Lords Sitting of 30 March 1897

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE),who, on rising to move the Second Reading of the Voluntary Schools Bill, was received with cheers, said: My Lords,— In moving the Second Reading of this Bill my task will be a much easier but perhaps a less satisfactory one than it would have been if it had been my duty to move the Second Reading of the Bill which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government last year upon the same subject. The present Measure is one which covers a very small scope. It consists
2
of only three provisions, contained in three very simple clauses, only one of which has met with very serious opposition in the other House, and only one of which, as I venture to think, will cause any considerable difference of opinion, amongst your Lordships. I need, I think, take very little of your Lordships' time in referring to what I may call the two minor provisions of this Bill—that which removes what is known as the 17s. 6d. limit, and that which refers to the exemption from rating of Voluntary Schools, The obvious intention of the 17s. 6d, limit which was to provide the means by which voluntary subscriptions should be maintained in proportion to the grant, has not been fully attained. The limit has acted rather as a discouragement to attempts to attain the highest degree of efficiency with the means at the disposal of the managers of the school than to attain the object with which it was proposed—namely, that of keeping up the subscriptions. It has also had the effect, I am afraid, of leading to some irregularities in the keeping of the accounts both of Board and Voluntary Schools, inasmuch as its tendency has been to offer

3
some inducement to showing in the accounts a larger amount of income, from other sources than the grant, than that which has actually been received. I think that is all I need say upon the subject; of the 17s. 6d. limit. As to the clause which exempts Voluntary Schools from the payment of rates, that is a liability winch has imposed an extremely unequal burden on, schools in various localities. In the great majority of cases schools have been rated at only a nominal amount; in some cases they have been rated at their full value, and every variety of practice has prevailed between those two extremes, thereby not only imposing a very unequal charge upon schools in different portions of the country, according to the disposition of the rating authority in regard to the schools, but it had also introduced an uncertainty into the financial administration of the schools which is extremely injurious to anything like sustained and prudent administration. ["Hear, hear!"] I think it is unnecessary for me to say more, on this occasion at all events, upon either of these two point. If they meet with any serious and full examination at your Lordships' hands that examination will probably be conducted more conveniently in Committee on the Bill than in a Debate upon the Second Reading, and I shall come at once to what I have to say as to the main enactment of the Bill, which is that of a provision, of a grant in aid to Voluntary Schools, and the arrangement which it is proposed shall be made for the distribution of that grant. As I have already mentioned, the Bill of last year was a very large one, and covered a very large portion of the field of education. That Bill intended to decentralise the administration of elementary education, and to establish a new education authority in counties and county boroughs, which it was hoped would be able to greatly improve the elementary education in rural districts and which would, both, in rural and in urban districts, have co-ordinated and brought into proper relations with each other primary and secondary education. That Bill provided a grant in aid for the relief of Voluntary and also of necessitous Board Schools, and it created a machinery for the distribution of that grant in aid. The Bill further proposed to deal in what was, at all events, intended to be a fair and impartial spirit—fair
4
both to members of the Church and to Nonconformists — with the grievances under which both felt that they suffered under the Cowper-Temple clause of the Act of 1870. While that, Bill was in no sense intended to cripple or limit the action of the School Boards, which we recognised had in the vast majority of cases been engaged in a useful and efficient work, it did give to the directly-elected representatives of the ratepayers certain powers of control over the expenditure of the School Boards, and it proposed to substitute for School Boards, under certain conditions, an educational authority in rural districts which it was thought was better adapted to the wants of those districts than the School Boards which had been established in 1870. Without entering into the merits or demerits of that Bill, it is sufficient, perhaps, for our purpose to-day to say that, whatever were its merits or demerits, it was at all events found too large a Measure to offer any chance of being successfully passed through the other House of Parliament in the conditions in which that House at present conducts its business. ["Hear, hear!"] That Bill did undoubtedly arouse the suspicions of the friends and supporters of School Boards. It was suspected of an intention which never existed, of being aimed at the usefulness and efficiency of the School Boards. Unexpected difficulties were found in the constitution of the new educational authority, and even some of the friends of Voluntary Schools appeared to view the constitution of that authority with a certain amount of jealousy. The grant in aid which was offered to Voluntary Schools and to Board Schools was insufficient in amount to arouse on the part of either of them that amount of enthusiasm and active support which would have been necessary to pass through Parliament a Bill so comprehensive and far-reaching as that one. When that Bill was withdrawn a pledge was given by the Government—a pledge was given especially to the supporters of the Government, who were in no sense committed to a wide-reaching reform of our educational system, but who were almost universally deeply committed to some measure of relief to Voluntary Schools—that at the earliest possible period in the present Session a Bill would be introduced

5
which should provide at least the same amount of relief to Voluntary Schools as the Measure which was withdrawn had done, and that that Measure should be so limited in its extent and scope as to avoid the danger of the risk of a second failure owing to the undue multiplication of the topics with which it should deal, or from the dangers to which it might be exposed from unnecessarily attacking any prejudices, scruples, or susceptibilities. ["Hear, hear!"] My Lords, the Bill which is now before you has been introduced in fulfilment of that pledge. [Cheers.] The Bill, whatever criticism it may be exposed to, I think it will be admitted, redeems, and does not do more than redeem, the pledge which was given. [Cheers.] It deals with Voluntary Schools only; and it does not profess to be anything in the nature of a complete reform of the educational system. It would be idle for the Government, which was responsible for the much wider proposals of last year, to maintain that this Bill does all that in our opinion might be done, or ought to be done, for the reform of education; but it does deal with one, perhaps the most urgent, portion of the educational system—that of the relief which is necessary, if not to maintain in existence and prevent the extinction of Voluntary Schools, at all events to maintain their efficiency, without which, neither Voluntary nor any other schools can usefully exist. ["Hear, hear!"] It deals with that portion of the question which is necessary to maintain the efficiency, if not the existence, of these schools, which are at present educating more than half the children of our population. ["Hear, hear!"] The case for the relief of Voluntary Schools is one which is not very easy to prove by reference to any general educational statistics. Educational statistics show that in the 20 years which have elapsed between 1875, when the Act had begun to come into full operation, and 1895 the cost of maintenance in Board Schools had increased by about, I think, l3s., while in Voluntary Schools it had increased by about 7s. The excess of cost of maintenance in Board Schools over that in Voluntary Schools had also increased from 5s. in 1875 to something a little over 11s. in 1895. Now if the expenditure by School Boards has not been and is not, as is contended by their
6
friends, an absolutely extravagant one, these figures show at least that, after making all allowance that ought to be made, and which can be made for better economy in voluntary over public administration, the difference between the cost of that education which is considered necessary in Board Schools and the cost which alone can be provided by Voluntary Schools, is greater than is possibly compatible with the full efficiency of Voluntary Schools, and the case that may thus be stated in general terms from general statistics is a great deal stronger if we take the case of schools in our large towns—in Liverpool, in Manchester, Leeds, and especially in London. The difference between the cost of maintenance in Board and Voluntary Schools rises from 12s. to 13s. to 19s. in London, and it is clear that in such a state of things, unless subscriptions are raised to a point which was not considered necessary in 1870, and which I do not think can be reasonably expected now, either these schools must cease to exist or must remain in a state of comparative inefficiency, or else some additional assistance must be given to them from public funds in some manner or other, ["Hear, hear!"] But, my Lords, it is unnecessary, in my opinion, for us in considering this Measure, to bestow labour on the case for Voluntary Schools. It has been fully admitted even by our opponents, fully admitted in the House of Commons' Debates last year, when we were assured over and over again that if we had confined ourselves to a simple Measure providing the necessary relief for Voluntary Schools we should not have encountered the opposition we did encounter. ["Hear, hear!"] Although the Opposition have found ample grounds for opposing what, in our opinion, is a very short and simple measure of relief to Voluntary Schools in the present Session, they still assure us that if our Measure had satisfied certain conditions of equity and equality, if it had been accompanied by certain safeguards for providing that relief should go to increased efficiency of education, and that the rights of parents of children should be respected—that in that case our Measure would have received no opposition from them. Therefore, I may take it that not only on this, but on the other side of the House it is universally admitted that under certain

7
conditions some relief for Voluntary-Schools is required at the present time. On the failure of the Bill of last Session the Education Department immediately took into consideration how this relief, which we consider indispensable, could be given, in what manner it ought to be given, and whether it could be given by some Measure both to Voluntary and Board Schools. We spent a great deal of time in the examination of a plan which I will only state without entering into any discussion of it. The plan we considered was whether it would be possible to approach this question from the point of view taken in the Act of 1870, in the 97th section of that Act, by which the amount of special aid which, is given to certain necessitous Board Schools is determined in proportion to the rateable value of the district combined with the number of children who have to be educated in the Board School. We considered whether it would be possible to extend that principle to Board and Voluntary Schools alike, whether by some increase of the limits laid down in that clause and by making the principle of universal application, we could deal in the same manner and on the same principle both with Voluntary Schools and necessitous Board Schools. When that proposal was exposed to full examination insuperable difficulties were found to exist, and it was found that so many additions to and modifications of the principle would have been required that the Measure would have been of a far too complicated character to offer any chance of being easily accepted by either House of Parliament. It was carefully examined by a small Departmental Committee, and in the conclusion of their discussion of it they stated that they did not regret that the plan had been proposed as a basis for a Measure, they did not regret that the attempt had been made, because the principle upon which the proposal was made appeared so reasonable and plausible that it was useful that it should have been fully examined to show why it was not applicable to the case now before us. I only refer to the scheme in order to show that we have endeavoured to approach the question not in the interest of Voluntary Schools alone, but in a spirit of perfect equality and fairness to ratepayers and to Board Schools as well as Voluntary
8
Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The discussions that took place during the whole of last autumn and winter with which your Lordships are familiar, will have convinced you that almost insuperable objections would have attended a proposal for assisting Voluntary Schools by aid from the rates even if the Government had been, willing to adopt that principle. The experience we obtained in the discussion of the Bill last year proved that great difficulty would be involved in the attempt to create any new authority charged with the distribution of the grant, and even if possible, would have involved delay in the provision of relief to Voluntary Schools. In the opinion of all the inspectors whom we consulted, in the opinion, I think, of the best educational authorities, anything in the nature of a grant equally distributed all round to Voluntary Schools would have been found in a great number of cases to have been insufficient, and in other cases would have involved a waste of public money. After examination of all these proposals it appeared that the only alternative that was left was that we have adopted, of asking Parliament to provide a, certain sum as a grant in aid to Voluntary Schools, and to intrust the Department itself with the distribution of that sum, having regard to the necessities of each school and to the resources at its disposal. This is the principle contained in the first clause of the Bill. It is embodied in a clause which I think is as short and as simple as it is possible to conceive, and it is subject of wonder and almost of admiration how any Parliamentary ingenuity can have succeeded in prolonging discussion of the principle embodied in this clause in Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill for several days and in Committee for several weeks. ["Hear!"] It does indeed contain one important detail—that is, the recognition of the association of managers of Voluntary Schools, but that is not the principle of the clause; the principle of the clause is embodied in the first and second sub-sections, which enact in the first place that a certain sum shall be annually provided by Parliament for an aid grant, and in the second subsection that the aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department in such manner and amount as the Department think best, for the purposes of

9
helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. This is the substantial portion of the clause. All the other sub-sections which follow it are merely supplementary and subsidiary to that substantial provision, which provides a sum of money to be distributed on the responsibility of the Department, and on the responsibility of the Department alone, for the relief of the necessities of Voluntary Schools. Exception has been taken to the amount of 5s. which is named in the first, Sub-section. The naming of that sum has been described as misleading, because it appears to indicate that the sum of 5s. per scholar is to be distributed indiscriminately to Voluntary Schools, whereas that is not the intention. That is perfectly true, and if this grant in aid had been intended to be a temporary one—if it were asked for one, or for two, or for three years, all reference to 5s. per scholar in the clause would have been omitted. It would have been sufficient to have named in the Bill a certain sum to be placed at the disposal of the Department. But the sum of 5s. per scholar has been inserted in the Bill as showing the limit which it is intended the grant shall never exceed, and, at the same time, indicating the amount which it is hoped and intended that Parliament should annually provide and place at the disposal of the Department. The remaining sub-sections of the clause indicate only the manner in which the Department proposes to exercise the power intrusted to it and discharge the responsibility committed to it. No doubt Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have a very full and competent knowledge of the necessities of the schools within their districts. They have also a large knowledge, perhaps less complete, of the resources of the districts in which these schools are situate. But if our inspectors bad possessed all the knowledge which would have been necessary to enable them to distribute, under the Department, this grant, still we were of opinion that to intrust the distribution of the grant to them would have been to place upon them a great responsibility, to impose upon them an invidious duty which might, to some extent, have interfered with the efficient and proper discharge of
10
the other important duties of administration and advice, and of disposing of the ordinary grant which are already imposed upon them. We have, therefore, proposed to seek the assistance and advice of bodies which shall be representative of the managers of the schools themselves. We believe that the interest which they have in education and in the maintenance of the efficiency of education; we believe that the knowledge which they possess of the circumstances of the schools in various localities, and the knowledge which they possess, or which it is competent for them to obtain, of the resources of those localities, will enable them to give to us most valuable advice and assistance in this matter. Some attempts have been made to show that the administration of this grant, with the advice and assistance of these associations, will be nothing but an unseemly scramble amongst clerical managers for the largest share of this grant-in-aid which they can obtain. I think that something in the nature of an unseemly scramble might possibly occur if it were proposed that the, managers should come individually before an inspector or other official of the Government in order to obtain the largest share which he could of the grant which is to he disposed of. But while we have not attempted to prescribe the organisation or to define the constitution of the governing bodies of these associations: while there will probably be a great diversity among them both as to area and organisation; while they may include, some of them, all the schools in the county or other recognised area; or whether they may include all the schools in an ecclesiastical district belonging to one denomination; whether their governing bodies are chiefly composed of clerical or lay managers; whether they provide any representation of the teachers or of the parents—however much they may vary in their constitution and in their composition, we believe that the main interest which can actuate any such body, however it be composed, will be the interest of the efficiency of the schools which they represent. [Cheers.] And we believe that the importunate claim either of inefficiency or parsimony, or of any other character, will find but a very scant hearing at the hands of such a, body. If it be assumed that these associations will be mainly of a

11
clerical character, if it be assumed that they will chiefly be composed of managers who will have denominational rather than educational interests at heart, even then, I cannot conceive what advantage they can hope to gain from the attempt to administer this grant in any narrow, sectarian, or local spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] The Department are of opinion, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, that the formation and the encouragement of these associations will possess other considerable advantages in addition to that of assisting us in the distribution of this grant. Some of these associations already exist, and have been found to work extremely well. Recognised as they now will be by the Legislature armed with the influence of exercising a considerable authority over the distribution of a large grant, their power of usefulness will be greatly extended and increased, and they will become capable of better work and a more extended influence. In the opinion of some of our most capable educational advisers, an organisation of this character in the management of Voluntary Schools has long been desirable. In the opinion of these advisers—perhaps I may give some offence by stating it—want of funds has not been the only, perhaps not the main, difficulty with which Voluntary Schools have had to contend, but the difficulties which have arisen from bad and inefficient management have been of at least I equal importance. While this Bill will not confer upon these associations, if they should come into existence, any powers except that of giving advice to the Department, while there is no intention of conferring upon them further statutory powers, I think there is little doubt that, if established with these powers of advice, they will very shortly acquire a certain moral power which will enable them to exercise a large influence over the schools in their associations, and to impose a considerable check upon inefficient management, and, by the pressure of well-informed experience, that it will be in their power to improve the management of many schools which may in times past have suffered either from ignorance or administrative incapacity or possibly from religious intolerance, which may in some cases have prevailed amongst individual managers and have injured the efficiency
12
of the schools. I hope in these observations that I have been able to point to some of the reasons why the provisions of this Bill have assumed so wide and general a shape, why we have not thought it necessary to insert in the Bill detailed instructions for the administration and formation of these associations, and why we have declined to accept amendments and minute instructions to the Department in the administration of this grant. We have made the provisions of this Bill wide and general, and we have declined to accept detailed amendments, deliberately and of set purpose, as being inconsistent with the principle of the Bill itself. We do not desire to ignore or to minimise the responsibility which this Bill places upon the Department. The Education Department is primarily charged with watching over and maintaining the efficiency of elementary education, whether in Voluntary or in Board Schools, and we think it would be idle to prescribe to the Department charged with that great duty instructions as to the special purposes which may conduce to that efficiency. We have declined, in dealing with the associations which we propose to encourage, to stereotype the conditions under which they are to come into existence or in which they are to conduct their operations. We attach the highest value to the principle of association of the managers of schools, but we acknowledge that it is as yet an almost untried principle and that the best form which it can assume can probably only be determined by experience. We are of opinion that the power which we retain of approving or disapproving of the constitution of the governing bodies of these associations will be a better guarantee than could be provided by any detailed instructions inserted in the body of the Bill that these associations will be formed in a manner which will be most conducive to the proper conduct of their duties. In the conduct of this Bill we have had further to bear in mind that so long as the Act of 1870 remains in existence, that Act, which is at present our educational charter, the Government is charged with yet another duty besides that of maintaining the efficiency of elementary schools; it is charged with the duty of maintaining the existence of schools which afford religious instruction to the children of our people. ["Hear, hear!"]

13
The defects of the Act of 1870 have been fully and freely admitted. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of those defects and inequalities at this time, but so long as the Act exists we must recognise that under it an absolutely uniform standard of education in every part of the country is impossible, that the standard must vary according to the circumstances of the locality—so long as education remains to any extent a charge, whether on the rates, on voluntary subscriptions, or on contributions from the parents by means of school fees, the standard of elementary education must vary according to the circumstances of the locality, and for this reason we have declined to accept amendments which would have imposed upon the Education Department a rigid rule that this grant shall never be applied to a reduction of subscriptions where, in the opinion of the Department, the resources of a locality or of a certain portion of the people are so small that it is not in their power to make more than a very limited contribution to the support of those schools in which religious instruction is such as they desire for their children. In such cases we recognise that so long as a certain standard of efficiency is maintained, without which the school would not be recognised at all, it may be our duty to administer this grant in aid rather for the relief of the subscribers and the parents than for the purpose of forcing up the standard of education in that locality to that which we may reasonably expect in more prosperous communities. The Department has recognised the two responsibilities which are placed upon it by the Act of 1870 and by the present Measure. They recognise that they are responsible, in the first place, to apply the Parliamentary grant and this grant in addition for the purpose of maintaining and improving elementary education, and next that they have an equal responsibility to discharge in giving effect to the desire of a large number of the people, a, desire to which Parliamentary sanction has been given, that schools in which religious instruction is given shall be preserved. [Cheers.] Having regard to this double responsibility we have felt ourselves bound to resist Amendments which would, in our opinion. have
14
hampered and fettered us in the discharge of the duties which have been imposed upon us. It is said that this Bill does nothing for necessitous Board Schools. That is a defect which I trust will be remedied in a very few days. We are aware that there are many Board Schools which stand in almost, if not quite, as much, need of assistance as Voluntary Schools themselves, and a Measure for their relief will, I believe, be introduced into the other House of Parliament, and I trust carried, within a very short time. I do not profess to say that the relief which that Measure will offer to certain Board Schools will be on the same scale us that which is proposed for Voluntary Schools in this Bill, or that it will be equally extended to all School Boards. If it is desired to raise, the question of statutory equality which is supposed to be enacted under the Act of 1870, I shall be perfectly ready, if necessary, to enter into that argument, but I do not think it is necessary for my purpose at the present moment. We maintain that no principle of statutory equality enacted by the Act of 1870 is infringed by this Bill, but we further contend that no such case exists for the extension of a grant in aid to all Board Schools, as has been proved to exist for a grant in aid to all Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The larger number of School Boards, in our opinion, stand in no need of relief or, if they do, the relief is to a very large extent in the hands of those by whom the School Boards are elected. The case of the Board Schools rests upon a totally different foundation from that of the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The cases in which relief to necessitous Board Schools is an educational question are, we believe, extremely rare; in the majority of cases the question of relief to School Boards is rather a question of relief of certain ratepayers than a question of educational efficiency. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a question which we believe requires the consideration of Parliament, and which we propose at the earliest possible moment to bring under the consideration of Parliament, but we altogether deny that there is any similarity in the case of Voluntary Schools, and of the poorest Board Schools which would have made it incumbent upon us to attempt, to deal with them in

15
a single Measure. If it is said that this Bill does nothing for the ratepayers who are charged in some districts with a large part of the cost of education, that also is a proposition which I entirely deny. This Bill does a great deal for the ratepayers if it does not do it directly. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not believe it is disputed that, the total disappearance of all Voluntary Schools would involve a charge upon the ratepayers of not less than four millions sterling per annum. If, therefore, the extinction of such schools is prevented by this Bill the saving to the ratepayers in general may be measured by that amount. Another point upon which I wish to make one or two observations is the alleged inequality in the distribution of the grant between different districts in the country. It is said that the districts where Voluntary Schools educate the greater proportion of the children will receive, much, but those where the education of the children is simply conducted in Board Schools will receive little. That inequality in the distribution of this sum must no doubt be admitted, but we altogether deny that there is any injustice in this proposal, or that, whether it be inequality or whether it be injustice, it is inequality or injustice which is not inherent in the settlement of 1870, which even our opponents profess to desire to retain. The Act of 1870 recognised the existence of denominational and of undenominational schools, and it recognised the existence of the undenominational schools merely as a necessary supplement to the denominational schools already in existence. ["Hear, hear!"] As introduced the Act of 1870 would have sanctioned the application of a rate for the maintenance of denominational schools; as it was passed it withheld that aid. In substitution for the rate aid which the Bill offered on its introduction, provision was made by the State which it was supposed at the time would be adequate compensation for the withholding of rate aid. That compensation has not proved to be adequate. I do not believe that Parliament is prepared either to face the alternative of sacrificing the denominational schools, which, in my opinion, are approved and appreciated by a large majority of the parents in the country; neither are we prepared to invite Parliament to face all the controversy that would be involved in the proposal
16
to support these schools from the rates. The inequality to which I have referred, and which is complained of, rests upon and is the result of an inequality which is of a still more fundamental character —an inequality which denies to one class of schools that form of assistance which it concedes to another class. In wisely and prudently seeking to remove that inequality it seems to me that there is no right to complain of the minor inequality which is involved in the somewhat unequal distribution of the special aid grant. I do not think that at this stage of the discussion of this Measure it is necessary that I should detain your Lordships by further explanation, either of the provisions of the Bill or the principles on which it is founded. I have endeavoured to point out in what sense the Government, have understood the responsibilities which they propose to undertake in the distribution of this grant, and I do not think it is necessary that I should enter into further defence of the reasons which have induced them to decline the Amendments which have been so freely proffered by the Opposition in the other House. I thank your Lordships very much for the patience and attention with which you have heard my statement. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cheers.]
EARL SPENCER: I must congratulate your Lordships' House on the fact that the responsible head of the Education Department has introduced this important Measure to your attention. The Bill that, we have before us is a very remarkable document. It represents what I may call the self-styled council of perfection. Why do I say that? Because this Bill, in a perfectly unprecedented manner, has come up to this House without a line or a word being altered from the way in which it was framed when it was introduced in another place. I cannot for a moment think that this is a recommendation of the Measure. I think it is impossible, however wise, however experienced, the framers of the Measure may be, that thy should not be able to learn from an Opposition which cannot be accused of want of experience or stupidity some Amendment of the Measure. That is why I have so termed the Bill. The noble Duke has referred to the Bill as a very small Bill. No doubt it is a short Bill, for I venture to say that the first clause I alone contains as much material as would

17
in an ordinary Bill fill six or seven clauses. Before I go to the general discussion of the matter I would like to make some passing remarks on education. Our system of education in this country is very peculiar. There are the Voluntary Schools, which are denominational in their character, and which are supported by State grants and subscriptions, and there are the Board Schools, which are undenominational in their character, and are supported by State grants and the rates. Let us see how these two systems stand in the country. They exist side by side. There are in the Voluntary Schools 2,445,812 children, and in the Board Schools 1,879,200; and the total annual grant amounts to £6,232,750 for all elementary schools in the country. In the Board Schools the annual grant or fee grant amounts to £2,975,898, and for the Voluntary Schools £3,256,352. The annual subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools amount to £836,428—that is to say, the subscriptions for maintenance amount to about one-fourth of what the public grants may be. That is an important matter with regard to what I am now going to say. These Voluntary Schools are managed by denominational managers. That of itself is a, very remarkable fact—that such an enormous sum as that which I have quoted is being paid towards the maintenance of Voluntary Schools, and that that should be intrusted to these managers. I think you can hardly find a parallel for that in any other country. In 1876 the noble Duke said:—
" I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the present system. I must confess it is a remarkable and. I believe, an anomalous system. It is a system which places in the hands of religious bodies and private individuals duties and powers which in every other country in the world are considered as appertaining to the State and should be exercised by it. It is a system which has undoubtedly worked very much to the advantage of one denomination and to the detriment of others."
This expresses my meaning better than any words of mine. I will come to the question of the increased cost of education. In 1873, in Voluntary Schools it was £1 10s. per scholar, and in 1895 it was £1 19s. In Board Schools the cost in the same years was respectively £1 14s. 6d. and £2 10s. 2d. I think these
18
figures show that there is a strong necessity for giving additional assistance to the schools in the country from the State. ["Hear, hear!"] I come now to the Bill itself. It proposes to do that, but it proposes to give increased grants to Voluntary Schools alone. I will venture to offer to your Lordships some arguments to show why we feel it to be our duty on this side of the House to protest by our votes against the Second Reading of the Bill. We do not fin- a moment wish to destroy or starve Voluntary Schools. We consider them part of the settlement of 1870, and that it would be extravagant to supplement them by School Boards. We feel it would not be desired by a large number of the people; but what we do object to is that we have no certain guarantees, which we ought to have. One of these is as to the introduction in the management of some representative from the locality. Though there may have been some irregularity before, it is enormously increased by this Bill. The managers are often clergymen. I should be the last to attack the clergy; on the contrary, I wish to give my meed of praise to the work they have done in regard to education. I know cases where the clergy have so conducted their schools that Nonconformists readily send their children there, and make no objection to the management; but there are very great exceptions to that. ["Hear, hear!"] Managers in certain schools often impose conditions on their teachers and on the education given that are not in conformity with religious equality. [Cheers.] A master is appointed on condition that he will do some extra work, either play the organ or teach in the Sunday school. That at once limits the field from which teachers can be recruited, and then there is a grievance to which I attach importance indeed. There are 8,000 parishes in which there is only one school, and that is almost universally the Church school. There might be many bright and clever children belonging to Nonconformist, parents well fitted for the profession of teacher. How are these children to enter the profession? ["Hear, hear!"] I know one exception where, in a school managed by a clergyman, a Nonconformist child has become a teacher. In hardly any schools is this permitted, and therefore this noble profession is entirely closed to these able and clever

19
Nonconformist children. I feel that that is a very great grievance. ["Hear, hear!"] The introduction of representation on boards of management might not do a, great deal to cheek it, but I think it will do something, and for that and other reasons I desire that some representation should be introduced as a guarantee for the proper management of the schools before this grant is made. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot understand why the clergy object to lay management. I know a good many instances in which it has been introduced without the least difficulty, and in which the clergy have worked admirably with laymen, but it appears that to introduce a condition of this sort to regulate those of the clergy who are narrow-minded is repugnant to the Church and those in authority, It seems to me that the clergy have at starting such an enormous advantage in their own education and in their experience in teaching that they will always hold their own and lead the school committee even if there are laymen upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] This point of the management of schools is one which we feel is of great importance, and we shall be extremely glad to see some change made in the Bill with regard to it. I now come to another point—namely, the inequality of treatment under the Bill. The noble Duke referred to it as the inherent result of the Act of 1870. I maintain that there is very great inequality, not only as between Voluntary Schools and Board Schools, but as between one part of the country and another. ["Hear, hear!"] I doubt extremely whether the argument brought forward by the noble Duke as to the addition to the rates there would be if the Voluntary Schools disappeared is an argument which will come home to those who suffer from heavy rates. They will not believe that Voluntary Schools are going to be done away with. If there is anything in what is said by those who urge the establishment of denominational schools, I cannot suppose they will drop their schools in the manner that is suggested. ["Hear, hear!"] In a speech which the noble Duke made in November 1895, in reply to a deputation, he said: —
"I presume that what is intended by this is an increased fixed grant all round. I do not conceive it is proposed by any legislation to depart from the principle of statutory equality as regards State aid 1o Voluntary and Board Schools."
20
I am aware that the noble Duke has made some explanation of this passage, and has put a different interpretation upon it; but I could not follow his explanation, and I confess that when I read that speech of his I thought he was alluding to the grant authorised by Parliament to be made by the Department to both Board and Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] If you look at this a little closer, you will see that a very grave injustice would be done by the Bill as it now stands. Under this Bill £611,701 will come to Voluntary Schools in England and Wales from the 5s. grant. If the Board Schools received the same grant —
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They will not.
EARL SPENCER: If they did receive the same grant they would get £466,878. We are told that Board and Voluntary Schools are on a totally different footing. They are so, no doubt, in many respects; but if you have to regard the subscribers to Voluntary Schools who suffer from what is called an intolerable strain, surely for exactly the same reason you ought to have regard to the intolerable strain on heavily-rated localities. ["Hear, hear!"] Let us just look for a moment at the localities. London and Lancashire have about the same number of Board and Voluntary School children together. If you give 5s. all round, Lancashire will get £ 114,000 and London will only get £44,000, though it is rated twice as much as Lancashire. It is, in my opinion, exceedingly difficult to say anything but that that is an extremely unjust and unfair arrangement. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not propose to go into other questions at length. There is the question of the efficiency of the education, there is the question of maintaining voluntary subscriptions. Those are very important matters, but they are referred to in so vague a manner in, the Bill that I doubt whether we shall have any security that the increased grant will be applied to increase efficiency, or that the voluntary subscriptions will be maintained. I should deeply regret to see the total loss of voluntary subscriptions, and I think those who defend the Bill would regret it also. ["Hear, hear!"] I come now to a very important point—namely, the question, of these associations of management. The noble Duke himself has laid great stress on the importance of this provision,

21
and in another place the First Lord of the Treasury said he considered this almost, if not quite, the most important clause in the Bill. From Mr. Balfour's speech we may, I think, argue with certainty that the formation, of these associations must be considered compulsory. This is what he said:—
" I believe, therefore, as I said the other day, that the association part of the Bill, however much it may be attacked, is a part of the scheme from which I hope almost more than from any other part of it; and I trust that those who have to vote on the different stages of the Bill will look to this part of the Bill with special care and impartiality, and I am convinced they will think that the Government have come to a wise conclusion in this matter and that we ought to do everything we can where there is no party involved to force schools into association, from which operation so much is to be hoped in the cause of both secular and religious education throughout the country."
To this I could add words of the Vice President of the Council which prove that it is the intention of the Government that the Department should make these clauses compulsory. I think that is a very great and serious objection to the proposal. ["Hear, hear!"] You are creating a, new local authority. It may be called Voluntary, but it is a, new authority; and you are increasing that chaos of local authorities of which we have heard so much. What is the area over which the authority is to exist? I see in one speech it is stated at a million of population. In another it is to be diocesan; and other suggestions have been made. I notice that the National Society, forestalling the decision of your Lordships' House, have already come to a resolution on the matter, and they wish to have certain laymen on these boards. I venture to think that these associations, particularly when connected with a particular sect, will have a very had influence on the country. We may probably have Weslevan associations, and other Nonconformist associations, and, no doubt, Church associations. I should like to say a few words only on the last. I should regret exceedingly to see diocesan boards of this kind formed. I have the greatest possible respect for individual prelates of the Church, but I do look with some-suspicion and alarm at the increase given to the power of the higher clergy in mailers not religious. ["Hear, hear!"]
22
I believe the peoples are warmly attached to the religion of the country, but they share the views I have expressed with regard to clerical management. I should greatly fear these diocesan boards would give very much increased power to the higher officers of the Church. They will damage what is one of the great advantages in our Church—the independence or proportionate independence which our clergy have in various matters. This diocesan management will bring our Church more in the relation of other Churches who hardly allow their clergy to have any individual independence whatever. That, I conceive, in be a grave objection, But I will add other difficulties which I see. The pooling of the money to be given by the giant will cause endless friction and difficulty. How is this money to be settled? There will be perpetual friction as to what school is to get a large and which a small subscription and which no subscription at all. Some time ago, in my own neighbourhood, an idea arose of having voluntary associations, and there was the greatest possible jealousy on the part of many schools or managers I know of this proposal. What they felt was, that efficient schools would probably have to pay for weak and inefficient schools, and they had the greatest possible dislike to this idea. I have noticed, among many statements on the subject, a clear statement by a Churchman, who is by no means unfavourable altogether to the Bill—I mean Archdeacon Wilson, Vicar of Rochdale, who, in the Guardian on 11 November 1896, wrote:—
" I ask you, Is that (the distribution of grants) to be done by a voluntary body like a diocesan board of education? We shall need something almost the equivalent of a School Board to investigate the needs of all the different schools, to look into the question of the extravagance of or the economy of them, to determine what share of the contributions ought to be given in one of the hundred parishes that are in that School Board area, and to apportion the claims of some 60 different schools. This is an appalling work, and I ask at whose expense is this to be done? If this is to be done at the expense either of the rates or of the special aid grant, we are establishing another Church School Board, a Church educational department with a few representatives of the ratepayers placed upon it in the hope that they wilt be deluded into the acceptance of such a position of a Board which will have no real power over the treasurers of the schools or the managers of them."

23
That states clearly the difficulties which the creation of the associations will cause in different parts of the country. I have a further objection to make, which I make with some diffidence before the President of the Council, who has the latest information at his command. I object to the scheme of the associations on account of the position of Her Majesty's inspectors. The Education Department last year declared that they were so overburdened with work that they must devolve the distribution of the money under the Bill of last year on the shoulders of local bodies. This year the Education Department becomes responsible for the distribution of the money under the advice of the associations to which I have referred. If there is a difficulty, how is the Education Department to work? It will work through the inspectors of schools. They are the eyes and ears of the Department. I believe they will be throwing on the inspectors an entirely new duty. Hitherto they have had to decide on the educational quality of the school, on the sanitary condition of the school, and distribute all grants in accordance with, rules. Now they will be concerned in various disputes, such as whether a school is "necessitous" or not. Nothing can be more difficult than to define what a necessitous school is. There will be endless controversy about it. In one part of the Bill it refers to the difference in the grant between town and country. Will not that lead to endless controversies and a great deal of bad blood if you have to decide whether a town or country district is to have a larger rate, or between one village or another? I fear this may have a prejudicial effect upon the inspectors. Hitherto they have been held in the highest possible regard and admiration all over the country. But I fear they may lose some of the just influence they have as guardians of education if they are brought into contact with the many quarrels which I feel certain will arise under the distribution of the grant. My Lords, I am afraid I have detained you longer than I should have done on this Bill. We have no desire to starve or destroy Voluntary Schools. We recognise them as part of the educational system of the country, but we object to increasing their already large endowments from the taxation of this country without obtaining some representation on their
24
managing committees. We object to there being no guarantees for efficient teaching or the maintenance of subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools, and, lastly, we object to the Bill because it assists subscribers to Voluntary Schools without giving any relief to the heavily-rated supporters of Board Schools. [Cheers.]
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was very glad indeed to hear from the noble Duke in his opening speech that he still held fast to the rule which had been followed in the other House and did not intend to encourage Amendments to be made in the Bill, chiefly because—and I think it is of great importance—this Bill should be passed speedily, as time is running on, and the schools are really suffering, and you cannot be too quick in letting them understand that the relief which it is proposed to give them will be given for certain and soon. I do not mean to say that there are not details in the Bill which might possibly be improved. There may be some which both sides would like to improve. Probably, though the Amendments which would be, and perhaps will be, moved on the opposite side of the House will not be quite the same as those which we on this side would like to move; there are various Amendments which possibly the Bishops may like to move, and I do not think Amendments of the same sort will be moved from the other side. I should be glad if the Bill passed just as it is. Although I admit there is a possibility of making improvements, I do not think any improvements can be made which are worth the delay that would be necessary in making them. We have come to a point at which a large number of the Voluntary Schools are really suffering a, great deal, and they are in much suspense and anxiety, and although they are much supported by the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill and carried it through the other House of Parliament, yet they cannot help feeling even still that the assurance on which they have to rely is not quite complete, and they are so keen about the matter that they are already earnestly considering if the Bill passes what kind of associations they ought to join in making. In regard to the associations, as president of the National Society I have thought it my duty to

25
encourage that society to put forward a kind of model scheme which the noble Earl who has just sat down has noticed in his speech, and which he seems to think will be making the Bill even more mischievous than it is already. The scheme proposed by the National Society, for the constitution of the associations, is simply this—that, in the first place, the area, should be one of considerable size, a diocese, or if a diocese contained more counties than one, a county; and in the next place, it should be initiated by the Bishop requesting the managers of the Church schools in each division of the diocese, rural deaneries as they are called, to meet together and settle whether they would join any such association or not; then that those who join should be called together to a further meeting, when representatives should be elected for each rural deanery, and those representatives should then meet and form the governing body of the association. It is pressed upon the managers of Voluntary Schools that it would be the right thing to arrange that at least half the representatives should be laymen, because we cannot afford to leave them outside. ["Hear, hear!"] It is to laymen we necessarily look, to a great extent, for voluntary subscriptions. The clergy, in many cases, have largely given out of their own diminishing means—["hear, hear!"]—towards the maintenance of their Church schools. But it is obvious that that cannot be the main support of the schools, and, in fact, if the diminution of the incomes of the clergy were to go further than it has gone that means of support would be seriously lessened, and very likely would, in many places, disappear altogether. We cannot afford to leave out the laymen; and I think you will find when these associations are being formed the position of the laymen will be well assured in all the governing bodies. It is suggested that the chairman of the governing body should be the Bishop or someone appointed by him. I am conscious, of course, that we run quite counter to the ideas expressed by the noble Lord, who does not like Bishops, except as personal friends, and he thinks the country generally does not like them. So far as I can judge I do not think that is the case. I do not think it is at all the case that the country are unwilling that the Bishops should take the leading
26
part in the government of all things with which the Church is concerned, and whatever may be said about the importance of education I do not think you will get out of the heads of Church people that religious education is a very important part of the education of the working classes. [Cheers.] Consequently, it is impossible for the Church to stand aside and say, "This is a secular matter, for which we do not really care. It is entirely your business. We, the Church, and we, the Bishops, the officers of the Church, are able to leave it entirely in your hands." The ministers and officers of the Church cannot take that line, and I do not believe an association with a Bishop at its head would be found by any means a bad form of association for the purposes for which such associations as these are proposed in the Bill. You will see from the sketch that I have given of the mode in which the associations will be formed, their truly representative character, the idea being that there shall be a representative in the governing body of every ten schools or every fraction of ten. If there were ten schools there would be one representative; if more than ten, there would be two, until you came to 20, and then there would be three. That is a simple mode of representation, and there cannot be great difficulty in securing that, upon that mode of representation, laymen should be elected upon the body. The governing body so formed would certainly be a very efficient body in judging of the needs of Church schools in the diocese or county with which they had to deal. ["Hear, hear!"] The clergy know each other well enough to know pretty well what is the need of the Church schools in each parish, and the more all these schools are brought together, you may depend upon it, the more will they begin to take an interest in one another's schools and that general interest in the education of the whole area to which the association belongs, which is more likely to improve the efficiency of the schools than almost anything else you can procure. (Cheers.] The thing which is wanted everywhere is that the schools shall know each other and shall profit by each other's experience. There are many cases in which the managers of schools do not really manage as well as they might, simply because they know so little about it, and if they are

27
brought into constant contact with other managers of schools, it has the tendency to increase the general knowledge and the general interest in education, and I have no doubt at all that these associations would have that effect. ["Hear, hear!"] There are such associations already at work. There is one, for instance, in my old diocese of Exeter, which has been going on now for some years. It was formed immediately after the passing of the Fee Grant Bill, which contemplated associations. The Bill did not allow us to make such associations as I should have preferred, but still it did give considerable powers to the managers to associate themselves with very good effect. There can be no question that in this particular diocese, where this association has been in existence for some time, it has worked with exceeding smoothness, and there has not been anything at all like the sort of description which the noble Earl has developed out of his own ideas, of scrambling for money, quarrelling with one another, and altogether departing from the purpose of making the schools as efficient as they can be made and from the purpose of dealing justly with the schools as compared with one another. All this fear that there will be a great deal of quarrelling within the association, I am quite confident, has really no basis of reality whatever, and you may be perfectly certain that when the associations are formed there will be a steady increase in the desire to work together, and a steady consequent increase in the efficiency of the education given. [Cheers.] I do not deny that there is a certain amount of difficulty involved in the distribution of the money, and I do not deny that now and then there will be those who will grumble a little at not getting as much as they think they ought. But it is the privilege of Englishmen to grumble—[laughter]— and they will not, on that account, fail to do their work. ["Hear, hear"] I have not any doubt at all it will be found that the Church schools would very greatly gain by being formed into such associations, and. in fact, I think that, even independently of having any money to distribute, there would be advantage in the mere fact that they were brought together in this way. But, of course, you could not bring them together to simply advise one another, and the ne-
28
cessity of advising the Department as to the distribution of the money will be the real thing for them to do, and I am quite confident you will not easily get any other machinery so thoroughly efficient for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl asks the very important question,
"Why do the Church people object to having laymen upon the boards of management?"
I think he made a slight mistake there. We have laymen in almost every case where we can get them. [Cheers.] There are, no doubt, parishes where the clergyman is the sole manager, because really it has not been possible in some parishes to find laymen who will give either the time or the trouble or know enough about the matter to take part in such management. I may observe that the committees of management, which consist of the clergy alone, were the fruits of the Education Department itself. The Education Department drew up a, number of models of the forms of trust which were to be included in the trust deeds of all the schools that received grants from the Government. There was in no case of that kind that I know of a trust deed of that kind established, except when it was really very difficult, to establish any other kind of trust deed. It is not that there is any objection on the part of any Church people that there should be laymen on the managing committees. What they object to is, not that, but that there should be men who are not themselves Churchmen, and for this reason—that they have found by experience which cannot be questioned, that the important thing, if you are to give religious instruction in a school, is to see what sort of man is the master who is to be at the head of the imparting of this religious instruction. [Cheers.] The managers of the Church schools cannot afford to give up the appointment of the teachers, which is their one guarantee that the religious instruction shall be such in quality as they themselves desire. [Cheers.] It had been very often asked, "Why should you not prescribe the religious instruction to be given, and then leave it to the master to give it, without taking any pains to find out whether he himself believes in it or not? He may not believe in what you Churchmen think a funda-

29
mental article of faith, but he may teach that article though he does not believe it." Yes, he may; he may get the children to pass a good examination upon all these various points of doctrine; but what is the examination worth if meanwhile it appears that the children have imbibed from him a disbelief in one of the fundamental principles in what he has to teach? [Cheers. ] There is no question about it that if the teacher does not believe what he is put there to teach it has not the effect upon the children that we desire to produce in the slightest degree. ["Hear, hear!"] When I was at Rugby I had to teach the classical religions, and to teach all that boys ought to know in order to study classical books about Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Mars, and all the other divinities with which in those days we were all familiar. But, my Lords, I should not like the Christian religion to be taught in the same way, because I will answer for it the boys who had instruction in that way from me did not believe that Jupiter, Juno, Mars or Apollo were existent deities at one time, who governed as the writers of classical literature suppose. But if we are to teach in that fashion I would rather leave religious instruction out. ["Hear, hear!"] I say you must secure that the teachers really believe what they have to teach, and if you do not secure that the teachers are thus competent to give instruction in that spirit, the Church managers will earnestly contend for being absolutely free to guarantee to all their subscribers that the teacher is a man who can be trusted, not only to teach boys to pass examinations, but to teach boys what has been revealed in the work of God, and so teaching them that, as far as human agency can secure it, the boys shall believe what they are taught. [Cheers.] For that reason we are very jealous indeed about the appointment of teachers, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we stand out against the introduction of those who would not share that opinion with ourselves, into the managing bodies of our schools. ["Hear, hear!"] From this I am quite certain the great body of Voluntary Schools will not depart. I confess I was a little disturbed a while ago by the words used by the Vice President of the Council in a speech he made at Girton, near Cambridge, when he said he hoped
30
these associations would be comprehensive and would not be confined to anyone particular sect. Well, I hope just the contrary, and I am quite satisfied that anything which tends to bring Church schools under the immediate management of other than Church people, is a very serious thing indeed. I do not know anything which would more effectually kill the great body of Voluntary Schools than to do what very excellent people—and I am afraid there is a little touch of the feeling in the Vice President himself—are sometimes inclined to do, to try as much as they can to undenominationalise these Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] If you were to undenominationalise Voluntary Schools it is quite certain they would very soon perish, and for this simple reason, that the subscribers would immediately say, after you had got rid of all denominational peculiarities and particularities, "Why don't you have a Board and have a Board School? That is fair all round, and everybody will then pay; whereas at present there is this injustice that we, the subscribers, have to pay rates to keep up Board Schools, and we have to pay our subscriptions in addition to those rates to keep up our own Voluntary Schools." It is sometimes ludicrous to hear the way in which ratepayers are contrasted with subscribers. The noble Earl just now spoke of the poor ratepayer and the necessities of poor Board Schools. But if ratepayers deserve assistance surely Voluntary School subscribers deserve it, for they all pay rates, including the rates imposed for educational purposes. ["Hear, hear!"] It is an argument, I think, that will not hold water that the ratepayers more need assistance than Voluntary Schools. There is much said sometimes about statutory equality on this subject, and I confess I find a difficulty in understanding the meaning of the phrase so used. Naturally, one would say statutory equality means equality of position and finance under statute. But can it be said that there is this statutory equality under statute in the position of Board and Voluntary Schools? Voluntary Schools are supported by subscriptions—no statute requires these subscriptions. Board Schools are supported by public funds, and a statute compels the payment of rates for the purpose. There

31
is nothing in the nature of financial equality in this. There was in the Bill of 1870 an attempt made to produce something like equality. It was proposed that an extra grant should be made to Voluntary Schools to put them on a level with Board Schools, but as the Bill passed the House of Commons the clause was so altered that whatever grant was made to Voluntary Schools the same grant was to be made to Board Schools, so that equality disappeared with a few strokes of the pen. There is not, and never has been, any equality of Voluntary Schools with Board Schools in their financial position under statute. The noble Earl made other objections to the Bill on principle, and I do not know whether there may not be some truth in some of the things he has said in application to this matter. I am not prepared to say, for instance, that it would be a very evil thing if on the managing body of schools there were representatives of parents. I should object very strongly to representatives of ratepayers, because we get no money from the rates; but I should not object to representation of parents, but I should object to bringing that about by a clause in an Act of Parliament at this stage. Whenever we get beyond this stage, and I hope we shall not stop at this stage—["hear, hear!"]—when we get beyond this stage there will be many things to consider. As time goes on we shall want very considerable changes in our system of education, but at present we are feeling our way, and the first thing we have to face is the fact that Voluntary Schools are in serious danger, and we have to meet the danger with a measure of relief. Of course this does not exhaust the subject, and there is a great deal more to be said, but we must feel our way. I wish myself the Government had given 6s. instead of 5s., but they have gone as far as in their judgment they can; they are trying to see with how little they can do what has to be done, and they are right in those endeavours. They should try to avoid the spending of public money more than is necessary. I look upon this as a step in the right direction, but I trust that if we wait a little longer we shall have a great deal more to say. But I cannot help expressing my exceeding great regret that there should be any delay at all in providing the beginning of a real system of
32
secondary education. I am convinced that elementary education is suffering from the fact of the intrusion of secondary education into its province. There are a great many instances in which masters who are dealing with elementary education would deal with these subjects a great deal better in different sets of schools. A great many of them are quite capable of the position of masters in secondary schools, and if we had a good system of secondary education it would be the natural ambition of an elementary schoolmaster to raise himself to the higher sphere. But at present we have schools very seriously injured by the attempts to teach children what they are not yet in a position to learn; and the cost of masters is enormously increased to enable them to teach what nobody who really knows can call worth the money. The fact is you cannot go any further with what are called specific and class subjects without some preparation of the children. Sometimes it is said we do not teach so much here as is taught in Germany, and the answer to that is, our system is not so old as the German system, which has been at work for a considerable time. At present our children are much better educated than their parents, and the next generation will show a further advance, and I have no doubt the time will come when experts will admit that our masters teach and our children learn quite as much as is taught and learned under the foreign system. But now I am quite certain that a large proportion of the labour spent in teaching our children advanced subjects is really wasted, because our children have not had the mental preparation for taking in the instruction. My Lords, I hope the Bill will be passed exactly as it is and as rapidly as possible. [Cheers.]
THE DUKE of ARGYLL: I am not only a supporter of this Bill, but one of those who, in spite of its limited character, rejoice more than I can say that it has at last reached the safe haven of your Lordships' House. This Bill means a great deal more than those departmental questions which have been referred to. Earl Spencer has been answered with an authority to which I cannot pretend, and my most reverend Friend has blown to pieces the detailed objections of the noble Earl. I pass from these and look

33
at the Bill from the great principle it is intended to affirm. I must confess that— although of course with the great majority of the people of this country I have followed with more or less attention the detailed, prolonged, and, I am afraid I must say, the tedious discussions the Bill has undergone—I did not until a few days ago read the text of the Bill. When I read this short and simple Bill I confess I wondered how it could be that a Party professing to represent Liberal principles could find any ground of opposition. It is one of the most liberal Bills, with a liberality approaching almost to license, that has ever come before your Lordships' House. We hear that never has there been such a flutter as this Bill has caused in the Radical dovecot, how it has been inveighed against as an endowment of the Church of England, and raged at as a Bill to support sectarian education. Now, my Lords, it is a curious thing that from the beginning to the end of the Bill, except in one sub-section where it might fairly be left out, there is not a single word referring to the Church, or religion, or religious teaching, or anything sectarian. The Bill is for the support of Voluntary Schools, and those Voluntary Schools may be purely secular. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Department giving a grant, for instance, to a school supported by agnostics. If any of those gentlemen, who refuse to think that on the greatest subject of human thought there is anything to be known and anything to be believed, got up a school of their own—and why should they not?—that would be a Voluntary School, and it would be absolutely entitled, I take it, under this Bill to be supported by the State. There is absolutely nothing sectarian in that. The expression "Voluntary School," according to the definition in the Bill, means "a public elementary school not provided by a School Board." It must not be a school supported by the rates, but it may be a Voluntary School in connection with any other body, religious or non-religious. That is the principle of the Bill, and to accuse the Bill of being sectarian in its principle is a gross misrepresentation of its purport. It is a curious thing to my mind that the principle of the Bill is not expressly stated in any words within it. The principle of the Bill, as I understand
34
it, is this—"We, the State, have made ourselves responsible for the secular education of the whole of the people, and we will give money in support of all those who produce a well-educated child in secular knowledge, whether it is connected with religious bodies or not." That is not only liberal, it is absolutely indiscriminate. I can conceive many men who support religious education denouncing —and I am quite sure a few years ago it would have been denounced—upon this ground alone. The noble Earl opposite talked about inequality. There is no inequality whatever in the Bill. There is absolute equality as regards the principle on which the grant is given. This Bill is mainly opposed—do not, let us mistake it—by those who dislike religious education—["hear, hear!"]—and by religious education I mean education in connection with some definite school of religious teaching. There is no doubt about it. The Nonconformists have taken a violent part against this Bill, but the principle of the Bill is the principle which they are constantly enumerating—that the State ought to have no concern with religious education. But then if we push them we find their meaning of that is this—the State is to have nothing to do with religious education except to denounce it, or to boycott it, or to subject it to fine or penalty. They would propose that if a school comes up before those who are to give the grant and says, "Here we present you a number of children admirably taught in secular education," then the State should say, "Ah, yes, but are you also taught religion?" "Oh, yes," is the reply, "we are taught religion in our school." "Then go away; we have nothing more to do with you." ["Hear, hear!"] They wish to destroy religious education, and they wish public money not to be given to secular education, even when it is produced by those who are interested in religious education. My noble Friend Lord Herschell shakes his head. I do not say they put it in that way, but that is the result of their argument. They do not wish the public money to be given to schools which are connected with churches. How has it come about that Voluntary Schools are always considered and talked about, and in this Debate to-night have always been spoken of, as denominational schools? They might be not all denominational. The

35
noble Earl opposite said he objected to these schools, at least so far as he did object to them, chiefly because they were denominational. How has that come about? It is because of this—that the various schools of the Christian Church are in this country the only public bodies that will submit to the self-sacrifice of giving large sums of money out of their private pocket, besides their rates, for the purposes of education. More than one-half of the whole children of the United Kingdom are educated in denominational schools. That shows, so for as we go at present at least, that the parentage of the country is in favour of teaching religious along with secular education. ["Hear, hear!"] I entirely agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that the only security you have for religious instruction is that the school shall be denominational—that is, established in connection with definite systems of religious instruction. I remember my noble Friend Lord Spencer some years ago making a speech in this House, in which he said that he was all in favour of religious education, but not in favour of the teaching of dogma. I do not think I followed my noble Friend on that occasion—
EARL SPENCER: The noble Duke did, and I remember that he said I was talking thorough nonsense. [Laughter.]
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Oh, well, that is very much my opinion now—[laughter]—but I will give my noble Friend my reason for it. I should very much like him to rise in this House and define to us religion which is without dogma. Remember that there is a God, that there has been, a Christ, and that there will be a future state. These are the primary truths of religion, and are they not all dogmas? Are they not contested by large sections of those who are nominally Christians? Undoubtedly they are, and unless you have a system of religious teaching which is connected with organised Churches—that is to say, organised bodies of men who hold particular views of Christianity and particular dogmas—I maintain with the Archbishop of Canterbury that you have no security whatever for religious education. I believe with him also that the Voluntary Schools would very soon be brought to an end if that connection were severed. My fear has been for some time that the Voluntary Schools would be destroyed by
36
the Board system. I believe they would unless you came to their relief. It is a tremendous power against the Voluntary Schools — unlimited rating—and you acknowledge yourselves that the rates are mounting to an alarming extent in many places. It is impossible that a large part of the community can go on maintaining their own schools, and paying besides these extravagant rates in favour of Board Schools. It is, therefore, for the interests of religion, and for the interest of the ratepayer that you should come in and relieve those who are supporting, at so large sacrifice to themselves, the only religious education which you have in the country. My own belief is that the tendency of Board Schools, of all schools supported by rates, is to the total exclusion of religion. I know very well that in many of the existing School Boards religion is fairly well taught. A compromise is effected, but you have no security for that continuing for a single year. I have been told, I believe on good authority, that in some of the Australian colonies it has come to this—that all the school books are carefully edited and every allusion to religion, even the very name of God, is expunged from them. That is a dreadful state of tilings—a state of things from which we are very far removed, but that it will come to it in the long run if we do not take some means to support Voluntary Schools I fully believe. I dare say some of your Lordships will hardly believe that story. I believe it because I have seen what has happened on the Continent of Europe, because what they called liberal principles in respect of religion have got a greater hold of the mass of the people than as yet they have in this country. ["Hear, hear!"] There is another danger about the unmitigated supremacy of the Board Schools, and that is the power which is going to be established over us by the teachers. The teachers have formed themselves into a syndicate or trade union, and they are furious and indignant if the slightest test or question is put to them as to what their religious views are. It will come to this, that not only will the religion of our people be at the mercy of the ratepayers—that would be bad enough—but it will be at the mercy of a syndicate of teachers, who consider it a point of honour that they shall believe nothing if they like. ["Hear, hear!"]

37
I look upon the passing of this Bill as a great epoch in the history of our educational system, I trust it will be followed by others, all tending in the same direction—perfect freedom to all parties, perfect equality as regards the Stale, but also equal payment to those who favour religion, nursing, it may be, the Churches to give you that which they can give, good secular and good religious education mixed. I should be very glad indeed to see the whole education of the country in the hands of denominational bodies, but there is one difficulty and objection which is fatal—you could not overtake the area. There are millions of men in this country who do not conscientiously belong to any Church whatever, and if you confine your support to the Churches you would, of course, leave out of your system altogether a very large part of your people. That is the fact that has driven us to the Board School system. Before I sit down I wish to refer to language used by one of my friends in regard to Scotland. Towards the close of last Session my right hon. Friend Mr. Mundella said:—
"Look at the education of Scotland; how admirable it has been; what, a great reputation it has had all over the world: how successful in educating Scotchmen in all the walks of life; a purely secular system."
My right hon. Friend added, "a system of universal boards, universal rating, universal popular control." Anything more grossly ignorant I never read. [Laughter.] There is a curious substratum of truth about it. It is true that in a literal sense there are universal boards, universal rating, and universal popular control, but the circumstances of the case are absolutely different and the effect is totally different. The education of Scotland has won its reputation under a purely denominational system. ["Hear, hear!"] It is some 300 years old, and it was started by the Reformers in inseparable connection with their idea of an Established Church. The schools were part of the Church. Each parish had its own school, and the governing body was the minister and the kirk sessions and the heritors. The schoolmasters must be all members of the Established Church. It was under that system that the Scotch education acquired its great reputation.
38
It may not be known to all your Lordships that there are parts of Scotland into which, as we Protestants say, the light of the Reformation never penetrated. There are at this moment parts of the Highlands of Scotland which are predominantly Roman Catholic There never was the slightest difficulty in the schools there about the education of the children. The conscience clause, so called in modern times, was in universal operation through the goodwill and good feeling of the people. The system in Scotland was changed, mainly in consequence of the break up of the Church of Scotland on the question of patronage. The management of the schools was thrown open to the ratepayers, but the schools are as denominational now as they were; they go on teaching their Catechism just as they did before, but, of course, anyone is allowed to leave when it is being taught. I am afraid that that system is totally inapplicable to England. If you had a universal system of School Board regulating the religious education of the country you would not be able to maintain, as we do in Scotland, religious education. I fully believe that if you do not come to the help of the Voluntary Schools, which are the only schools in which religion is effectively taught, a great calamity will happen to the people. I cannot help congratulating the Government upon the introduction of the Bill. I rejoice that for the first time they have put to a good use the great and glorious majority with which the people armed them at the last general election for the improvement of the social and political position of the country. [Cheers.]
LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Duke alluded to the good use to which the Government have put their majority in passing this Bill, but they were not able to obtain that majority's assent to the Bill except by the threat that if the independence which was exhibited last year was exhibited on this occasion the Government were prepared to resign.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Is not that a usual weapon of all Governments?
LORD HERSCHELL: It is a weapon of all Governments, but it is only a weapon of a Government with a majority of 150 when they know that that majority does not believe in the Bill they produce. The noble Duke said that, if you believe or do not believe, but, wish your

39
children to reach a certain decree of educational knowledge, you will equally get a grant. The Bill provides absolutely nothing of the kind. As to statutory equality, the noble Duke must have forgotten the provisions of the Act of 1870. The scheme of 1870 was what the noble Duke described it. We said, "Produce your educational results, and for equal educational results you will get equal grants." This had nothing to do with the religion taught in the schools, but that is altogether departed from here. Here the grant is given to only one set of schools: others might produce as good results, but they get absolutory nothing. The result, my Lords, is that this Bill is an endowment of denominational teaching out of the general taxation of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It is the taxation of those who agree as well as of those who disagree, and it is compelling those who disagree with religious teaching to pay through their taxes for the support of this teaching. It would not be so if you gave the grants to all alike, but as soon as you take money from the general taxpayer and pay it only over to schools which give a particular religious teaching, you are using money from the public, and compelling them to endow schools the teaching in which they disapprove. I do not think the noble Duke appreciated the objection. Take the case of London. The Londoner has to pay his school rate. He supports a certain number of Voluntary Schools, and he has thus to provide by subscriptions and rates the education for the children. Lancashire provides for the same number of children, but Lancashire does it more largely by denominational schools. Lancashire, under this Bill, will get £114,000, while London gets only £44,000. London is called on to pay for Lancashire because Lancashire had chosen to prefer denominational schools. That is the long and the short of it. It was said just now that the people who support denominational schools all pay their rates. That is not so; and I say it is grossly unjust and unfair. How will the Bill work? In Hertfordshire the number of children is 33,816, and that county will receive £6,747. In Monmouthshire the children number 38,000, but that county, under the Bill, will receive only £3,200. Yet Monmouthshire will have to
40
pay as much in taxation as Hertfordshire; it will have to pay for education given in another part of the country. There is an urban district in the county of Glamorgan of 14,000 children, chiefly Board Schools; the district will, under this Bill, receive £13. Birkenhead, with 13,800 children, will receive £3,268; yet the Glamorgan district will pay just as much as Birkenhead. On what principle of financial justice can that be for a moment defended? ["Hear, hear!"] I could cite any number of these examples; the Return is full of them. Take Barrow; with 8,595 children, it will receive £723; while Bury, with 8,160 children, will receive £2,040—three times as much. That seems to me radically and utterly unjust. But, then, it is only necessitous schools which will get any grants at all. I wonder how many there are in London. I venture to say the case is worse than I have suggested. We are told, further, that there is another Bill coming to relieve necessitous Board Schools? Will that relieve Londoners? Certainly not. It will be a further dip into Londoners' pockets. I believe that the extreme unfairness of the Bill will be realised throughout the country. I think I heard the noble Duke say that, even where there was no deficiency at all, they might get a grant to relieve the subscribers from giving subscriptions. That is a very startling statement, and absolutely and entirely destroys the whole of the security which it had been said was obtained from the words "having due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." What the noble Duke has said would justify the doing away with subscriptions altogether. The Bill does not say "having regard to the amount of the subscription," but "having due regard to the maintenance of subscriptions." It does not insist or give the moans of insisting that a school district, which has hitherto ill-supported its schools, shall give more in future. It is only required to maintain its subscriptions. The most reverend Prelate sought to introduce an Amendment into the Report of the Education Commission in 1888, and in doing so he said that the duty of providing and maintaining a good system of elementary education is essentially a local duty. "We cannot recommend that in any case the grant from the Department shall exceed the amount provided on the spot." That

41
principle is utterly departed from and abandoned. According to the noble Duke, however minute the local subscriptions, it would still he perfectly proper to give assistance. Now, my Lords, there is another provision which I think is likely to create much difficulty, and that is, the power to fix different rates for town and country schools. There have been two versions of the purpose of that provision in the House of Commons, one that it is meant to give more to towns as compared with the country, and the other to give more to the country as compared with the towns. Both those explanations were given by Ministers, and we shall be very glad to learn here what is intended. It is said, my Lords, that everything is left in blank to be managed by the Education Department. It may be very wrong of us not to have complete confidence in the Education Department, which the noble Duke would desire us to have. I do not know that I should not have confidence if these matters were to be managed by the officials of the Department without outside control; but the Vice President was not allowed to introduce the Bill, and was hardly allowed to speak upon it, and obviously he will not be allowed to administer it. I have no doubt he will continue to hold the office of Vice President, but I have the strongest conviction that he will not be allowed a word in the administration of this Bill. By whom, then, is it going to be administered? I believe that in this matter, what I call the clerical party have obtained the upper hand, and I believe that unless the administration of the Vice President accorded with their views he would be powerless. I should not have been opposed to a grant of 5s. all round. I think that would have been the only just way of dealing with the matter, and the only way of meeting the real and substantial difficulties which do exist in certain cases. I think there is a hardship in the case of Roman Catholic Schools which ought to be met. There can be no doubt that Roman Catholic parents do strongly object to their children being educated in any other than their own schools, and theirs is the only case in which the difficulty can be met without hardship to others, because they are generally congregated together in towns, and in places where there are Roman Catholic Schools
42
there are other schools to which those who are not Roman Catholics can resort. I believe Roman Catholics would have been perfectly content with 5s. all round; but the Church of England would not. They say, "Give it to us, but do not give it to the Board Schools." I do not say the most reverend Prelates would say that, but I have seen it over and over again amongst the statements of those who have been speaking on this Bill; and, of course, everyone knows there is an intense jealousy of, and a bitter hostility on the part of many towards, the School Boards. The noble Duke alleged that those who oppose this Bill are opposed to religious education. There never was a statement further from the truth. Do the opponents of this Bill never put their hands in their pockets on behalf of denominational schools? It is absolutely and utterly without foundation to state that those who oppose this Bill withhold their support from denominational schools. It is alleged sometimes that Church of England schools exist because the parents of children prefer them to Board Schools. Not one tittle of evidence has ever been produced in support of that allegation. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Duke said that the existence of Voluntary Schools shows that parents prefer them. How does it show it? They have no opportunity of sending their children to other schools. In the greater part of the country they have no choice. ["Hear, hear!"] If the parents cared about it, there would, in my belief, be no need for this Bill; your schools would never have been necessitous. I have studied some subscription lists, and have found that the number of people who contribute is contemptibly small. The burden is put on a very limited number of shoulders, and that is the intolerable strain. ["Hear, hear!"] If that has not been the experience of right reverend prelates, their experience has been a very fortunate one. I do not believe that the laity of the Church of England do share the views of the Duke of Argyll about the religious teaching in Board Schools. I believe that the large majority of the Church laity would much prefer that their children should receive the religious teaching to be obtained in Board Schools, than the kind of sacerdotal teaching they would get in a good many Church schools. That may not be the

43
view of the Episcopal Bench, but I venture to think that that is a subject on which I am as capable of forming a judgment as are right reverend prelates, and I am absolutely persuaded of it. Only the other day I read a sermon by a reverend Father, as he styled himself, in which it was stated that there were 1,500 clergy of the Church of England who taught that regular auricular confession was more important than mere Bible teaching. That is the kind of teaching the people of this country would be bitterly opposed to, and the view that Nonconformists, aye, and members of the Church of England, are to be called upon to support schools where that is the teaching, will intensify opposition to a Bill which will support such schools, ["Hear, hear!"] Many members of the Church of England think that, having regard to the tender age at which children are taught in elementary schools, and the very limited time given to teaching religion in the day school, the simpler the teaching is made the more likely it is to have effect; and if the teaching is confined to the simple elements on which all Christians are agreed, more good will be done than by trying to make little Churchmen or dissenters of them. There are institutions which I know well, conducted on undenominational principles, with Churchmen and Nonconformists on the Committees—educational institutions, more difficult to manage than day schools, because the children are taken in to Board. There is simple family prayer and teaching, in which all are able to join. Hostile to the Church? Certainly not. There is scarcely a year but what many from the school come up for confirmation, and are amongst the best candidates the Bishop receives. Yet this school is conducted on undenominational principles, and I venture to say there go out from that institution children trained in religion as satisfactorily, and as truly religion has as noble an influence on their lives, as any Church school or institution in the world. The religious education in Board Schools, however it may be regarded by the Episcopal Bench, is by the majority of the electorate regarded as satisfactory. There is no evidence to the contrary. There is much in support of it. During the London School Board elections, in spite of the Archbishop of
44
Canterbury's letter deprecating the religious teaching in Board Schools, and his suggestion that the question of religious education was at stake, great majorities were won in the very districts of London where the most, people resided whose children went to the Board Schools. I have felt it my duty to vindicate—and I am speaking the mind of multitudes in this country in vindicating—religious teaching in Board Schools. They would much rather have such teaching than a great deal of the teaching which, unhappily, as they think, is now going on in Church Schools. Now I want to say a word about the position of the Nonconformists. All ideas of being just seem to depart when people are pursuing their own ideas about denominational education. What would the Bishops in this House think if members of the Church of England were in the same position as Nonconformists are throughout the country, who have no alternative but to send their children to Church. Schools? Where they do, the boy whose parents are known to be Nonconformists is subjected in many cases to petty persecutions. [VISCOUNT CROSS: "No, no!"] Does the noble Viscount speak for the whole country when he says "No"? I do not purport to speak for the whole country. Does my noble Friend mean that there are no such cases? I said "in many cases."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CAN'TERBURY: There are very few.
LORD HERSCHELL: Well, we will take it that there are very few. Would it not be felt a hardship if in a large part of the country no member of the Church of England could be a pupil teacher in a school? I can understand the difficulties of the Bishops about schoolmasters. You do not always necessarily secure a teacher who believes in what he has to teach. A man calls himself a member of the Church of England or comes from a Church of England training college. A friend recently told me that an unsuccessful candidate for a position with which he was connected turned out, in spite of his excellent testimonials, to be an atheist. What is felt is that there is no security what the religious instruction in denominational schools may be. It may be asked, how is this affected by the present Bill? It was said in the other House, "This is the present educational system, and it is not made

45
worse by this Bill." But it seems to me that that is just what you do. You make it worse because, however much you may desire, to have a School Board, you cannot get it in any district, although the majority wished it, if there is sufficient school accommodation. If' you buttress up weak schools with public money, of course you diminish the possibility in those districts where the people are not largely supporting the schools of their disappearance, and the people having a School Board if they desire it. But you do this out of public money to which the Nonconformist contributes his share as much as any member of the Church of England does, and out of the money the Nonconformist contributes you perpetuate an educational system to an extent which is often hard and unfair. You are not giving the money equally all round, but divine it only to Voluntary Schools. I should not like it to be understood that intolerance or persecution of Nonconformists is found everywhere. But you find it in particular places, and where you find it the feeling it creates is not limited to the place in which it occurs.
VISCOUNT CROSS: The noble and learned Lord was speaking of it as a general system.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is part of a system, and would be fell to be part of a system if the case were reversed. The most reverend Prelate seems much amused that the Nonconformists should feel this to be a grievance. I am rather grieved, but I suppose I have no right to complain.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If I said anything of the sort I should consider it my duty to apologise to the Nonconformists. But it never entered my head that I should be misinterpreted as the noble and learned Lord misinterprets me.
LORD HERSCHELL: The most reverend Prelate misunderstands me. I was not criticising anything he said. I did not mention his name or allude to it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I beg pardon. The noble and learned Lord said, "The most, reverend Prelate seems amused." I thought he referred to something I had previously said. I could not help smiling at one of his arguments, for I was much amused at the logic the noble Lord indulged in.
LORD HERSCHELL: The most reverend Prelate is entitled to be amused just as the noble Duke is entitled to tell us on this side that we are ignorant and that what we say is pure nonsense. It is the privilege which those who do not agree with you are entitled to. But if the case were reversed, and I were to put it from the opposite point of view, I do not think the most reverend Prelate would have thought it so bad or been so amused.
LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEinterposed a remark which was understood to be that there were places where Board Schools existed, but where Voluntary Schools were not allowed to exist.
LORD HERSCHELL: There is no exclusion from the Board Schools of teachers of any religious denomination. There are many Church of England schoolmasters in Board Schools. But whatever exists in Board Schools does not exist in denominational schools. I have spoken of the injustice done by the Bill to Nonconformists because they are not represented, and naturally the audience in this House is not sympathetic on the subject. But, nevertheless, it is right and just that their views should be put before you, and it would be a great misfortune if it were thought—as I am afraid to some extent seems to be the case—that the undue hardships which they feel in connection with this Bill were regarded here either as ridiculous or unworthy of consideration. My great objection to this Measure is that it is essentially and radically unjust. ["Hear, hear!"] I know, of course, that it was passed by a great majority. It will pass into law; but the injustice and sense of injustice will remain. If there is anything that the people of this country have a deep-rooted regard for it is fair play, and what they believe to be justice. As I believe, this Bill is against that sentiment; it will not be a final settlement, and the day may come when those who rejoice at its passing may regret it was not founded on principles more equitable and just. [Cheers.]
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the noble and learned Lord had made pointed reference to Lancashire, and as he knew himself something of the circumstances of the schools there, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words in explanation of what seemed to him an injustice. They had been told

47
that in Lancashire four-fifths of the children were in the Voluntary Schools, and only one-fifth in the Board Schools, whereas in London one-third only were in the Voluntary Schools, and two-thirds in the Board Schools, and that in consequence of this a large number of London people would have to contribute to the taxes used in Lancashire to support the Voluntary Schools. But surely the noble and learned Lord had not fairly considered the position of things in Lancashire. The condition of things was that four-fifths of the parents of the children in primary schools were paying for education twice over; they were paying to the rates for the support of schools they did not use, and in contributions for the support of Voluntary Schools which they did use. It had been said by some that perhaps the enhancing' of the rents of the working classes did not take place in consequence of the raising of the School Board rate. He could not conceive that. Suppose, for instance, working men lived in houses for which they could only afford to pay £10 a year before the School Board was formed, and in consequence of the formation of the School Board a rate of 1s. in the pound was raised in that place, clearly there must be £10 plus 10s. paid by someone. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble and learned Lord thought that landlords would not raise rents, and thus make the tenants pay it. But that was what took place. Four-fifths of the parents in Lancashire were paying, in enhanced rents, their share of rates for primary schools.
LORD HERSCHELL: But there are many people in Lancashire who pay no rates at all.
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: But they pay them indirectly always.
LORD HERSCHELL: No, no!
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERfelt sure, if the noble and learned Lord made a further examination of the matter, he would fully confirm what he had stated. The noble Lord's argument in respect of paying taxes might be retorted upon himself in respect of the paying of rates. If it was unjust that the London man should pay for the support of his own Board Schools, and then pay taxes, part of which went to Lancashire, it was surely unjust to call upon parents to pay money, part of which went to those schools which they
48
did not use, while at the same time they were called upon to support their own schools. The noble and learned Lord had complained that the Voluntary Schools were not supported by the people who ought to support them. He disputed that argument. He dared say that rich people who ought to support Voluntary Schools failed to do so; but the noble Lord was never more mistaken in his life than when he supposed that the men who belonged to the working classes did not contribute to the support of the Voluntary Schools. He could assure him that in Lancashire many of the Voluntary Schools depended almost exclusively upon the support of the working classes. Not only did they pay the school pence, but they also made very large contributions at the animal collections which were made on behalf of the Voluntary Schools. At Bolton every year collections were made in almost exclusively working class parishes which amounted to between £300 and £400, and the clergy had told him over and over again that that money was provided by working men, who put aside for many weeks the large sums which they gave to these collections. It was asked why they appropriated what appeared to be a larger share than was their due share of the proposed grant of 5s. It was because it was proposed to give those who paid twice over for primary education some little compensation for the injustice they were suffering. If justice were done, the poor people and the rich people who contributed to the Voluntary Schools ought to be allowed to deduct the amount of the contributions from their school rates. ["Hear, hear!"] If, in consequence of a practical difficulty, they could not let them make such deductions, then, if they adopted any other system, they must give them what was the equivalent of their just share. The Government thought it was going to give them the equivalent of their just share, but 5s. was not altogether as much as was justly due to the poor parents in Lancashire. Still, by a method of rule-of-thumb, if they came to the conclusion that they could go as far as 5s., he said, "Thank you" with all his heart. It was not as much as they were justly entitled to; but it was something, and he was happy to get it. He thought the noble Lord did not thoroughly understand their position. With respect to

49
the position of the Board and Voluntary Schools as regarded religious teaching, the noble Lord said there were a large number of people in England, Church men included, who would prefer the religious teaching of the Board Schools to the sacerdotal teaching in certain parishes. He was sorry to hear that there was in any parish what, could truly he called sacerdotal teaching. But he did not think that nicknames were to be accepted as sufficient proof that false doctrine was taught. He had known people called sacerdotalists who had no business to be called such names. He held there were some few, but there were very few, schools in which extravagancies were taught, and no man regretted it more deeply than he did. They were a very small minority of the schools indeed; and he begged to assure the noble Lord that the mass of the schools connected with the Church of England went no further than the teaching of the good old-fashioned Church Catechism, and he did not think the noble Lord would consider that they were going too far when they taught that. If an apparent injustice arose in consequence of there being 8,000 parishes with only one school in each of them, was it the fault of the Church? This was an incidental consequence of their eagerness to do their duty in providing such schools when nobody else would. ["Hear, hear!"] To have a teacher appointed by the managers of a Church School was an absolute necessity. The noble Lord said undenominational instruction would be preferred by many Churchmen to definite, teaching on Church lines. There might be some who called themselves Churchmen who would prefer such teaching as that, and as the noble Lord had given them a few specimens of extreme abuses on one side, he would give him one on the other. The other day he was told by a member of the Manchester School Board that he went into one of the Board Schools and spoke to the head teacher about the manner of giving religious instruction. The answer was this: —
"If you will go round this school with me I will show you half-a-dozen different sects being represented in the teaching of my teachers. I have a Roman Catholic, who is teaching as he has been taught. There is a Unitarian, who is teaching as he has been taught. There is a Swedenborgian, who is
50
teaching as he has been taught. I have an Independent who is teaching as he has been taught, and a Wesleyan and a Baptist, each teaching as he has been taught."
If these were people of a superior capacity, and would only teach those general elements of religion with which the noble Lord was so much in love no harm would he done, but a man of small capacity, who knew nothing of religion but what-he had been taught himself must teach it exactly as it had been taught to him, and the result of that was, that in that, school actually six sects were being taught; and that must always be possible, although it did not exist in all Board Schools. What could a School Board do? It could simply put forth a programme of religious lessons, and say, "Teach those lessons." Hut the teaching of lessons depended entirely upon the teacher; therefore these abuses must occur in other schools. He ventured to say, in answer to the noble Lord's criticisms on denominational teaching and preference for undenominational teaching, that there were dangers on both sides; and he did not think that the dangers of denominational teaching were anything nearly equal to those of undenominational teaching. He desired to say one word on another point. The noble Lord asked why did parents, when a new school was built, prefer the Board School to the Voluntary School which was near them? He had just recently walked through between 50 and 60 parishes in his diocese, and the result of his experience was that where there was competition the parents preferred, in Manchester, the Voluntary to the Board Schools, although one was palatial and the other very simple, and worse than simple. They might say, Why, then, object to the erection of these schools? One reason was, that they were often built so near the Voluntary Schools that there were not sufficient scholars to fill both; and then, of course, the Voluntary Schools suffered by the withdrawal of a portion of the children to till the new school. He was quite sure that the noble Lord had exaggerated both the injustice that would be perpetrated by the Bill and the inconvenience of perpetuating the system which the Bill was intended to support. He did not think this Bill would be a settlement of the question. He did not accept it as doing full justice to the schools in the North. It

51
was scant justice, but it was some measure of justice. It would do them good. It would help them to go on living, and he hoped that a future and a more liberal generation would grant them a Measure that would enable them to go on living and flourishing. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONremarked that there were two points which appeared to be generally conceded. One was that there were necessitous schools in this country which required further assistance, and the other was that there was no intention on the part of anyone in this House to put an end to or destroy the denominational schools. With regard to the first point, the Lord President of the Council appeared to imply that, because there was now a necessity for increased assistance to many necessitous schools in the country, therefore the calculations of those who were the authors of the Act of 1870 had been erroneous. As one of the authors of that Act he could not admit the view of the noble Duke. It was not in the least unnatural that after the lapse of more than a quarter of a century calculations made at that time should be found now inapplicable, though they were perfectly applicable then, and in this fact there was no reflection upon those who made those calculations. It was always understood by the authors of the Act of 1870 that the standard of education then fixed would be gradually raised. The late Mr. Forster and himself thought that it would be unjust to the existing schools at that time to pitch that standard too high, but they always expected and intended that the standard would be raised, and accordingly, and quite rightly, the standard of education had been gradually raised by the Education Department. It was necessary this should be so with the gradual advance of education, and there was no ground of complaint against the Education Department, and especially against his right hon. Friend Mr. Acland, in this respect. It should be also borne in mind that with the progress of sanitary science the sanitary requirements of schools had been increased, and this had added to the cost of maintenance. That being so, there could be no doubt, and so far as his knowledge went there was no doubt, that there were a large number of necessitous schools requiring further aid, and so far as the Bill provided that aid it was a step in the
52
right direction. He rejoiced to see there was no intention on either side of the House to make any attack on the existence of denominational schools. It was admitted on all hands that their maintenance under the present system of education in the country was a necessity, and he held that opinion very strongly. He was not about to enter into the controversy between Lord Herschell and the right reverend Prelates on the Bench opposite. It might be true that those who ought to subscribe to denominational schools did not do so. He expressed no opinion upon that, but it was within his knowledge that, so far as the Roman Catholics in this country were concerned, there were a very large number of schools urgently requiring additional assistance. If his noble and learned Friend saw the plate go round among the poorest of the people, and the pence thrown on for the support of Roman Catholic schools, he would agree that in this case there were voluntary subscriptions, and also a great demand for further assistance. Being then one of those who held very strongly that the continued existence in full efficiency of denominational schools was necessary as part of the educational system of the country, he was glad that a Measure should be provided for their assistance, only he wished that the means were of a different character, as he would explain. He did not propose to argue the question at any length or to enter into subjects of religious controversy bound up with it, and which were not well suited to the atmosphere of Parliamentary discussion, but there was one strong argument not yet alluded to in this Debate, and very little referred to in another place. The present system of education as established by the Act of 1870 was a compulsory system, for under that. Act parents were compelled to send their children to school. He was one of the authors of that Act, and approved of the then novel principle of compulsion, and approved of it still; but it did seem to him that, when parents were compelled to send their children to school, the State was bound to be very careful to pay respect and consideration to the conscientious feelings of parents. ["Hear, hear!"] Conscientious feelings did certainly enter very strongly into this matter. He would say nothing of any

53
other religious body but that with which he was himself connected, but no man would for a moment attempt to deny that among the Roman Catholic body the conscientious objection to sending their children to schools where they would not receive a distinct and definite dogmatic teaching was universal. He would not exaggerate were he to say that this feeling was unanimous among priests and people. Under the circumstances, when you have a compulsory system he did not think it could be controverted you were bound, so far as you reasonably could, to take care that you provided schools suitable to meet the conscientious desires of the parents of the children who were compelled to attend. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as this seemed to be a main object of the Bill he would offer no objection or opposition to it. He held it to be a necessary and reasonable proposal that the State should give to necessitous schools— he did not say only to denominational schools, but should give to necessitous schools —further aid; and he held it to be a necessary complement of our compulsory system that schools should, so far as possible, be provided to which all could conscientiously send their children. But he was sorry to say that, when he turned from the general principle of this Measure, and looked at its proposals and the mode in winch its object was to be attained, his feeling was very different in regard to it. Those proposals appeared to him in many respects, both by what they contained and yet more by what they omitted, to be open to very grave objections; and though he did not want to speak at all disrespectfully about a Measure which the Lord President told the House had been so long in preparation, and which had superseded another scheme of which they had heard for the first time to-night, and of which he thought they were entitled to know more than the Lord President had been good enough to tell the House, if he were not to shrink from criticism he would be inclined to say it was one of the most blundering Measures that had ever come within his Parliamentary experience. Certainly it was one of the most, curious Measures he had met with. He had had in either House a Parliamentary experience not far short of 50 years, and he
54
had never seen another Bill of this description so curiously drawn and containing such singular provisions. In the first place he strongly objected to the separation of the two classes of schools which were involved in this legislation. The noble Duke had told the House that there was a Bill for the purpose of making grants to necessitous Board Schools about to be brought in, and that it would very shortly be introduced in the other House of Parliament. When that Bill was brought in they would be able to judge of it; they could not form any particular idea of its nature from the noble Duke's reference. When the Bill was before the House they would be able to judge of its sufficiency to meet the needs of those Board Schools that required further aid. But his objection to this Bill in this respect was that it did not deal with both classes of schools, and he objected, not in the interest of Board Schools, for the promised Bill might, he did not know whether it would, meet all their requirements. He objected to it in the interest of denominational schools because he thought an injury would be done to those schools in separating their interests from those of the Board Schools. It was not only money they wanted, not only the money to be given now, they wanted a reasonable hope of the permanence of the arrangement, and that hope would have been largely increased, if both classes of schools had been dealt with in I he same Bill. By leaving out Board Schools jealousy and irritation were created, and the security of the position of denominational schools was weakened. It would be observed that he spoke of these schools not in the technical language of the Bill as Voluntary Schools, but as denominational schools, because he thought, the latter was the more appropriate and more honest term. The value of these schools and the desire for them was because of their denominational character, and after this Bill passed he doubted if there would be much of the voluntary element attaching to them. It was a great mistake to separate the two classes of schools, though he would not say it was for the purpose of setting them in antagonism. Instead of giving to the denominational schools the security that they would have had for the permanence of the Measure if they had dealt at the same time with

55
Board Schools, they had raised up irritation in this matter which would seriously, he was afraid, come back to them in the future. With regard to the associations which it was proposed to establish under this Bill, he confessed that, after reading the Measure and a good deal of the discussions which took place in another place, he found it extremely difficult to understand what was to be their nature. But he was still more puzzled since he had heard the Debate that night. The Lord President was very vague about the subject. He recited a great variety of different kinds of associations that might be established under the Bill, but he did not say which of them he preferred or which of them was going to be established. The Archbishop of Canterbury knew his mind perfectly on the matter, and if the most rev. Prelate had to settle the matter they would have understood exactly their position. These associations were to take part in the distribution of public money, and yet—and he said it was without precedent in Parliament—the Government had so drawn their Bill that it was impossible to say what would be the nature of these associations. The noble Duke had no idea. The most rev. Prelate knew very well what he wanted, and so did the Vice President. The most rev. Prelate wanted denominational associations with the Bishops of the Established Church at their head. The Vice President of the Council wanted associations of a totally different kind, for he told the good people of Girton the other day that he wanted associations on no narrow basis, and which did not represent any particular sect. The two ideas were absolutely opposed and contrary to one another, and he did say that to set up associations in so vague a manner, leaving it entirely to be determined by an Executive Department of the Government what was to be the nature of these institutions, was a step without precedent in the history of their legislation. He was astonished when he looked at this Bill as a Measure brought in by the Government of which Lord Salisbury was the head, because for years and years back Lord Salisbury had been always inclined to criticise the Education Department and to express want of confidence in it; but now they were
56
going to give to that Education Department, which they were told last year was so overworked that it was absolutely necessary, in order to relieve it, to revolutionise the whole of their educational system, one of the largest and one of the most, difficult duties that it was possible to confer upon any Department of the public service. He could not think that that was desirable, nor did he think it a right step. He did not think it was the way in which Parliament should be treated, and he did not think they would find it would result in very satisfactory consequences. His noble Friend, Lord Herschell, spoke of some of these associations as they might be established in connection with the Established Church, and he seemed to think that they would lead to considerable difficulty and trouble. It was not for him to say anything upon that point. He did not expect it in the Roman Catholic body, but that did not make the slightest difference in regard to their position in the face of Parliament. It appeared to him that the Government had forgotten the true interests of the very denominational schools for which they were legislating. Their interest was that those controversies which had done so much mischief to the general cause of education, and which were so threatening to the best interests of denominational schools, should be appeased. He confessed he was alarmed when he heard the Bishop of Manchester speak of this Bill as only a temporary Measure—that he wanted more and was going in for more. If that was the course which was to be taken by the Bishop of Manchester and those who thought with him, he ventured to say it was one likely to be very disastrous to the denominational schools of the country. What they wanted to do was to settle this controversy and to settle it once for all, so far as it was possible to use such an expression in regard to any human undertaking—to get rid of the ill-feeling, the ill-will, the irritation, the jealousy, and the suspicion which had been created by the great proportion of the provisions of this Bill, and to give it time fairly and honestly to work in the interests of the schools which it was intended to apply to. ["Hear, hear!"] He regarded it as a grave omission from the Bill that it did not touch at all the question of what was called the popular representation in the

57
management of these schools. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to that question, there were two classes of schools to be considered. The one class consisted of schools in those parishes in which there was but one school, and the other class consisted of those schools in districts in which there was a variety of schools of different kinds. The law compelled parents to send their children to school in that parish in which there was only one school, and in that case, to his mind, the claim that the people of the parish should in some way or another be effectually represented upon the management of the school was an overwhelming claim. He had long thought that the omission to deal with that case was one of the greatest omissions in the Bill of 1870. In the other case, the claim was very much less strong, but still, they were going to increase the assistance to schools out of the public money, and he held that it was right and proper that there should be upon the management of those schools some representation of the public of the district.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Does the noble Marquess say that the Roman Catholics should have some popular representation?
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that what he was saying applied to all schools. He was not drawing the smallest distinction, and if the noble Duke had read the discussions in the House of Commons he would have perceived that the Roman Catholic Members of that. Assembly took precisely the same view of the subject that he was taking now. He thought the infusion of an element of this kind into the management of these schools would be desirable in the interests of the schools themselves. In many districts in his part of the country this had been done, not merely by the admission of certain nominated persons, but in certain cases by election. It had worked exceedingly well, and he firmly believed that, if a system of that kind were to be adopted, it would do much to strengthen the position of the denominational schools in the public estimation. So far as it was the principle of the Bill to give further assistance to necessitous schools he was in accord with it, but he must say that to his mind the manner in which it was proposed by the Government to attain their object was host unfortunate He
58
believed it was wanting in the permanency which was one of the most important elements of an arrangement of this kind. He believed it would tend, not to allay, but to keep up the controversies which existed at the present time. The Government had, for some unknown reason, refused to insert in the Bill a clause that the rules and regulations of the associations should be laid before Parliament. But they did not suppose that therefore those rules and regulations would not be known, would not be discussed, and would not be criticised. And they did not suppose that that criticism and discussion would tend to prolong those very controversies which might have been settled if the Government had only frankly and honestly told Parliament the nature of the associations it was intended to set up. He regarded the Measure with considerable distrust and alarm. He believed that the details of it were not calculated to work in the interest of the schools the Measure professed to favour, but on the contrary were likely to imperil the position of those schools and increase the controversies which had gathered around them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I confess I rise, my Lords, to reply to the noble Marquess under circumstances of considerable difficulty, because I have not the least notion which way he is going to vote. [A laugh.] I had intended, had not the noble Marquess so frankly stated what his views were about the Act of 1870, to remind your Lordships of one or two observations made by the Government of the day upon the subject of denominational schools. In the Debates in 1870 Mr. Gladstone admitted the necessity of dealing with the two sets of schools, and said they must fulfil the engagements they had already entered into with the Voluntary Schools. The noble Marquess said just now, "You have separated the two things—the provision in respect, to the denominational schools and that for the Board Schools." I shall be glad to learn what he meant. What is it the noble Marquess wants? I am afraid I shall pause for a reply.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am too well accustomed to Parliamentary practice to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. [A laugh]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say the noble Marquess is too old a Parliamentary hand to give an answer which is not satisfactory? [Laughter.] It is better if you cannot give a good answer to give none at all. The noble Marquess forgets one thing he said which was most important—it was that, where there is only one school and you make attendance at it compulsory, there is a great injustice which ought to be altered. Perhaps I was wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Did the noble and learned Lord say I said it was unjust to make children attend these schools?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Without providing for their conscience, that is what I understood.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I said that when you did that it was very desirable and necessary to give the people of the parish some representation on the management.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was in another part of his speech.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I did not say what the noble and learned Lord says I do say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess was speaking of the Act of 1870, and he said he had always felt since then that the forcing of children to go to school, and not to have provided some form or religious instruction appropriate to their own conscience—
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I an sure he docs not wish—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess says he did not say it—
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have all along looked upon it as a great omission that the Act of 1870 did not provide for some representation of the people in the case of single-school districts. That is all I said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I at once acquiesce, if the noble Marquess says he did not say what I understood him to say. The noble Marquess will observe this—that if education is compulsory, and there is only one school, a child must go to that school, whatever the sector religious denomination he belongs to. I regret the absence of my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, because I should have liked to have replied to his speech in his presence, I regret very much the
60
tone of some of his remarks. The whole tone of the speech was an attack upon the Church of England and the Church of England schools. He gave us one or two examples of what he described as Church teaching. I entirely deny that that is Church teaching. Then he drew a picture of what he called undenominational teaching, but. I confess I thought it was a good picture of denominational teaching. The practical question is whether or not this Bill is to pass in order to give what is admittedly required for the purpose of maintaining those schools which under the Act of 1870 you have promised to maintain. Some complaints have been made of the Education Department, but I ask whether there would be the smallest chance of this Bill becoming law if some new authority were created? What was it we were asked to do? We have got this scheme to distribute money in the face of the people and subject to a Government Department and Parliamentary criticism, and you are asked to throw the scheme out for some other scheme in the minds of noble Lords, but not disclosed up to the present time. We have heard what we ought to have put in the Bill with regard to the associations who are to advise the Government Department. We know very well that the money will not be distributed by the associations, but by the Department. All the associations have to do is to bring certain facts before the Department— facts as to the necessity and circumstances of the schools. I think that my noble Friend Lord Herschell, in his objections, disclosed a hostility to denominational schools which the noble Marquess (Ripon) would, I think, be the last to appreciate. There can be no doubt that ever since 1870 the two sets of schools got on very well together; but I concur in the distrust of some of those who have presided over the Department. No one can doubt that on occasions the administration of the Act has been in the highest degree hostile to denominational schools, and that from time to time attempts have been made to destroy some of these schools. I can give a case within my own knowledge. The school got on extremely well for some time. Then it was required to make some sanitary alterations. The money was raised in the village to do this. Then the Department

61
came down upon them again and demanded that there should be built an additional place for the scholars in the meantime. That was the last straw, and the result was a Board School. All through, the country at such periods an effort was made to destroy some of these denominational schools. That is what in fact has produced the distrust in the School Boards. Now the opponents of the Bill come forward and complain. They suggested that words should be put in the Bill which would make it absolutely unworkable, and which would cause Parliament to spend the whole Session over it, the Government to be blamed in the end. Now, my Lords, as to the Bill, I venture to think that this has been a great cry over a very little matter indeed. [Cheers.] The object is to supply necessitous schools. It is put in the smallest compass, and the machinery is of the simplest. Because it is simple and contained in about a dozen lines we have all sorts of references and suggestions very much outside the object of the present Measure. The simple question is, are the necessitous schools to be allowed to perish for lack of support? I hope your Lordships will, by a majority proportionate to the great majority in the other House, pass this Bill. The Bill passed there by a majority of 200— [Cheers]—and I am sure your Lordships are not disposed to disagree from their determination that this provision should be made. ["Hear, hear!"]
EARL STANHOPEsaid, as a former member of the London School Board, and also a member of a Voluntary School in London as well as in the country, he trusted he might be allowed to make a few remarks on the Bill. The Act of 1870 no doubt gave a great impetus to education, but it established a dual system, and produced great inequality. It worked well for years, and he hoped that the compromise might have been maintained. He could not help thinking that, if, in the days of Mr. Forster, local government had existed, if there had been County and District Councils, there would have been then a system of decentralisation, and that they would not have the dual system. He agreed with the most rev. Primate when he said that a clear division between primary and secondary education was not laid down as it should be, and he hoped
62
that this would be effected before long, and that they would have a strong and satisfactory scheme of secondary education established throughout the country. Then three years ago Free Education was established, and no doubt that was logical, since they had demanded that Education should be compulsory; but it worked very unequally in the north and in the south. In the south they had much less difficulty to contend with, because the fees were very small, but the fees in the north rose to 8d. and 9d. per head. He was under the impression that any such scheme to relieve inequality would be hailed with satisfaction, and his surprise was great that there should have been such a long discussion on so small and simple a Measure. He also thought noble Lords opposite followed the views of the people, and when a Bill was sent up to their Lordships' House by a majority of 200, he could not see why they should be put to the trouble of dividing upon it. ['Hear, hear!"] Lord Ripon had said I hut necessitous Board Schools ought to be treated at the same time as necessitous Voluntary Schools, but the noble Duke, the President of the Council, had informed the House that a Departmental Committee had found after inquiry that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of such a proposal. There were great difficulties on the face of it, inasmuch as Board Schools were supported by rates and Voluntary Schools by subscriptions, and by a Section of the Act of 1870 necessitous Board Schools were clearly defined, and unless that Section had been repealed, he did not see how necessitous Board Schools could have been treated in the same way as necessitous Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not see that there was any reason to suppose that voluntary subscriptions would fall off. He believed the Church of England was more fully alive to her duties at the end of the century than she was at the beginning. He believed the provision as to associations was a most important part of the Bill. By experience alone could their duties be exactly defined. From the working of an association with which he was acquainted, he was confidently of opinion that this provision would conduce not only to proper management, but also to the proper disposal of the

63
funds available for poor Voluntary Schools. Lord Spencer had said that he objected to diocesan management, but diocesan management did not mean that the laity would be excluded. On the contrary, he thought it was clear that the associations would be comprised half of clergy and half of laity. He felt confident that when the existence of Voluntary Schools was in question, the associations would take care that they were worked well in order that such a good balance might be shown in every case as would redound to the credit of Voluntary Schools. A point was raised by a noble Lord opposite as to the exact position of Her Majesty's Inspectors. It seemed to him, without having any information about it, that they would continue to perform the same duties as now. They would pay surprise visits and report to the Department as usual. The Department would ask the advice of the local associations, who would have a far better local knowledge than the inspectors. He really believed that under these associations, as established, Roman Catholic and British and Foreign Schools would have fair and full treatment. Their claims would be considered on the same system as other Voluntary Schools —namely, as to the number of pupils and the funds at their disposal. Of course, the Church commanded such great influence in National education that she had a greater number of schools to provide for, but he believed that Roman Catholic and other schools would have the full grant where it was shown that they were well managed and that their students were numerous. He trusted there would be no delay in passing this Measure, which had long been looked forward to. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD NORTONsaid that, although both in their Lordships' House and in another place the Bill had been described as a conglomeration of controverted principles, he could hardly conceive a simpler proposition than one to make a Treasury grant to Voluntary Schools. He thought the opponents of the Bill had rather invidiously represented it as a Measure of relief to Voluntary Schools, as if they were in a necessitous state. It would be far better described as a security given to the public for the continued service of Voluntary Schools, which to them was a most essential matter. The pauper
64
claimant was not the Voluntary Schools, hut the public, who could not do without them. But, after all, what was the nature of their claim? They represented the foundation of the whole spirit of the motional system of education. Their programme was described as the elementary education of the poor. Soon after they began their work a great deal of secondary instruction was introduced—very important work, but something quite distinct from the elementary education Voluntary Schools were formed to give. In 1870 School Boards were formed to supplement Voluntary Schools, and they were furnished with unlimited public money to carry out this higher education. It was clear that if the public required higher education to be given in elementary schools they must pay for it, whether in Voluntary Schools or Board Schools. It was the whole of the proposal of the Bill that the higher education now introduced into elementary education should be paid for, the volunteers continuing what they volunteered to give—namely, elementary education. To mix primary and secondary education was, no doubt, a great mistake. The mixture of the two damaged both, and neither got the freedom it needed. The two stages of primary and secondary education were distinct in their nature, and in their claim for public support. Elementary education was the training, from infancy up to the age when children went into employment, for the use of their faculties, and to inculcate principles for the intelligent and honest use of them in whatever line of life they followed. Secondary education was special apprenticeship to various lines of life. These definitions were not, mutually exclusive. Primary education in general culture gave a great deal of practical knowledge, and secondary education in apprenticing carried on general culture. The two stages of education were distinct; but so long us both were imparted in the same school, the Voluntary Schools had as fair a, claim to public support for the higher stages as the Board Schools. Secondary education had not the same claim as elementary education to public support. Nothing could injure the spirit of the country more than that the State should unnecessarily relieve parents of the charge of the education of their children With regard to secondary

65
education it was absolutely wrong that the public should be taxed for the training and bringing up of the sons of rich manufacturers. The great municipal technical schools springing up were not so much used by the artisan class as by the sons of rich manufacturers, who so trained their sons for business at enormous public expense. The "cross scent" drawn over the subject by starting a parallel claim for necessitous Board Schools to that of the Voluntary Schools was absolutely absurd. The two claims were not only not parallel, hut were not even similar. The claim of the Voluntary Schools that the higher education which had been added to their programme should be paid for by the public was not like the claim of the necessitous Board Schools who volunteered nothing, but asked that the rates should be relieved by the Treasury. The Government had shown a want of backbone by giving in to that as a parallel claim, however good in itself. Mr. Acland, in the Debates in the House of Commons on this Bill, said, there was no guarantee in the Bill that the grant to be given to Voluntary Schools should be spent in improved education. Nothing could be mere absurd. It was the only ground of the claim of Voluntary Schools that they should have the means of giving the advanced education now called for by the country in elementary schools. It was altogether wrong to look on the vote as one of relief to Voluntary Schools. It was not in any way contemplating them as necessitous schools. They had volunteered at the private expense of their supporters to make a gift of elementary education to the nation. That was not an act of necessity. They had performed their undertaking, but as other kinds of education are now expected of them they said, "We cannot be expected to provide the means to meet them also, and they must be met by the demanding public. That was the entire proposal of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD HERRIESsaid he could not help expressing satisfaction that the Government had introduced this Bill. But he should be sorry that it should be supposed that the Catholics were satisfied with the amount given them under the Bill. They accepted it as an instalment, and did not necessarily consider it final. They were satisfied with what they had,
66
but they could not consider what they had received as final, because the people who supported Catholic schools were poor, and the difficulty of raising subscriptions for the support of Catholic schools was greater than in any other denomination. If the House knew the difficulty Catholic clergy had to raise subscriptions, going up and down streets canvassing; the little concerts they got up to raise £2 or £3 to keep the schools going, it would understand that the Catholics had a real grievance. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact was, the position in many cases had become intolerable. The difficulty of raising the money necessary for the schools became greater every year, because the requirements of the Department became greater. It was all very well to say that under the Act of 1870 the grants were raised. The schools then were very different from what they were now. Sanitary requirements were greater. The result was, the cost of the maintenance of children in the schools had risen from £1 7s. 5d. in 1872 to £1 18s. 11 ¼d. in 1895. Grants had risen, but not in the same proportion as the cost of maintenance, and the result was voluntary subscribers had to find a larger sum in subscriptions. There would be imminent danger if this Bill were not passed of many schools becoming gradually extinct. But one thing Catholics were determined upon—that religious education should continue to exist in this country. [Cheers.] He was glad to find that religious education would continue, and that this Bill would tend towards that end. The noble Lords who had spoken had admitted the whole principle if voluntary education. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said that the Nonconformists suffered a grievance by having often to fend their children to Church schools. If hey were not satisfied let them build schools of their own. In many parishes where there were not more than twenty Catholics, the latter had their own schools. There was no question of preference of one school over another with regard to the grant. If there was any preference it was given to Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Catholics who were poor had not only to support their own schools, but contribute to the rates for he support of Board Schools. Look at he salaries given in Board Schools. He happened to have something to do with a

67
school in the south of Scotland. There were only 117 children, and the head teacher got £240 a year; the second teacher, £140; and the third teacher £60; or more than £400 a, year for the teaching of 117 children! As the Duke of Devonshire said, they were becoming the servants of the teachers, and they would have to tackle the question how far they were to meet the demands of the teachers. He was as anxious for the higher education of the people of this country as anyone. He was Chairman of the Technical Education Committee of his county, and he had taken the greatest interest in higher technical and secondary education. But let them have their money's worth, and let all be educated on equal terms. He was most thankful to the Government for having brought in this Bill. He had never been in favour of getting money from the rates, because he had always believed that if they had it they would never be able to prevent popular control. He thought that representation of the ratepayers would, to a certain extent, endanger the independence of their schools, and for that reason he had always been opposed to getting assistance from the rates. But it was a different thing from their getting assistance from the public Exchequer, where they had the inspectors from the Education Department to see that the money was properly expended, the accounts audited, and that there was no danger of any malversation of the funds in any way. He trusted their Lordships would give a Second Reading to the Bill, and that the Voluntary Schools in the country should have the benefit of this grant, and that those who wished to give their children a religious education might have an opportunity of giving that religious education to their children in the future.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he ventured to interpose in this Debate to express his hopes that their Lordships, by passing this Bill, would secure, at all events for some time, a cessation of a controversy in which it seemed the chief object had been for some time to obscure the real issue. Echoes of that attempt had reached their Lordships that night— loud echoes, he ventured to think—in the speech of the noble and learned Lord Herschell (whom he regretted not to see in his place) who, with exuberant geniality,
68
walked, he might say pranced, upon a well-trodden road, flogging a dead horse. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord. It was enough for him, if he might venture to express the hope with which he began, that for a little time there might be secured, by this Bill, a cessation from the controversy which stood in the way of any real educational progress. It was somewhat to be regretted that for so long a period what had been called the education question should simply have resolved itself into a question of a dispute between two different kinds of schools. Surely education contained many problems to which it would be most desirable that public interest should be given, and he believed it was only if public interest were given to the contents of education itself, and not the mere externals of it, that only so could they really reach to any wise conclusion upon the subjects which were now so much discussed. It seemed to him that much confusion which at present arose came from the fact that administrative considerations were applied to what were purely educational questions. It was solely for the purpose of the convenience of administration that there was invented, by the Act of 1870, a system which he thought- was now tolerably admitted on all sides exactly satisfied nobody. It seemed so very ingenious and easy to say, "As people do not all care about one topic, by all means let us drop out of the consideration of it everything about which there can be any disagreement, and surely the residuum may be accepted by everybody with good heart and courage." That method had been tried, and it had not succeeded. It had not succeeded in obtaining popular acceptance. They had heard much that night about the conscience of Nonconformists and of Roman Catholics. He ventured to think the members of the Church of England had a right to possess a conscience also, and their conscience had been little regarded in the controversy that had lately gone on. It had been supposed that, provided a small minority had its rights respected, and supposing all other bodies had, at all events, attempts made to secure them justice, that the body which still remained the great religious representative

69
of this country might practically be disregarded and must put up with anything that was left to it. The members of the Church of England asked only the opportunity of being allowed to teach those doctrines which they conscientiously believed; and, moreover, the advocates of the voluntary system were convinced that, in maintaining that system they were not maintaining something which merely made for the preponderance of their own body, but were maintaining principles which were essential for the maintenance of education itself, Not to go into the larger questions of I principle, involved, he would simply call attention to one minor point which was concerned almost with mechanism, the fact, namely, that the existence of Voluntary Schools was the sole and real guarantee that the education given in Board Schools should be religious at all, for so long as Board Schools and Voluntary Schools went on side by side the Voluntary School acted as an automatic check upon the tendencies of the Board School by compelling it to respect the wishes of the parent. No one desired to take, and no one could take, the children out of the guardianship of the parents and teach them anything, religious or secular, to which the parents had decided objection. But in the case of the Board School system it was perfectly easy that an untoward concurrence of circumstances should lead to a considerable disregard of the wishes of the parents in the matter of religious education. If there was close by a Voluntary School, or, even if not close by, a Voluntary School which, by I considerable sacrifices, was accessible, then the withdrawal of the children from the Board School and the sending them to the Voluntary School became a very serious matter indeed for the School Board. They were at once pulled up in I their attempts to disregard the obvious wishes of the parents; and the check acted immediately. Lord Herschell had said, in the course of his speech, that there was no tittle of evidence that parents preferred denominational schools. The preference of parents was somewhat hard to discover, except, perhaps, by the process of the Census Paper. But some facts came before one's notice, and one came before his notice in his previous diocese of Peterborough which seemed to him
70
exceedingly significant. At a public meeting a secularist speaker had made the usual statement that the one interest of the clergy of the Church of England in maintaining the Voluntary Schools was that they might make themselves masters of the consciences of the children. He was stopped by a working man, who mounted the platform by his side, and said: —
"I shall tell you what I think about this matter. I am a convinced Nonconformist. I hope to live, and die a Nonconformist, and I trust that my children will follow in my steps, but at the present moment I send my children to the Voluntary School in preference to the Board Schools, because I know the master of the Voluntary School—the Church school—is a religious-minded man. and I know that the management of the Church school is such as will secure that proper care should be taken for religious training."
It seemed to him that such an opinion was absolutely well founded. It was useless to try and belittle the significance of denominational differences. Denominations differed in just those points which came most home to the mind of the child. If they differed from one another it was not, he admitted, about the great truths, because they were common to them all; but they differed about the particular way in which those truths had to be applied to the life and conscience of the individual. For that reason, if for no other, if religious education was to be real and genuine, it must be denominational and have a definite point of attachment to the life and character of the child who was being taught. That was appreciated by the great body of the English people, and he believed that they were distinctly desirous that Voluntary Schools should be maintained, because they felt that in them they had the one safeguard for the maintenance of religious education at all. This Bill was a trifling Bill, totally undeserving, in his opinion, the attention that had been paid to it in another place. It simply aimed at maintaining the status quo, and it had the great advantage that it tended to save them from the danger which inevitably came when principles were sacrificed to convenience of administration. The suppression of Voluntary Schools by the brute force of financial pressure would leave behind it an inextinguishable sense of wrong, and would produce results most dangerous to the well-being of society.

71
It was ever dangerous that principles should be sacrificed to the mere interest of convenience of administration. From this danger the Bill attempted to save. It left the schools just in the position where they were. It left them so for the time when the mind and conscience of the nation could more distinctly and definitely express its opinion than it had hitherto done. He thought there was always a danger when the system founded on principles was extinguished by a system founded merely on expediency, and the system exhibited by the Board School was one which owed its very origin to the consideration of expediency of administration. The compromise of 1870 had been found to be no compromise, and it was clear that some new arrangement would have to be made. Time would do much towards indicating the lines which that arrangement would take, and the mere exhaustion of use of arguments, in which there was little and the poverty of which was increasingly exhibited every time they were used, would do much. But still more would be done by the shifting of their point of view as regarded education. Hitherto public interest had been almost entirely given to the pure externals of education—the way in which the schools had to be built, the salaries which masters and mistresses had to be paid—and, as yet, the public mind had not been turned at all to what were the real contents of their educational system. It was only when the meaning of education itself was more widely known and more keenly felt that it would be possible for them to attain to even the basis of a new arrangement which would be satisfactory to all sides; and neither he nor any of his brethren wished for any arrangement that would not be satisfactory or just to all concerned. It was a matter of deep regret to them that there should be even the appearance of injustice towards anybody whatever in their just claim to teach those things of which they were profoundly convinced, This Bill did not err on the side of excess it merely gave time with due regard to economy. It contained some valuable suggestions, and not the least valuable was the power of association tending to call into existence a central body to direct the affairs of Voluntary Schools. In this way much would be done to remove eccentricities of management, which sometimes
72
unfortunately did occur, and to which attention had been drawn more than once during the Debate. None regretted these eccentricities of management more than those who were interested in the maintenance of religious education, and he hoped they would pass away under the greater publicity and the more regulated system this power of association would bring about. This Bill merely recognised that it was inexpedient to settle the questions now open in regard to our educational system by the force of mere financial pressure that had been unforeseen. These questions were too delicate and far-reaching to be settled by any such appeal to mere force. The future, the near future he trusted, would more than justify the respite which this Bill afforded. The future, he believed, would recognise that those who now supported the cause of Voluntary Schools were animated by a nobler conception of the nature of education, and he would venture to say by a higher ideal of the true nature of civil and religious liberty than their opponents of to-day. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I entirely sympathise with the feelings expressed by the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down, that it is greatly to be regretted that bitter controversies should arise on the subject of education; but I differ from him in thinking that the Bill will tend to allay those controversies, and, on the contrary, my principal reason for being opposed to this Bill is that I believe it will stimulate controversy and lead to bitter controversies and animosities on the whole subject. The right reverend Prelate seems to regret the compromise of 1870—a compromise I well remember, for I was a Member of the Government which passed that Act. That compromise was the moans at that time of getting free from bitter controversies that then prevailed—and I think that, although, of course, as is the case with all compromises, it is open to objections from both sides—I think that the 25 years of complete peace we have enjoyed since then will be sacrificed by the present Bill, and I believe myself that those who are the most ardent now for commencing the destruction of this compromise will live to bitterly regret that they ever touched it. ["Hear, hear!"] I make no complaint of the right reverend Prelate; it is only natural that one occupying his position

73
should hold the opinion he does as to tile necessity for teaching little children I dogma. It is, of course, a loose term, and I know that all opinion may be called dogma; but what I menu is the teaching of those truths of religion that cm only appeal to the more mature understanding. I have myself an absolute conviction that there is no delusion greater than to suppose that such teaching is necessary for little children. There are some simple principles which undoubtedly every man who has any religious feeling would wish to have taught to children: but when 1 see the controversies that take place because children are not taught this or that dogma, I confess I think zeal for a particular denomination is greater than zeal for the education of the children. The noble Duke opposite made the remarkable discovery that the Bill is founded on the voluntary principle—was a wonderful instance of liberalism and freedom. Not only do I not think the Bill is based on the voluntary principle, but I think the Bill is very likely in the end, if not at once, to destroy the Voluntary principle. ["Hear, hear!"] The Voluntary principle means the support of schools by voluntary subscriptions. Now, at the present moment about 70 per cent, of the cost; of so-called Voluntary Schools is paid by the State, and when this Bill comes into full operation I think that state of things will be realised which the Lord President spoke of in 1876 when the 17s. 6d. limit was introduced—that Voluntary Schools in point of fact can no longer be called voluntary, and will be called by the more appropriate word "denominational." The meaning of this Bill is that for the first time there is a special endowment by the State about to be given to denominational schools. Contrary to the Act of 1870 the Bill gives a subvention, to one class of schools. It is very true we are told that there may be a Bill for giving something to the Board Schools, but gathered from the noble Duke that it is not intended In treat the Board Schools on a footing of equality, in this respect, with the denominational schools. Then, 1 say, the old foundation of statutory equality disappears. I recognise as much as anyone in this House that it is right and proper that, where you, find that the funds are not sufficient to maintain the
74
schools in a proper state of efficiency, the State should come to the assistance of he schools. That, I apprehend, is the case for this Bill. But then, observe, you relieve, or profess to relieve, one particular class—those who support the schools. What is the principle upon which the schools were originally held to >e supported? The meaning of it was his—that in certain districts in the country where the inhabitants preferred to support the schools by subscriptions, they gave their money in subscriptions and they had their Voluntary Schools. In other parts of the country, where they did not come forward with subscriptions, the money was supplied by rates. But it appears to me that a fair system demands that the locality shall contribute in subscriptions as much as another locality contributes in rates, else there is no equality whatever. What, you say here is this: Here are certain districts which do not come forward with subscriptions sufficient to maintain their schools on a proper footing, and therefore you will step in and give them the money of the State. That is to say, that their default is to cause them to be treated better than those who have not been in default. ["Hear, hear!"] The ratepayers, in my opinion, are every bit as much entitled, neither more nor less than the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools, to be assisted by the State. What is the real ground, of this Measure? think it is a substantial ground. I was very sensible of it at the time when I had the honour to hold for a short time the position of Lord President. What then took place was this. It was pointed out, and I think unanswerably pointed out, that there was a considerable number of schools which were behindhand in efficiency, and, no doubt, among those were a considerable number of Voluntary Schools. The standard of education had been improved. Naturally, as time went, on, the standard which was considered sufficient in 1870 ceased to be a sufficient standard, and it was necessary, in the opinion of all those interested in education, that the standard should be raised. This put undoubtedly a very severe pressure on many Voluntary Schools. I know it was thought that Mr. Acland and myself had a deep design, by putting pressure on Voluntary

75
Schools, to destroy them and to substitute Board Schools. I can assure the right reverend Prelates, who gave a great deal of trouble at that time, that we never had any such design. All we did think was that we were bound to see that the schools were efficient, and if the result was that Board Schools had to be established that undoubtedly did not absolve us from the duty of seeing that the schools were efficient. That is the real reason which has caused this Bill to be brought in. My view is that this money should be given to the schools for the purpose of securing and increasing the efficiency of the schools, and for no other purpose. My opinion is that in the Bill itself it ought to be limited, and that it should be distinctly provided that the money shall be spent for that purpose and for that purpose only. Now we know—we did not know before—that it is going to be spent for other purposes, because the noble Duke told us to-night very frankly and honestly that in the case where the subscriptions fell short, the money would be given for the aid of the subscribers, even though it was required for the efficiency of the schools.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not necessarily because the subscriptions fell short, but where the resources of the locality, in the opinion of the Education Department, were slender.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It will be given in aid of subscriptions.
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It might.
THE. EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It may be so given. Therefore it seems to me that that establishes an unanswerable case for giving the grant in all cases. That brings me to touch upon the provisions in the Bill giving it to necessitous schools. This has been said to be a very simple Bill. It is a remarkably simple Bill, because to a great extent it is a skeleton Bill. This is a mere sketch of a Bill. I never saw a Bill brought before Parliament with an expression like "necessitous" in it without any definition of it. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for not giving a definition, because I firmly believe that no definition is possible. But what is the conclusion which I draw? This, that the only safe mode of proceeding in this matter would have been to give the grant of 5s. all round without going into the question
76
of whether this or that school was necessitous. On the general ground that the standard of education has been raised, that the expense is necessarily much larger than it formerly was, it would have been reasonable and proper to give a subvention from the State and to give it to every school in the country which complies with the educational requirements of the Department. That, I believe, would have been a simple, workable, and, on the whole, a just system. That is my answer to the noble Lord who sits on the woolsack, who twitted us with not presenting any alternative. That is the alternative which we would have proposed. That is the alternative which we believe would have been wiser than the present Bill. I am bound to say that personally I am entirely in favour, and always have been, ever since the passing of the Act of 3 870, of Board Schools; but, on the other hand, I recognise now, as I recognised when I was a Member of that Government, that the denominational schools are a portion of the educational system which no one will venture to propose to destroy. That being so, as it is recognised by all of us in the present state of opinion in this country, and under present circumstances to be a necessary part of our system, I recognise as much as anyone in this House it is necessary that these schools should be efficient and sufficient. But what I object to is the mode in which it is proposed to be done, and I object to it so much that, although I am in favour of giving to the denominational schools such assistance as they require, I shall record my vote against the Second Reading as a protest. ["Hear, hear!"] There are one or two points to which I wish to refer. Amongst other things you will find here that there are to be different rates in town and country, and I was rather disappointed, though not surprised, that the noble Duke did not give us any explanation of that. What one would like to know is which of these two categories is to be favoured. ["Hear, hear!"] I have tried to find out what is likely to happen, and I lighted upon a statement made by the Vice President, which in other circumstances I probably should have regarded as conclusive. But as the Vice President appeal's to have not the smallest influence with the Education Department to which he belongs, at least,

77
so far us this Bill is concerned, I am afraid my quotation may not have so much weight as it otherwise would have. But this is what he said in writing in a review in 1896:—
" In tile country the Voluntary Schools were better off than the Board Schools. There is no power and no necessity for levelling up as in the towns. The Voluntary Schools can hold their own without further pecuniary support. The rates levied in School Board districts are a greater burden on the people than the subscriptions in parishes which have Voluntary Schools. It is rather, indeed, the Board Schools which require financial assistance to enable the instruction given in them to he levelled up to the same efficiency as that given by their rivals."
I should infer there would be a rate lived for the town higher than that fixed for the country, and I doubt whether that would be perfectly fair. So much for the provisions of the Bill. Let me refer to the general effect of the Measure. I do not wish to say one word that is in the least offensive to the right rev. Bench opposite, but I cannot disguise from myself that not in this country only, but in every civilised country, there has always been a, violent struggle on the part of what I must call the clerical party, mi the part of bishops and priests in the Christian Church, to obtain more and more power. ["Hear, hear!"] I and many other laymen think that it is our paramount duty to resist an extension of that power. ["Hear, hear!"] We respect, the office which they hold, we acknowledge their services to the community in the cause of religion, but we desire that they shall not interfere with lay affairs beyond what they now do, and that they shall not obtain more power over the laymen. I have no doubt it is not so in the minds of all who promote it, but I regard this as a deliberate attempt to increase the clerical power over the schools of the country and so over the population, and I am firmly persuaded, notwithstanding all we have heard of the love of certain parents for Voluntary Schools, that as this controversy proceeds you will find the English people will not be dominated by priests.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL, (Viscount CROSS)said he would not enter into the question which the noble Lord raised in the concluding portion of his speech. He
78
believed that the laity were, quite determined to live in peace, amity, and friendship with their clerical brethren, and that the clerical brethren wished to live in peace and concord with the laity. ["Hear, hear!"] To say that the giving of 5s. per child to certain schools would increase the clerical power was the greatest nonsense he ever heard. [Cheers.] Let him go back for a moment. In the Queens' Speech of last year it was stated that, the Government intended to bring forward a Bill for the purpose of aiding Voluntary Schools. When the Bill was brought forward it was decided to enlarge the scope of it very much, and one of the complaints made against the Government by noble Lords opposite was that the Government had exceeded what they had said in the Queen's Speech, and had brought in a much larger Bill than was ever hinted at during the election.
LORD HERSCHELL: We never raised the point; we never had an opportunity.
VISCOUNT CROSSpresumed the noble Lord did not separate himself from his colleagues in the other House, and that was the complaint those colleagues made The Oppositon tendered the Government a piece of advice. They said:—
"if you had only limited your Bill to what was stilled in the Queen's Speech and at the General Election, you would have had our assistance; but, as it is, we shall oppose you bitterly."
They opposed the Government with so much effect that there was not time to carry the Bill. Perhaps foolishly, they had adopted the advice of noble Lords and their colleagues, and had this year brought in a simple Bill to assist. Voluntary Schools. They had a right, therefore, to count upon the assistance of those who sat opposite. What had taken place to-night only showed how little promises must be counted upon. [Lord HERSCHELL: "There were no promises!"] Well, there were statements made. Anyone who would read the Debates in the House of Commons last year would see that the statements quite bore out everything he had said. ["Hear, hear!"] But how had they been fulfilled? The opposition to this simple, and certainly short, Bill was more vehement than that offered to the Bill of last year. [Opposition cheers.] He did not like the word mandate, but if ever there was a mandate given at a

79
general election it was given at the last that these schools should receive substantial assistance. What was the noble Earl's first objection? He said that it would stimulate controversy. That was a matter of opinion. He thought that controversy was bad enough before this Bill was brought in. If anything would calm controversy, it would be the passing of this Measure. Then he said they had broken one of the great promises made in 1870, because he said there was to be equality of treatment. He thought the noble Lord must have forgotten the words of the Act of 1870. There was special power given to assist poor Board Schools, if the necessity arose; and he did not, therefore, see that the noble Lord had proved his case. His next objection was that the money ought to be given for the efficiency of the teaching of the schools. The Bill simply said that 5s. was to be given, and it was to be distributed by the Education Department. The Department could only distribute the money so as to promote the efficiency of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] It would not be denied that the Department was a very good judge of what a necessitous school was. Then the noble Lord found great fault with the associations, but in many counties and towns there had been associations which had worked very well. Then the noble Lord said he had a plan flinch would be carried without the smallest difficulty in the other House.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I really said nothing of the kind. [Laughter.] He would be a bold man who would say that any Bill would pass the House of Commons without the smallest difficulty.
VISCOUNT CROSSunderstood that the suggestion was that they should give 5s. all round. Many schools did not want 5s., while others would want more than 5s. [Opposition laughter.] He was surprised at the suggestion from the noble Lord. He could not conceive any proposal which would involve a more absolute waste of public money than to give 5s. all round. The object of this Bill was to relieve necessitous schools and, of course, if the extravagant plan of giving 5s. all round, suggested by the noble Earl opposite, was to be followed, one
80
school could not be assisted more than another; but under this Bill that could be done. He had now dealt with all the objections raised by the noble Earl, and anyone who had read the violent speeches against the Bill which had been made in another place, would hardly have expected such a tame list of objections from the noble Earl. It was said that voluntary subscriptions would fall off if this Bill was carried; but the Church of England would go on paying, as it had done in the past. Since the passing of the Act of 1870, the Church of England had spent no less than 15 millions of money on their schools. [Cheers.] The Roman Catholics, he believed—and to their honour be it said—had never given up a single one of their schools—["hear, hear!"]—and the Church of England was just as determined now, as it always had been, to maintain its position as the great teaching power amongst the vast majority of the people, and they would not forfeit their character simply because this Bill was passed. This Bill was asked for at the last election; it was carried in the House of Commons by unprecedented majorities, and he hoped their Lordships would carry the Second Reading that night by a majority as decisive. ["Hear, hear!"]
On the question "That the Bill be now Read a Second time the House divided:—

CONTENTS

109

NOT-CONTENTS

15

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bristol, M.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor)

Exeter, M.

Lansdowne, M.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Cross, V. (L. Priry Seal)

Camperdown, E.

Carnwath, E.

Norfolk, D. (E.Marshal.)

Clarendon, E.

Coventry, E.

Argyll, D.

Cowper, E.

Newcastle, D.

de Montalt, E.

Portland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Somerset, D.

Derby, E.

Westminster, D.

Doncastor, E.

(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Ducie, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Feversham, E.

81

Harrowby, E.

Colchester, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Crawshaw, L

Lucan, E.

Digby, L.

Minto, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Morley, E.

Forester, L.

Portarlington, E.

Glenesk, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hampton, L.

Romney, E.

Harlech, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Harris, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hatherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Herries, L.

Stamford, E.

James, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kesteven, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Kinnear, L.

Suffolkand Berkshire, E.

Kintore, E. (Kintore.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lawrence, L.

Verulam, E.

Lock, L.

Waldegrave, E.(Teller)

Mendip, L.(V. Clifden)

Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Mount Stephen, L.

Knutsford, V.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Llandaff, V.

Norton, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

London, L. Bp.

Poltimore, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Southwell, L. Bp.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Addington, L.

Robartes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Rothschild, L.

Armstrong, L.

Rowton, L.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Shand, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Ashbourne, L.

Ashcombe, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Bagot, L.

Balfour, L.

Sudley, L.

Belper, L.

Tredegar, L.

Braye, L.

Wenlock, L.

Castletown, L.

Wentworth, L.

Chelmford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Churchill, L. (Teller.)

Windsor, L.

Cliffordof Chudleigh, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Clinton, L.

Worth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kimberley, E.

Earrer, L.

Spencer, E.

Herschell, L.

Oxenbridge, V.[Teller.]

Hobhouse, L. (Teller.).

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ashton, L.

Reay, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Thring, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Davey, L.

Wellby, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned at Five Minutes before Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.