order and support the Board of Education in their efforts to act fairly and justly to all schools, whether voluntary schools or Board schools.
SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
said he had listened to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member opposite with interest, and he welcomed his statement that in his own county 1258 and in the Principality generally he would like moderate counsels to prevail on both sides It ought, however, to be remembered that the present great difficulty had not been brought about by hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side, but was due to the fact that they felt very keenly the extra burden and the injustice of the Act of 1902. He sincerely hoped that the moderate friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would find some means of reducing that burden and le seeing that injustice in order to bring about a condition of affairs which would be more conducive to the welfare of education in the Principality.
The hon. Baronet who introduced this Vote referred to the general work which had been done under the Act of 1902, and, among other things he referred to the increased inspectorate which he had initiated for the purpose of inspecting schools throughout the country. He had made out that there had been a considerable increase in that inspectorate, and they all knew from the figures which had been given that the Education Act of 1902 had been a most expensive piece of legislation. The Act had been brought in mainly for the purpose of saving the voluntary schools, and in carrying out that object a huge burden had been placed upon the ratepayers throughout the Principality and throughout England, and the result had been also to add vastly to the expenses of the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, from that point of view the Act of 1902 stood condemned. That fact alone was sufficient to condemn the Act, and it would require all the ingenuity of the successors of the present Government to keep the expenditure within due limits, and at the same time maintain the efficiency of education. They could not have a better illustration of the increased expenditure which had been brought about than this enormous increase in the inspectorate in addition to the increase in local expenditure upon officials.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
I may say that I announced with some satisfaction that it would not be necessary for us to ask for any additional money.
SIR WALTER FOSTER
said they had been looking forward, to a reduction of the burdens thrown upon local authorities, and now they had had additional burdens thrown upon them. With regard to the inspection of the schools, where one or two inspectors were considered sufficient in the past under the present system sometimes four inspectors visited the same locality to study the schools, and that must add considerably to the burdens thrown upon the Imperial Exchequer. The hon. Baronet had also referred to female inspectors. That was a very good step, but he did not think it had been carried out to any large extent.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had pointed out that it was essential for the proper administration of the schools, and for other reasons, that there should be some attempt made either locally or Imperially to obtain medical inspection of the scholars. He was afraid that that idea had net been advancing lately under the new Act. Before this Act came into existence there was in various parts of the country a tendency to give medical officers charge of schools for the purpose of inspection, and that was a very salutary step because it aimed at looking after the general well being of the schools and the scholars. In some parts of the country that tendency had been checked under the new Act. He thought, there was not the same tendency to appoint medical officers for schools as there was formerly. He hoped the hon. Baronet would in his official capacity encourage the movement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University rather prophesied too much when he said that by this means they could stamp out tuberculosis; still they might do much to mitigate the spread of that disease by proper medical inspection.
As to the great question of race deterioration, the only way in which they could find out the true position in which the population stood would be by the study scientifically of the whole of the school population of the United Kingdom. If there were attached to the various schools under that Act a system of inspection by medi- 1260 cal officers, a collection of vital statistics would be gradually built up which would show the actual condition of our growing population. If they only took the statistics of recruiting for the Army, they would think that the deterioration was very great, but, on the other hand, scientific bodies which had expressed an opinion on this point said that the evidence was not sufficient to justify many of the alarming statements made as to race deterioration in this country. That question could only be settled satisfactorily by a study of the growing population, and if they had a system similar to that which existed in Prussia and some other countries for the medical inspection of children when they came to school, and once a year during the period of their school life, they would obtain information which would be invaluable for social as well as for scientific purposes, and would once and for all justify or destroy the statements about race deterioration.
When they came to deal with the greater question as to how they should treat the very poorest of the population who came to school under conditions which rendered them unable to benefit by the instruction provided, medical inspection would enable them to separate those children and see that they were properly fed. The question of feeding children was one of the greatest difficulties they had to face. There were on the one side serious social considerations, and on the other side they had to consider the irreparable mischief which might be done to the growing population. He believed that the only way to solve the question was by systematic medical inspection such as existed on the Continent. He believed scores of men might be obtained for a small honorarium who would be at the call of the headmaster or headmistress for the purpose of reporting on the health of the children. In that way they would save ten times the amount which the inspection would cost by preventing the occurrence of epidemics. What happened now? A child was sent to school in accordance with the compulsion placed on the parent. The child had a little sore throat which was looked upon as a trivial matter and yet it might be the 1261 origin of a diphtheritic trouble which might cause the school to be shut up and hundreds of pounds lost to the ratepayers. Careful supervision of children in the early stages of disease would prevent many schools being closed from epidemics and many young persons being lost to the country, and sorrow would be prevented in many a humble home. In various parts of the northern districts of Scotland schools had frequently to close on account of the outbreak of disease. If the Secretary to the Board of Education would give heed to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University he would take a step forward which would be fraught with great good, not only to the educational efficiency of the country, but also to the health and well-being of the scholars.
He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the syllabus which had been issued dealing with the subject of hygiene. He was glad that his hon. friends the Members for London University and for Rye had assisted in the preparation of the syllabus. The great feature of such a syllabus should be simplicity. Some of the books of this kind dealt far too elaborately with certain controversial subjects. He did not think that classes on hygiene were likely to do all that some expected. He thought that a wise teacher, properly taught himself, could convey in simple language the principles of the laws by which people should live and maintain their health, and could thus render much more efficient service than could be obtained by having a regular system of instruction in classes for young people.
He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to pause a little before he proceeded too far in excluding the younger children from the schools. He himself did not wish young children taught much under five years of age, but if infant schools were to be done away with they should, in the interest of the poor, find some substitute, in order that the children might be properly disciplined and nourished. Some kind of kindergarten and creche would be an ideal system for the treatment of young children who could not be looked after at home. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman 1262 was taking steps in that direction. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed cautiously and not inflict a hardship on poor people who had hitherto availed themselves of the infant schools.
§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
said that he was not personally enthusiastic on the subject of education in rural districts, and he was delighted and rather surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Aberdeen denounce the extraordinary and frightful expense of education in those districts. The right hon. Gentleman was an expert on the subject, and he was sure that the Committee would take his words to heart. He welcomed the right hon. Gentleman as a robust and most useful recruit, and he regretted that he had not found salvation when the Bill was introduced three years ago, and that he did not vote against it on every occasion, as he had done himself. He thought the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division was right when he said that if the Education Department were not careful of what they were about there would be a reaction. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would go to the eastern counties he would find a considerable reaction already. What they complained of was the extraordinary expense of education to the country. It was £19,000,000, and what had they to show for it? There was something to show for the money which was spent on the Navy and Army, but the only asset they had got in the case of education was the hon. Member for Oxford University, who sat on the Front Bench. That was all very well, but it did not do much good when they came to pay their rates. What they wanted to do in rural districts was to put the whole of the education rate on the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not understand why people in the agricultural districts should pay for education by direct taxation, and he protested with all the force of which he was capable against the ruinous charges which were put upon them simply to carry out the wishes of faddists of fanatics who thought about nothing but education, and who were only too glad if they could make the co t as much as possible. He regretted that he would not be able to support the Amend- 1263 ment of his hon. friend. He was sent there to support the Government and he was not going to vote against them. The light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and his hon. friend below the gangway had, he was bound to say his enthusiastic though somewhat platonic support.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)
said there was no man in the House who understood educational matters better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The right hon. Gentleman had brought a very important question before the Committee. It had been referred to in the House on different occasions during the past year but they had done nothing at all. The problem how to feed the starving children who came to the schools was one which ought to be faced. The Blue-hook contained melancholy reading on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman told him some time ago that such a thing as hungry children going to school in Germany was unknown. It was stated that 10 per cent, of the children attending elementary schools came in a semi-starving condition. It was very difficult to say how the question should be dealt with. He thought it would be necessary to have a regular system of feeding those children. It could be done at a very small cost. He believed it could be done for a penny per meal. He started an experiment in his own parish, and he found that a child could be provided with a wholesome meal for a halfpenny. The children should be medically examined and those who were underfed should be provided with meals. The cost should be levied on the parents in all cases where they were able to pay. It would cost about £1 a year to give one meal to each of those children. No doubt the rates were extremely heavy in many parts of the country, and he was the last man to advocate the throwing away of money, but this was not throwing away money. This was really a necessary expense. Those who had read the Report on physical deterioration must feel the force of what he said. He did not know that a more melancholy Paper had ever been issued to Parliament than that. A large part of the town population was very often utterly underfed. The children 1264 received food which they could not digest, and from the earliest age they became feeble rickety creatures unable to earn a living. A great part of the problem of the unemployed and the unemployable arose from that fact. The problem of the slum population would never be solved until they had a compulsory system of continuation schools in this country. The children who now ran wild in the streets should be given a course of technical and industrial education.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
said it was very unfortunate that in the debates on the Estimates it was not possible to concentrate attention on one particular subject and obtain the judgment of the Committee upon it. They had before them most prominently the question of the administration of the Education Act in Wales, but the circumstances were such that they were bound to introduce other topics, and he feared that in the result they would not get a definite decision on any particular question. He was one of those who did not approve of the whole of the work of the Board of Education, but equally he was bound to express his disagreement with the remarks which had fallen from hon. Members opposite with regard to the effect of the Education Act. He ventured to say that the general effect of the measure in England, if not in Wales—and he was in as good a position to judge as hon. Gentlemen opposite—was that it had brought about greater good than he should have dared to hope when it was introduced in 1902. He gave the Board of Education credit for their part of the work which had been accomplished. The teaching staff in the voluntary and the council schools had been increased in number and quality; inadequate apparatus had been thrown aside and modern appliances had been introduced; school buildings had been very materially improved; the health and comfort of the children within the schools, whether council or voluntary schools, had been materially improved; the children were leading better and healthier lives; and the local authorities had been brought into contact with elementary and secondary education in a better way than under the old system. Schemes of scholarships 1265 which were utterly impossible under the old school boards had been set forth, the training of teachers had been materially improved, and many young people were going to the secondary schools, and afterwards into the pupil - teachers' centres and training colleges, in a way which was utterly impossible before the Act of 1902.
He admitted that the Board of Education had not been able to do much except in the way of guidance and direction in regard to the secondary schools. The local authorities had accomplished far more for the secondary schools than many hon. Members would have dared to hope for in the stormy months of 1902. Professor Michael Sadler had rendered valuable assistance by going about advising the great local authorities as to the schemes which they should adopt in their several districts for the coordination of elementary, secondary, and higher education. The must not be impatient. They must not in the contemplation of the difficulties which had arisen, and which had been largely influenced by sectarian prejudice in Wales, give them undue prominence and lose sight of the great good that was being accomplished in the country. He did not regret that the cost of education had increased, but he regretted most emphatically the present division of that cost as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the local authorities. He was bound to dissent from the view which had been expressed several times that evening that the Education Act of 1902 had accomplished no good and produced much mischief. He was one of those who looked at the Act, not from the point of view of the voluntary schools, or from the standpoint of a political Party, but simply from the point of view of the children of the next generation, and he could say that the Act had done a great deal of good.
There were one or two phrases in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education with which he agreed, viz., those in which the hon. Baronet had drawn attention to the fact that in some districts the new educational authorities were attempting to take the details of educational administration into their own 1266 hands, and out of those of the local managers. This constant attention to detail resulted in the loss of primary control. He hoped that the education committees would accept the advice of the Secretary to the Board of Education, and delegate more of their powers to local managers. In this way the committees would be able to d vote more attention to working out the larger problems of education, and would obviate the danger of letting the whole control of educational work fall into the hands of permanent officials, than which there could be no greater danger to the cause of education in this country.
His main object in addressing the Committee was to call attention to one special detail in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. Several months ago he had himself endeavored to bring before the House the serious difficulty under which several districts laboured on account of the utter impossibility of carrying out the Education Act in consequence of the heavy burden that fell on the local rates. The statement of the hon. Baronet in regard to this point was, to his mind, not very clear. So far as he understood the hon. Gentleman, the local authorities were now free to exclude children under five years of age from school. It was admitted that both educationally and from the point of view of public health these children were better excluded, yet the Board of Education went on encouraging their attendance by the grants offered. Was that courageous? Was that safeguarding the future of the children? There was a mass of evidence that the health of children under five years of age was impaired by attendance at school, and the medical profession were unanimous in supporting that view. He himself believed that epidemics amongst young children, which were the cause of so much sorrow, would be lessened or prevented if these very young children were excluded from the public schools. In his judgment, infants of tender years should be taught under the care of trained nurses in a creche where their deficiencies and deformities could be recognised and treated. The Board of Education, with its usual lack of courage 1267 and disregard of public opinion, went on I paying grants for these children under five years of age. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: And you go on voting for them.] His hon. friend was somewhat too previous, and, as usual, inaccurate. It was unfortunate that this vote could not be taken on that particular issue; otherwise it had been his intention to move a reduction of the Vote as he had done on other occasions without much help from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As he understood the scheme of the hon. Baronet, these children were to be paid for, but not at the full rate. Was the difference between the lesser grant and the whole grant of 35s. to be devoted to the relief of the heavily-rated districts? A scheme had been worked out which it was calculated would give East Ham the relief of a 1½d. in the £. If the hon. Baronet was prepared to give more, how much would he give? Three pence? He would take the amount as three pence, and that would leave the local authority of East Ham with a rate of 2s. 9d. in the £He was sure that the local authority would not take that petty relief, and he ventured to prophesy that the Board of Education would have more trouble in this matter in the autumn than over the Welsh schools. There was a growing feeling in the country that the present system was manifestly unjust. He insisted that the proposed scheme was unworthy of the Government; and certainly it was utterly insufficient for the district he represented. He wondered that anybody, knowing what the difficulty was, and how heavily these people were burdened, had the courage to stand up and propose such a paltry scheme. The money would be absolutely frittered away over, instead of being ear-marked to assist, the districts where the need was the greatest. If he could have a clear issue on this question he would record his vote against the Government, and he held that if the districts whose opinion he attempted to voice were represented in the House according to population, the Government would not have dared to propose such a scheme.
§ MR. EDWARDS (Radnor)
said he sympathised with the hon. Member who 1268 had just spoken in the bitter feeling that he had towards the scheme of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman, like Mr. Snodgrass, had apparently made up his mind to take his coat off. It seemed rather late in the session to have found out what he ought to have done earlier. There had hardly been a speaker on the Ministerial side who had said a good word for the Government in the matter of education. The only exception was the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs, who was one of his own countrymen. He, however, had not had time to be labour the Government because he spent the whole of his speech in belabouring the hon. Member for Carnarvon. In doing that he had quoted a speech by the right hon. Member for East Fife who asked—What are we going to do?We have only one remedy in this matter. After all, it is a very simple remedy. It is that if you want to give children sectarian religious instruction you should do it at your own charge. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education, in May last asked how it was possible to have two standards for good repair—one for voluntary schools and one for council schools. To suggest that there was a double standard in Wales was an unjust imputation. The same accusation had been made in his own county. At one of the meetings of the education committee a member said it was reported that a great difference was made by the committee between provided and non-provided schools, and the same sort of statement was used by an hon. and learned Member opposite. His friend said that statement was perfectly untrue as regarded the county he lived in. Of course, his friend was a Radical and Nonconformist, and many people might suppose that his information was rather biassed. But he appealed to the chairman of the building committee, who was a Churchman and Tory, and he confirmed his friend's statement and said it was quite true that they were treating the non-provided schools and the provided schools on their own merits. There was therefore no foundation for the charge of a double standard. He dared say the managers of some of the voluntary schools had found themselves in difficulties, but he thought they had produced 1269 their difficulties by their extravagance in spending money which was not their own. In his own county there was a very great increase in expenditure after the appointed day in the first year under the Act. For example, in the matter of books and stationery two years before the appointed day the average expenditure was £427. After the appointed day it rose to £585, an increase of £158. For fuel, lighting, and cleaning the average before the appointed day was £498. That rose to £575 the first year after the appointed day. If the schools were as efficient as they were said to have been before the appointed day, it seemed to him to have been gross extravagance to have increased the expenditure in that way.
The Board of Education were very hard on the Welsh county councils and charged them with law-breaking. In Wales they found the clerical party also charging the Welsh county councils with law-breaking. He desired to speak with respect of the leaders of his Church, but was it wise for them to bring this charge against the Welsh county councils, and to denounce an opposition which was based on conscience? At that very time a Royal Commission was sitting, which had a mass of startling evidence before it of law-breaking on the part of the clergy who, in matters of ritual and doctrine, were breaking—conscientiously, no doubt—but still breaking their legal oaths and solemn pledges. The Nonconformists of Wales were breaking no oaths. The only thing that they avowed was that education which was paid for by the people of the country should be under their control.
With regard to the charge of lawlessness one of the Welsh Bishops, the Bishop of St. David's, had set the seal of his approval on the Welsh Nonconformist policy. The Bishop, on the 30th May, demonstrated that the county of Merioneth, by using the aid grant under Section 10 of the Act of 1902 mainly for non-provided schools, would have been able to maintain all these schools without taking a penny from the rates. The Bishop regarded this manipulation of the aid grant as the "dignified course which would have 1270 been worthy of the county's honourable religious record." These were his words about a country which he and his friends denounced as law-breaking when it suited their convenience. The Bishop, so far from questioning the justice of the Nonconformist contention, showed them a more excellent way of carrying out their policy, and after that Episcopal sanction they could no longer be charged with law-breaking. But the Welsh county councils were more scrupulously legal than their opponents in refusing to use the aid grant which was calculated on the average attendance in all schools entirely for one class of schools. The balance of the aid grant which came out of the Imperial Exchequer was, he believed, handed over to the Diocesan Associations. He was told that these Diocesan Association had used that balance for the repair of voluntary schools. What he wanted to point out was that a conscience which saw in the aid grant at one time a means for repairing non-provided schools and at another time a method of carrying on the Welsh policy, whatever else it might be, was certainly not inelastic. The Welsh people were the most law-abiding people in the United Kingdom, and their consciences were sensitive to anything like outrage. In Wales it was a matter of conscience, and he would ask whether English Churchmen were wise in needlessly offending their Welsh brethren, when at no distant date, as they all believed, the Act must and would be amended. Meanwhile, what was happening? The officials at Whitehall, instead of establishing and setting in order a great system of national education, were spending their time in answering architectural conundrums, and in voluminous correspondence about paltry quibbles and straw-splittings. It reminded one of the earlier days of Rugby football when they saw two sides hacking each other fiercely while the ball lay at a distance neglected by both. Was it too late to plead for wiser counsels in the matter of the administration of the Act in Wales? If the controversy went on, probably neither side would get what it wanted. Was there not yet time for the leaders of both sides, by mutual consession, to put an end to the strife? Wales was unanimous and resolute, and it 1271 felt acutely and expressed with vigour the growing feeling of all classes of the community about the injustice of the Education Act of 1902.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)
said that, representing as he did East Ham, he must express regret at the meagre relief which was to be offered to the distressed districts. He remembered well the words used by the Prime Minister as to the extravagance of East Ham in the administration of the Act, and he was fortunate to prove that East Ham was not extravagant, but compared favourably in the matter of economy with any other district, the cost per head being £3 7s. 5d. as compared with £4 1s. 6d. for London. The proposal of the Secretary to the Board of Education to give relief all round was not in conformity with the promise held out to the East Ham Council when it rescinded its resolution. He did not say that a pledge was given to East Ham that the distressed districts should be relieved, but he did say that they were under an impression that relief would be afforded them, and in consequence of that they rescinded their resolution. He would, if he might, point out the great interest and anxiety which existed in East Ham with regard to the matter. It was a supporter of the Government who moved that the council should not administer the Education Act; and on the day in which the resolution of the council was rescinded, he had a long talk with Mr. Effingham begging him to rescind the resolution in order that the hands of the Government might be unfettered. That gentleman took his advice, and the excitement under which he laboured was so great that he died within half-an-hour of having rescinded the resolution. He thought he was doing something which would unfetter the hands of the Government, and which would enable relief to be afforded to that distressed district.
What was the relief? He gathered that instead of 22s. per head, the annual grant, they were to get 24s., 2s. more, and that children from three to five years of age need not attend the elementary schools. That was no relief at all, and the proposal of the Government at this 1272 late period of the session would produce throughout the country the deepest disappointment, because they had hoped that the money which they would now save and which would not go to the education of children between three to five years of age would have been allocated, not to districts which were well off and which had only to pay 4d., 5d., or 6d. in rates for educational purposes, but to districts which had to pay, as East Ham would have to pay next year, 3s. to the educational rate, in spite of the relief which had been promised. It would cause the bitterest resentment, and would no doubt be the means of united action on the part of distressed districts in order to see what they could do to force the hands of the Government.
What was it that East Ham and other districts required? They said they did not educate the children for East Ham alone. The burden was cast upon them of educating the children to a certain extent for the whole of the county. Whether they dwelt eventually in London or East Ham they were bound to give them an efficient education, and was it fair for the Government to give money at its disposal to rich towns and boroughs which had voluntary schools, which did not require the dole, and which could do without it thoroughly well, and not give relief to them? Relief was promised in the Act of 1902; it was promised that the relief given to distressed districts would be greater than under the act of 1897. Nothing of the kind had taken place. East Ham, as he could conclusively prove, received less. It only received 10s. 3d. per head now, whereas under the workings of the old Act it received 10s. 6d. per head. Consequently, it was in a worse position than before; it felt that the pledges given to it as a distressed district had not been fulfilled, and that in the hopes raised when the deputation waited upon the Prime Minister they had been disappointed. East Ham in the last few years had grown from 20,000 to 120,000 in population, and they must now look forward, although they had a general rate of 9s. 6d. in the £to that rate being increased, not only owing to the increase of population, but also on account of the burden 1273 cast upon them in the administration of the Education Act. The position of East Ham would become more and more intolerable. When other districts found themselves in the same position, he did not know what their action would be. He remembered that when the i council decided to rescind their resolution, they said that they would again decline to administer the Act; and they would do all they possibly could to show how impossible it was for them to tear the enormous burden which would be cast upon them in the future. He thought the opinion was shared by all that the burden of education should not rest upon the district alone, but that it should be borne by the State with a certain contribution from the local authority. He appreciated what the hon. Member for Camberwell had said with regard to the need for a better administration of moneys, and with regard to the equalisation of the State contribution and the local burden. The Government should make good the deficiencies which the local authorities were unable to bear, and until that was done there would be no satisfaction, and the Education Act of 1902 would be a farce.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
said there was a good deal of sympathy on their side of the House with the hon. Member who had just spoken and with the hon. Member for West Ham in their disappointment that the Government had not fulfilled the pledge given early in the year, but their sympathy was tempered with the feeling that it was rather late in the day for anyone to be deceived by the promises of the Government. He intended to vote with the Welsh Members, and he desired to express the feeling of continued amazement which filled him when he contemplated the educational position in Wales. After all, the people in England could hardly claim to be regarded as great lovers of education, but if there was one part of the United Kingdom where they really cared for education, it was Wales. The Welsh people had shown it by the sacrifices they had made and were prepared to make for it. Yet they found themselves in a position of declaring war upon that part of the 1274 United Kingdom. He sometimes thought the action of the Department must be based upon ignorance, and that the mistakes made in dealing with Wales arose from supposing Wales to be the same as England. Surely a wise Education Minister would have delighted to honour Wales, and so have administered the Act as to deal with a people who loved education in a gentle way, encouraging them in the good course they had hitherto pursued. Instead of that, however, the Government had declared war upon the very people who had cared for education. They had passed through the House, by means of the closure, a Coercion Act for the Welsh authorities, who, after all, were carrying out the will of the people who elected them; and they were trying to compel the Welsh people to accept a system which did violence to their consciences. It was a foolish attempt and was doomed to failure.
He could not say that the speech of the Minister of Education that afternoon was pitched in a very triumphant key. It was very largely an admission of the criticisms made upon t e Education Bill when it passed through the House in 1902. Member after Member had pointed to the danger, admitted that day by the Minister, of increasing centralisation, and the displacement of all local management and interest in the carrying on of the schools. He could endorse that from his personal experience as a manager. Authorities were taking more and more into their hands and were depriving managers of practically all functions in connection with the schools, and he thought the right hon. Baronet would have to do something more than implore the education authorities not to destroy local interest, and would have to compel them to leave more to local initiative and management if he wished to prevent the whole educational system from passing into the hands of the officials of those authorities. Centralisation at the present moment went down to the smallest detail, and managers were discouraged from taking any practical interest in the schools. He was not surprised that the managers were not trusted and that local interest was 1275 dying out, because the parents of the districts were not allowed to choose the managers. When the school board in a town in his constituency was dispossessed, the chairman and the leading members of the board were ignored, and two people who at the last election had been rejected were placed at the head of the managers. That was the way to kill education in the country. Nothing made up for local interest: no machinery, no equipment, no expenditure would secure an efficient system unless the parents cared about education and were in a position to give effect to their interest in the schools. The Act of 1902 was killing the interest of the localities', and they were not getting full return for their vast expenditure upon education. Unless steps were taken to revive the interest of the localities, there would be mere and more to criticise and complain of in the working of the Education Act.
He wished to thank the Minister for his promise that lessons in hygiene and temperance would in future be included in the curriculum of the schools. As an old temperance worker, he would like to congratulate the temperance societies on the work which they had done and which had at last been crowned by the acceptance of their teaching by the Government. The history of the movement was one of extreme interest. The unlearned had taught the learned, and scientific men were taking lessons from men who had no science other than the experience of life. The doctors of to-day were learning the lesson pretty thoroughly. Last year a remarkable petition, signed by nearly 15,000 doctors practising in the United Kingdom, was presented by a deputation, headed by Sir William Broadbent, to Lord Londonderry, asking the Education Department to establish hygiene and temperance teaching in the schools. Lord Londonderry replied that he could do nothing until the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee had been issued. That Report was a justification, if any were needed, of the statements made by the doctors in their petition, and endorsed their recommendation that all the children in the schools 1276 should be trained in hygiene and temperance. The right hon. Baronet talked about exaggeration in some of the syllabuses drawn up in this connection, but he would ask Members not to rule out any statements as extravagant merely because they went beyond their own experience. In this matter the strongest statements had been made by men who knew most about it. He had been engaged in temperance work for twenty years, and his statements on the matter grew stronger year by year the more he knew about the subject. He was therefore not surprised to find that the Committee on Physical Deterioration used strong language, and declared that it was convinced that the consumption of alcoholic stimulants was a most potent and deadly agent of physical deterioration. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet would call that exaggeration. It was certainly strong enough to satisfy even himself, and he was thankful the Minister was willing to act upon it and introduce this teaching. But they had not seen the syllabus, and he felt some uneasiness lest in his desire to avoid exaggeration the hon. Baronet should have minimised the truth. What they wanted was a course of teaching in hygiene and temperance which would exactly state the present position of the scientific world upon the quest on. He did not understand why the right hon. Baronet had not consulted the representative committee of doctors which waited upon Lord Londonderry. He regretted that he had not taken counsel With that powerful body, which would, he felt sure, have supplied the Board of Education with a course of teaching which would have been safeguarded from exaggeration by the eminent scientific attainments of the men composing it, and which would have embodied neither more nor less than the truth upon this vital question.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said that as a Member for an agricultural constituency, he should like to be allowed to voice the complaint the agricultural districts had. He did not speak as an enemy of education at all, for he had always done his best to assist the Board of Education, and he supported the 1277 Education Act and still had no doubt that their expectations in regard to it would be fulfilled; but he spoke on behalf of farmers unable to understand fine points of education, and he thought he might be able to show that, although they were good friends of education, they did labour under considerable difficulties. Farmers did not and could not understand the extraordinary benefits that would result to them in the long run from education. He had hoped that the present Act would have overcome those difficulties to a certain extent, but the education was no better than it was, and the charge had been very heavily increased. Whatever the result might be in the long run, there was no doubt whatever that at the present time the education rates under which farmers laboured were very heavy and difficult to bear. The hon. Member for Camber-well, with whom he always wished to find all the fault he could, had an unfortunate knack of putting into his speeches something with which he was bound to agree, and the hon. Member had admirably voiced the hope, which he also entertained, that the Government would inquire into the incidence of taxation as between the local and the Imperial contributions. He would not, like his hon. friend behind him, boldly demand that the whole of the burden should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, but he certainly thought that some proportion, to be determined after proper inquiry, should be so borne, leaving the balance to be provided by the locality as a guarantee that the money would not be wasted. He did not believe that sectarian feeling would ever be eliminated. The main point he desired to press upon the Government was that in the country districts they were suffering under a burden which, while not impossible, was very difficult for them to bear, and that people whom they had persuaded of its value were being made to dislike education by reason of the heavy pecuniary sacrifice they were called upon to make.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had dealt with several points, some of which hardly concerned the Board of Education at all. The spread of infectious disease and the 1278 employment of children out of school hours concerned rather the Local Government Board and the Home Office than the Board of Education, but in respect of managers looking after the homes of school children, he had always advocated that as the real remedy for some of the evils of which complaint was made. He fully agreed that to the personal influence of the managers on the homes of the children we might look for an amelioration of the condition of the children. As to the feeding and medical inspection of children, he hoped soon that the Committee which had been appointed would make its Report. He believed it would appear that there was more voluntary effort available for the purpose of feeding children than had been supposed; that individuals and small bodies of persons, as well as the known and recognised societies, had provided meals for children without any attempt at organisation; and that if all these resources were brought we together should go a long way to meet the difficulty. As to medical inspection, there was a great deal already going on in the boroughs, though not in the counties. Many of the new local education authorities had medical officers of their own, being sanitary as well as education authorities. They did not appoint medical officers, as the school boards did, for special education purposes, but they used to some extent the officer who belonged to them as sanitary authority for the purposes of the schools. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he entirely agreed with him that this question of medical inspection was of the utmost importance, and that he hoped for good results from the Report of this Committee. So far as he had anything to do with the matter, he would do his best to promote the medical inspection of children in the schools.
The right hon. Member for Aberdeen had addressed the Committee somewhat as though he were speaking on the Second Reading of a Bill amending the Education Act of 1902. He commented on the shortcomings of the Act, and on the various ways in which it might be bettered, but in one matter he did injustice to the Act as it stood. He said that the managers of the schools had no power, could have no power, and could receive no power 1279 such as the managers formerly possessed from the local education authorities. If he looked at the schedule of the Act he would see that the managers could have just as much authority as the local authority chose to give them. They could constitute sub committees consisting wholly or in part of their own members to deal with any matter that the local education authority chose to entrust to them, so that there would be no difficulty in constituting sub-committees for elementary education throughout an area and entrusting managers with extensive powers which would make them fully capable of attending to the details of the affairs of the elementary schools. As regarded the effect of the Act on secondary schools and the action of local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman complained of it as likely to be of no effect. All he could say was that the number of secondary schools had been trebled in the last three years, and the right hon. Gentleman would have to go back a number of years under the law as it stood before the Act of 1902 to find anything like such an increase. With reference to the fear that by reducing the grant the Board would reduce the efficiency of the higher elementary schools, he might say that the had reduced the grant because they had reduced the excessive requirements which made the schools so expensive that no local authority chose to bring them into existence. They could combine the extension of the teaching in the schools with the technical instruction suited for the requirements of the area at a less cost than was involved by the maintenance of higher elementary schools under the rules of 1900. They had not sacrificed efficiency in any way, although they had been able to reduce the grant.
Some hon. Members had been very severe as to the proposals he had nude in regard t o the use of the money which might be saved by the Exclusion of children under five. He had never suggested that he was offering a remedy for rating inequalities. Those could only be dealt with by a serious effort to alter rating burdens or rateable areas. What he did offer was the employment of money which would 1280 be saved by the exclusion of children under five so that no area would lose, and that some areas would substantially gain. The hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for West Ham seemed to him unduly to minimise the substantial reduction in the burden upon East Ham which would result from this exclusion. They seemed to forget that every child under five was stated by the hon. Member for West Ham to cost the local authority £1 over aid above the Parliamentary grant, and that for every child between five and seven and a-half the increase of grant was 7s., and above that age 2s., which meant a substantial addition to the resources of the area. In addition to that, the provision of school accommodation in areas with growing populations was materially effected, and their liabilities considerably diminished by the exclusion of children under five years of age. It was not entirely a settled question whether children of five were better inside or outside of school, though his own inclination was towards the view that they were tatter outside. To say that the Board of Education had shown a want of courage in leaving it to the local education authorities to determine what. was best for their respective areas was an unfair criticism on the Board, and showed some little want of confidence in the local authorities. He believed the division of the grant was a fair division. His critics forgot that if the money saved by withdrawing grants for children under five had been exclusively devoted to the necessitous areas, these rural counties which had nothing to gain by his exclusion of these children and much to lose by the withdrawal of the grant, would have suffered heavily. At any rate the Department had done the best it could with the money at its disposal, not for the relief of rating inequalities, but for educational purposes.
He deeply regretted that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should have introduced in terms of reproach the names of permanent officers unable to defend themselves?. Such action was unusual and uncalled for, and he believed it would be deprecated by most Members of the House. For every word spoken, every letter written, 1281 and every act done by those gentlemen he personally was responsible, and he was glad of the opportunity of paying a just tribute to the eminent merits of the officials concerned with whom he was proud to act in the work of his Department. The hon. Member also thought fit to say that he had made a series of deliberately false statements.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I must correct that. If I said that the hon. Member made a deliberately false statement the Chairman would certainly have called upon me. to withdraw. I distinctly said that I did not charge the hon. Member with making deliberately false statements. "What I said was that he repeated statements that were false, which is a very different thing.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSON
said he understood the hon. Member to use the word "deliberate," but he gladly accepted his assurance that that was not so. With regard to Denbighshire, although he had made a blunder in the mode of expression, as he admitted to the Denbighshire County Council, in substance and spirit what he said was strictly true. In March the county council wrote to all the voluntary schools requiring them to carry out the improvements demanded by the inspector by April 1st. In February and March the Board of Education wrote to the county council asking them to carry out certain improvements and repairs in the council schools, but they were met time after time with the statement that these matters must be referred to the county surveyor, who would not enter upon his duties until the beginning of April. He submitted, therefore, that he was right in saying that different standards were established for the council and for the voluntary schools. He was glad to say the county council withdrew those demands upon the voluntary schools and gave them a reasonable time to carry out the improvements required.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
asked whether the hon. Baronet was aware of the time that elapsed between the service of the first notice with regard to the reports and the 1st of March to which he referred.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
was understood to say that the voluntary schools received no formal notice of the requirements before March 1st.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON,
passing to the Pontypridd School, said the facts were these. In 1904 the county council wrote to the Board saying the school was insanitary and unfit for the use and occupation of children. The Board agreed, and the school was transferred to the council. Immediately afterwards the council asked to be allowed to utilise the buildings for eighteen months while another school was built. The Board stated that they could only allow it ii the alterations in the offices were made which the county council themselves had demanded from the voluntary school managers. He believed that within a reasonable time those alterations were carried out, but his point was that whereas the county council had said that the school was unfit for the occupation of children while it was a voluntary school, immediately it became a council school they asked to be allowed to us it without any alterations whatever.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that, as to the Carnarvonshire schools, he thought the hon. Member for Carnarvon must know very well that there were a great many in serious need of repair, but the Board of Education had the greatest difficulty not merely in getting the repairs done but in getting an answer from the local authorities as to when they would be begun. And when loans were talked of, he thought the hon Member ought to know that, so far as he could learn from the Local Government Board, the only two loans authorised were one 1283 for a school at Llandudno of £4,000 and one of £600 for general repairs, and that really was a very small proportion of the £30,000 which the hon. Member said, in so magnificent a way, was the amount which the local authorities were prepared to spend in the repair of their schools.
The hon. Member said they had provoked a conflict. But who started the conflict? Who started the "No Rate" resolution? Who started what was popularly known as "the Lloyd-George" policy? He did not think the Board of Education could be said to have embarked upon a conflict in Wales when the hon. Member for Carnarvon had gone about the county addressing public meetings and urging the local authorities to set at nought the Act of 1902. The Board were asked "Why make this a period of conflict?" His reply was that they could not allow it to be made a period of oppression; they
§ could not allow the teachers to have their salaries dealt with as was the case in the county of Montgomery, where money which teachers had earned during the quarter preceding the holidays was withheld, and where not merely inconvenience, but actual distress was caused by the action of the local authority; or managers to be oppressed by the nonpayment of money due to them for the maintenance of the schools. Sorry as they were to continue the conflict which was begun by the hon. Gentleman, the Board of Education must see to the observance of the law, and they must take care that no injustice or hardship was done either to the managers, teachers, or children in the voluntary schools.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 250. (Division List No. 319.)1287
|Abraham, Wm, (Cork, N.E.)||Dalziel, James Henry||Hardie,J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Delany, William||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Allen, Charles P.||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)||Harwood, George|
|Ambrose, Robert||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Dobbie, Joseph||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Donelan, Captain A.||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Doogan, P. C.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Duncan, J. Hastings||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.|
|Benn, John Williams||Dunn, Sir William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Black, Alexander William||Edwards, Frank||Higham, John Sharp|
|Boland, John||Elibank, Master of||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Brigg, John||Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrew's Bghs||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Emmott, Alfred||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Burns, John||Farrell, James Patrick||Joicey, Sir James|
|Burt, Thomas||Fenwick, Charles||Jones, David B. (Swansea)|
|Buxton, N,E.(YorkN.R.Whitby||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Ffrench, Peter||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Field, William||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Flynn, James Christopher||Kilbride, Denis|
|Cawley, Frederick||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Kitson, Sir James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry||Labouchere, Henry|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Fuller, J. M. F.||Lambert, George|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Gilhooly, James||Lamont, Norman|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Langley, Batty|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Grant, Corie||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Crean, Eugene||Griffith, Ellis J.||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)|
|Cromer, William Randal||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Crombie, John William||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||Levy, Maurice|
|Crooks, William||Hammond, John||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Cullinan, J.||Harcourt, Lewis||Lloyd-George, David|
|Lough, Thomas||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Lundon, W.||O'Malley, William||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||O'Mara, James||Spencer, RtHnCR(Northants)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||O'Shee, James John||Sullivan, Donal|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Parrott, William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|M'Fadden, Edward||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Tennant, Harold John|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|M'Kean, John||Perks, Robert William||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Pirie, Duncan V.||Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Tillett, Louis John|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Price, Robert John||Tomkinson, James|
|Mooney, John J.||Priestley, Arthur||Toulmin, George|
|Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)||Rea, Russell||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose||Reckitt, Harold James||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Moss, Samuel||Reddy, M.||Wallace, Robert|
|Moulton, Johu Fletcher||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Muldoon, John||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Murnaghan, George||Richards, Thomas||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Murphy, John||Rickett, J. Compton||Weir, James Galloway|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Newnes, Sir George||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Norman, Henry||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Rose, Charles Day||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)||Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)|
|O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Samuel, S. M. (Whiteehapel)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. Isle of Wight||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Shackleton, David James||Young, Samuel|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Yoxall James Henry|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sheehy, David|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||TELLERS FOR, THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|O'Dowd, John||Slack, John Bamford|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brymer, William Ernest||Dixon-Hartland- Sir F. Dixon|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Bull, William James||Dorington Rt. Hn. Sir John E.|
|Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell||Butcher, John George||Doughty Sir George|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Campbell, J. H. M(Dublin Univ.||Douglas,Rt. Hn. A. Akers|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O||Carlile, William Walter||Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore|
|Arrol, Sir William||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.||Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc.||Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edwd.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. JSir(Manc'r|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A.J. (Manch'r)||Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Chapman, Edward||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn GeraldW(Leeds||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Finlay, Rt. HnSir RB(Inv'rn'ss|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Coates, Edward Feetham||Fison, Frederick William|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael H.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Forster, Henry William|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)|
|Bigwood, James||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Bill, Charles||Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile||Gardner Ernest|
|Bingham, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Garfit William|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Davenport, William Bromley||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)||Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'm'ts)|
|Brassey, Albert||Dickson, Charles Scott||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn Sir Joseph C.||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)|
|Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Macdona, John Cumming||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Gretton, John||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Groves, James Grimble||Maconochie, A. W.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.|
|Halsey, Rt.Hn. Thomas F.||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x||Marks, Harry Hananel||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col.Ed. J.|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Maxwell, Rt HnSirHE(Wigt'n)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Maxwell.W J H(Dumfriesshire)||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew|
|Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N. W.||Milvain, Thomas||Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)|
|Helder, Sir Augustus||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Smith. HC (North'mbTydeside|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Morpeth, Viscount||Spear, John Ward|
|Hill, Henry Staveley||Morrell, George Herbert||Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Morrison, James Archibald||Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset|
|Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Mount, William Arthur||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hoult, Joseph||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stroyan, John|
|Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham.)||Myers, William Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Nicholson, William Graham||Talbot, Rt. HnJ G. Oxf'd Univ.|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parkes, Ebenezer||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)||Tuff, Charles|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Peel Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley||Turnour, Viscount|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Percy Earl||Vincent, Col. SirC. EH(Sheffield.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Pierpoint, Robert||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Kerr, John||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Welby, Lt. -Col. A.C.E. (Taunton|
|Keswick, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward||Whitmore, Charles Algernon.|
|Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Purvis, Robert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pym, C. Guy||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Lawson. Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End)||Randles, John S.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn.E.R. (Bath|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Rankin, Sir James||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ratcliff, R. F.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Reid, James (Greenock)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Lockwood, Lieut, Col. A. R.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Renwick, George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alerander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson|
|Lowe, Francis William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.