THE BISHOP OF BANGORasked the Lord President of the Council whether an iron and wood building at Uwchygarreg, in the County of Montgomery, which had been recognised by the Education Department for 20 years as a suitable building for an outlying school, 1152 had now been condemned, notwithstanding the fact that it was in excellent repair and in all respects a suitable building; and whether any Petition from the ratepayers of the district had been received on the subject?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)The rev. Prelate is, I daresay, aware the Rule of the Department has always been, I am informed, to recognise iron and wood buildings only temporarily to meet an emergency, and I presume that some mistake must have been made in recognising this building. It certainly appears that for reasons with which I am not acquainted, this building has been allowed to occupy the position of a recognised school for a very long period—as the rev. Prelate states, for nearly 20 years. The attention of the Department having been called to the nature of the building in June last, in the Report of a new Inspector who had visited the school, the Department considered it was not proper that they should continue to sanction the use of this building for a permanent school entirely contrary, as I said before, to the universal rule observed in these matters. The consequence was, that the managers were communicated with on the subject, the result being an offer by the Department not to recognise the school until April 30, 1895.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYYes; I am inclined to think that is a mistake for 1894. That offer was made, if the managers would undertake (1) to build a permanent school; (2) to improve (a) the ventilation of the existing school and (b) the offices. This offer was not accepted, and the rector of the parish, who is one of the managers, writing on behalf of the Vestry of the ratepayers, has very recently suggested that the school is in fact unnecessary for the supply of the district, and Her Majesty's Inspector will now visit the district to confer with the managers on this point, and see whether the school is really required or not. That is all I have to say upon the subject.
THE BISHOP OF BANGORthanked the noble Lord for the information which he had given, but thought a mistake must have been made with regard to the 1153 rector. He asked whether, if the Report of the Inspector were unfavourable to the school, the Department would consider the question of extending the time for building until 1895? The school was situate in a remote valley towards Plinlimmon, and the population, which was very small—only some 20 to 23— was rapidly diminishing. It was likely that if it continued to diminish at the present rate no school would be required in that district. He thought, under the circumstances, the Department having recognised the school for 20 years, might continue to recognise it for a short time longer.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI cannot give any promise that if the school is not required it will continue to be recognised. I can only say the Report of the Inspector will be waited for; and the question of the time within which a new school, if necessary, is to be re-built will be carefully considered.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI only want to take notice of a phrase of the noble Earl's in which he defended the action of the Education Department on the ground that it was in conformity with their universal rule. It is one of the defects of the Department that they are for ever saying to themselves—"We are the Medes and Persians, and our Rules must not be departed from." The greatest sinner in the Department—I do not know his name, and, therefore, speak With absolute impartiality—is the architect, who is, I believe, one of the most serious injuries to the cause of education in this country, because he is always providing for requirements which are entirely in excess of the necessities of the case, and which have no support except the eternal muttering of that one formula, "It is in accordance with our invariable rule." This want of elasticity opposes a very great obstacle to the spread of education, and the erection of useful schools. I will call the attention of the noble Lord to this circumstance: that it takes no notice of the progress of science. Iron buildings are very different from what they were when this rule was made 30 or 40 years ago, and such buildings are now used by Nonconformists and by all religions denominations for the holding of divine worship. Therefore, this prejudice against iron and wood, if it is 1154 not to be attributed to the ordinary prepossessions of the architect, is, I think, a very belated rule, and one which the noble Earl would do well to consider for. himself.
EARL WEMYSSsaid, he could speak with some experience upon this matter, as in his county, Haddingtonshire, there had been a great contest with reference to building an hospital. The first estimate for a building to contain 16 beds was £4,000. He had an idea that a wooden structure with an iron roof would be cheaper and more sanitary for hospital purposes than a stone building. Plans and estimates were obtained, and in the result it was almost unanimously agreed to put up a building of that description costing £2,000 instead of £4,000. In this county, where stone and brick are; abundant, wooden buildings were little heard of; but that was not the case abroad. In Switzerland wooden buildings dating from the 16th and 17th centuries were still existing in excellent condition. In Ireland, the same thing was to be seen at Cork, where there were some wooden buildings erected for the reception of French prisoners during the Napoleonic wars, and certainly about 80 years old. Barrack accommodation being required, those buildings were tested and found to be perfectly sound; they were tarred over and built on a stone or brick foundation. The sergeants and their families who lodge there were delighted with them, while those in the stone huts were complaining and wanted to go into the wooden ones. The cells in the prison were also as dry and warm as possible after 80 years. As the noble Marquess had stated, many improvements had been made in these structures. In the case of the hospital building he had mentioned, the space between the two linings of wood—inner and outer—was filled with some material which was water, air, and rat-proof, and in some way the roof had been constructed to give no sound. In these days of high rates, which were annually increasing, it was very desirable to get for half the price a building which was really better than a stone one. This hospital had been passed by the Board of Supervision which was responsible in all matters under the Poor Law and of Public Health.
§ LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, that having had the honour of holding the 1155 office of Vice President of the Education Department, he might perhaps observe that he could not assent to the rule as laid down by the noble Earl opposite. He had laid it down too broadly. It was true that the Department would not give a permanent character to a building put up temporarily in a district where a more substantial building would be required. But that rule would not apply to a case like the present, where the district was in a remote valley, and where the population was very small, and, if he understood the right rev. Prelate aright, was diminishing. The conditions of the place would be recognised by the Department, and a building which would be temporary in one state of things might, if substantial and fitted to the place, be permanent in another state of things. This building had, in fact, been sanctioned and recognised by the Department for 20 years, and it was, he might almost say, monstrous for the Department now to come down and order the erection of a stone or brick building. The case should be re-considered.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am not, of course, responsible for what has been done; but there is, I am told, no record in the Department to show that they ever intended to recognise, or ever did recognise, this as a permanent building. How it arose I am unable to explain; but the Department are informed that this school is, in fact, a building of wood and iron.
§ LORD KNUTSFORDWhich was recognised as permanent.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy noble Friend opposite says after the Department had sanctioned it; but they never sanctioned it as such. It seems to me very strange they should have been so long unaware of the nature of this structure. Perhaps I used rather too strong a term in saying the rule was universal. My object was to show that there was no exceptional treatment in this case, and the rule is not to recognise buildings of that kind as permanent school buildings.
EARL WEMYSSsaid, the same thing had been done in the County of Peebles, and, he was told, in Roxburgh also.
THE BISHOP OF BANGORsaid, as to this building being intended to be permanent, it was very substantial, and far more permanent than many 1156 stone buildings in the district. And as to it having been sanctioned, it had been passed for 20 years, which was much the same thing.