NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

HL Deb 30 May 1905 vol 147 cc192-211

* LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the compulsory abolition of fees in non-provided schools as determined by the London County Council, to take effect from March 31st last, whereby—(1) Serious injury will be inflicted on many parents who gladly pay fees to enjoy the privileges of a better class school; (2) Serious and heavy useless expenditure must fall upon the ratepayers if, in consequence of the action of the London County Council, these schools have to be closed and fresh buildings erected at their expense; (3) Serious hardship will be done to many schools entirely dependent upon fees for the maintenance of their building; (4) Serious hindrance to the cause of good education may follow the closing of schools by driving the pupils into private establishments where they are lost to public control; His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of taking some steps which will give the managers time to formulate some plans to mitigate the hardships which threaten to destroy many highly efficient non-provided schools.

My Question has reference to a certain number of schools in London which are thoroughly efficient and have been so for a great many years past, and the parents of the children attending these schools desire that the fees should continue to be charged. They were consulted at the time the fee grant was offered, and, in common with some other schools, they declared that they would prefer that the custom which had gone on so long, and with which they and His Majesty's Inspector were satisfied, should continue. Then casue the recent Education Act. The London County Council decided that after March 31st last all fees should stop. This left the class of schools to which I am referring in this position, that the funds out of which they had hoped to be able to carry out the improvements which they quite expected they would be called upon to effect were taken away from them.

When March 31st came some of us again approached the parents and asked whether they still wished the status quo to re maintained, and whether they would become subscribers in order that the funds necessary might be raised so that the schools could be retained at the same standard at which they had been kept for some years past. I will mention the case of a school which I have specially in my mind, but there are others just as efficient. In that school we received about £925 in fees, and when the County Council swept that away it was a seriou, blow to the managers of the schools which, I may say, was not attached to any church or chapel or any body likely to step in and make up the loss. The parents of the children attending the school thereupon agreed to become subscribers to the extent of over £400 a year. It then looked as if we might be able to get along and continue to carry on the school as the parents wished, and it seemed that everybody would be fairly pleased with the arrangement. The school is one which rather better class children attend, and it is clear that a serious hindrance to the cause of good education may follow if the course adopted results in driving the pupils into private establishments where they are lost to public control. The County Council think that it is desirable that other children should be brought in, and you can quite understand that the parents who have assessed themselves as voluntary subscribers with the view that their children shall attend a school of a somewhat better grade than the ordinary board school strongly object to this.

We were quite prepared to receive demands to make certain alterations. I do not know how many of your Lordships, as managers or trustees of schools, have had occasion to study the interesting document which I hold in my hand. It comprises 384 pages, 220 of which consist of demands upon schools. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of work for some time to come for the architects and builders and the great number of people who will have the spending of this money; but I do not know whether the ratepayer will be equally pleased I when he has to pay the bill. That is of course, a matter of some importance, though this is not the proper occasion on which to discuss it at any length. There is one other point which, I think, is a serious one from the point of view of the interests of the ratepayers. If these schools are shut up simply through what I may describe as a fad on the part of the London County Council to abolish all fees, and destroy the independence of parents who wish to pay a proportion of the expense of the education of their children, it will be a very costly matter; for the ratepayers.

I can quite imagine that to erect a fully-equipped school in the West End of London would cost between £90,000 and £130,000. I ask whether it is desirable that the step proposed, which might involve the closing of a number of schools, should be taken in a hurry, and without giving time to see whether these schools cannot, in some way, be worked into the system of secondary education, or be dealt with in some other way, so that the wishes of the parents may be carried out; for no one doubts that the education which is given in these schools is of a high character. I have called attention to this question in your Lordships' House in order that, if possible, the London County Council may be urged to hold their hand in regard to this proposal, which, if carried out, will lead to considerable extravagance. I am not standing up to defend buildings which are inadequate. We do not for a moment deny that school buildings ought to be thoroughly efficient in every way; but notices have been served in some instances for the erection of certain partitions, the necessity for which is somewhat doubtful, and this has been followed by the further requirement that new windows, which would have been quite unnecessary if the partitions had not been erected, should be provided. I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government think there is any possibility of curbing the anxiety of the London County Council to abolish all fees, with the consequent risk of shutting up these schools, and of having to spend millions sterling in order to erect fresh buildings to provide the necessary accommodation for children at present attending schools which would have to be closed.

LORD BURGHCLERE

My Lords, before the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education answers the Questions of the noble Lord I should like to ask him, with regard to the main Question on the Paper—namely, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirabilty of taking some steps which will give the managers time to formulate some plans to mitigate the hardships which threaten to destroy many highly efficient non - provided schools—whether he is aware that the London County Council have, since the appointed day, given these managers very nearly a year in order to consider this important subject. That surely is sufficient time. I should like also to ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the County Council were in consultation with some of the managers, and were informed by those managers that they themselves were very willing that these fees should be abolished.

The noble Lord treated this subject as being one for only a few moments conversation, but it does seem to me that this series of interrogatories which he has placed on the Paper raises the whole question of fees, and though it may be that fees are necessary and useful in certain especial cases, yet I venture to think that on the whole the system is not one which is beneficial to education generally. I hold that the payment of fees at all is opposed to the system of education laid down by the statute of this realm, and which is undoubtedly the logical corollary of the compulsory Act; and in confirmation of that view I would draw your Lordships' attention to the official explanation of the Elementary Education Act of 1891, popularly called, the Free Schools Act, which was issued by the Board of Education in that year. In that explanation the Board of Education point out that every father and mother in England and Wales has a right to free education, without payment or charge of any kind whatever, for his or her children between the ages of three and fifteen; and it proceeds— The right to free education is not a concession to poverty, but is common to all classes alike. It must be wholly free, without any charge for books, slates, or anything else, and it must be at a school within reasonable distance of the child's house. Strictly speaking, the Board of Education has no right to make or sanction any distinction whatever between elementary schools. What the noble Lord who has raised this question asks the Board of Education to do is practically to go behind the Act of 1902. If the insidious eloquence of the noble Lord was to prevail with the President of the Board of Education it is obvious that he would be breaking the statute which he himself had passed in 1902.

There is another great objection, in my opinion, to this fee system which the noble Lord wishes to continue, in that it creates a class distinction in the schools where it exists. It is quite possible that in some parts of London, especially in the richer parts, parents may in no way object to paying a fee for the education of their children, but it is necessary that in all such school, which are in receipt of fee grants, there should be provided, in addition to places for the children who pay fees, places also for free education; and it may well come about that in the neighbourhood of the schools where the majority of the children pay fees, there may be poorer parents who would not like the invidious distinction which would obviously be made between the children admitted free, and those whose parents paid fees. It raises another question which was dealt with in the explanation of the Education Act of 1891, to which I have referred—namely, that the schools should be within a reasonable distance of the homes of the children; because it is quite obvious that if the parents of these poorer children are unwilling to send them to the school close at hand on account of the invidious distinction between those who pay fees, and those who do not, they may have to go to some free school very far from their place of domicile, and the intention of the Free Education Act will not be carried out.

It is quite clear that to carry out what the noble Lord wishes, the Board of Education would have to bring in a fresh Act ad hoc for this purpose; and we were told yesterday in another debate that it was not wise so soon after the passing of a great Act to bring in another Bill on the same subject, I cannot say that I saw the force of that reasoning on that occasion, but I would venture to think there is very great distinction between what the most rev. Primate wished to do yesterday, and what the noble Lord wishes done to-day. What the most rev. Primate wished to do yesterday in regard to the Licensing Act was merely to add a clause to that Act, but if the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, is carried out it will be necessary to repeal Clause 14 of the Education Act of 1902—a very different matter; and I should think that would be a tinkering with a great Act which will not receive the sanction of His Majesty's Government.

I now come to what I may call the main objection to the contention of my noble friend Lord Kinnaird. It is this. The non-provided schools, by the Act of 1902, were allowed to maintain their special and denominational character, mainly because, by voluntary contributions, they kept up the structure of the schools; but it is quite obvious, from the innocent Questions of the noble Lord, that that is not his opinion at all. He wishes to maintain the structure absolutely by the fees received. It is perfectly true that in certain circumstances the local education authorities may take a portion of the fees for maintenance of the structure of the schools; but only a portion. Some part is to be provided by voluntary contribution. But the noble Lord wishes to keep up the structure of non-provided schools out of fees alone. That is not in accordance with the intention of the Education Act. The noble Lord said there would be a serious hindrance to the cause of good education if these children were driven into private establishments, where they would be lost to public control. Dames' schools, where they were inefficient, have been suppressed by the authorities, and where they were efficient they have been allowed to be used as schools to which parents may send their children. If that is not public control of private establishments I do not know what is.

I said just now that one of the objections to the noble Lord's demand was that it would create class distinction. I will take the case of the Westbourne non-provided school, which I think the noble Lord knows something about. The fees at that school amount to, roughly, £2 12s. Od. a head, which is higher than what is generally the case. This school petitioned against the abolition of fees, because they said the school met a special need and that if fees were abolished an influx of poor children from the neighbourhood would ensue. I ask what is the use of a public elementary school, maintained by public grant, if it is not for the education of those very children which the noble Lord wishes to exclude? I venture to hope that in the interest of public elementary education the noble Marquess will not listen to the suggestions of the noble Lord, but uphold the action of the County Council in abolishing fees all over the Metropolis.

LORD CHELMSFORD

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will extend to me that indulgence which is always shown to one who addresses the House for the first time. I feel I ought not to keep silent on this occasion, because I happen to be both a member of the London County Council and of the education committee whose conduct is impugned in the Questions of the noble Lord. I have every sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, and voted in favour of them on the education committee; and I think that noble Lords who happen to be London ratepayers will entertain a feeling of regret that some £26,000 of voluntary contributions, which amount will now have to be found out of the rates, has been abolished. I venture absolutely to traverse, what the noble Lord who has just sat down said with regard to the effect of the resolutions of the County Council. I have been connected now for some six years with education. I have been associated with secondary as well as private schools, and am perfectly aware that where it is a question of dealing with the elementary class of children you can always force those children into an efficient school if the school in which they are getting their education is not up to the mark; but there are a large number of children who are just on the border line between elementary and secondary, and it is those very children whom we ought to be anxious to get into our best elementary schools. Those children have very often had their education in schools which cannot be described as educationally efficient, and yet public opinion, I believe, would condemn any attempt on the part of the education authority to close these particular schools. I think that is an increasing danger and one which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Burghclere, has not really appreciated.

I regret that the noble Lord opposite has put this Question to the noble Marquess, in the first place because there can be only one answer to it, and that, in my opinion, must be a refusal to go into the question at all, for it is the in ontestable right of the London County Council, if they choose, to abolish fees in all these schools; and, in the second place, because I think that the nature of the Questions, and perhaps the speech of the noble Lord in asking the Questions, to some extent insinuates that the London County Council in this matter has been actuated by animus against the voluntary schools. I have had a year's experience of their work, and, though I am an opponent of the views of the majority in the County Council and the education committee, I should like to repudiate any such idea. The London County Council have been actuated in this matter, not by animus against voluntary schools, but by the weighty arguments which can be adduced on the other side. Whether they are sufficiently weighty to get rid of the arguments advanced in the series of Questions on your Lordship's Paper I leave the House to judge; but, still, I believe, they are arguments which are entitled to respect.

The first argument used by those who wish to abolish fees is the very obvious one, when you have compulsory education, that it is extremely difficult to enforce compulsory attendance if you have schools in which fees are charged; and a second argument which can be used, and which is very nearly allied to the other argument, is the difficulty of finding accommodation for children whose education has to be provided. If you have in a district a school with high fees it is extremely difficult to know, and the Board of Education must have found it so time after time, how much is to be allowed for vested interest in that district, and whether it is right to set down a free Board school beside it. I mention this because there are arguments which can be used on the other side as against the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord.

I regret the Questions on a broader ground still. Attacks are made on the working of the present Education Act, but, so far as London is concerned, I feel emboldened to say that the London County Council have strictly administered that Act, and that no one can say that anything that the County Council has done has been outside the law. I believe that, within the limitations of the Progressive creed, the County Council do intend to make the working of this Act a real success. They may be extravagant in their ideas, and in their expenditure; they may be exacting in their demands; and I am not prepared to deny that there may be grounds for dispute, and the Board of Education may have to modify the demands made by the County Council with regard to voluntary schools. I have come this afternoon straight from the education committee, which has been debating this question, and one after another of the leaders of the Progressive party got up and said that, whatever the demands they were making might be, they were prepared to meet the managers of voluntary schools in a reasonable and generous spirit; and, if that is so, I think the Board of Education will probably have little to decide as between the one and the other.

Remedy with regard to these matters does not lie here. You have got to convert the electorate who return the County Council. The Prime Minister the other day gave advice to municipal bodies. He said that every municipal body should cut its coat according to its cloth, but I am afraid that at the present moment the majority on the London County Council think there is ample cloth out of which to make a coat, and the electorate in London seem to agree with them in that opinion. The only thing for us who disagree to do is to attempt to convert the electorate, and I hope the noble Lord who has asked this Question will give us his best help to fight this battle when the next County Council election comes round. I regret that just at this juncture, when very difficult questions will have to be settled between the County Council and the managers of voluntary schools, any Questions should be put in your Lordships, House insinuating that the County Council has any animus against these bodies.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the arguments which have been adduced by the noble Lord opposite. I think I may be permitted, in the name of the whole House, to say how pleased we were to hear him take part in his debate. We think his contribution to the debate an extremely able one, and that he has shown a fair and impartial spirit in the arguments he has used. I am sorry that a noble Lord who hails from the same side of the Tweed as myself should have raised this question. After all, the argument of Lord Kinnaird is one in favour of retaining a class distinction amongst scholars in our schools, of keeping up the class of schools which consider themselves rather better than the ordinary public schools, because fees are charged in them. From time immemorial in Scotland, at any rate, that sort of distinction has not existed, and we have found children from all ranks attending the same public schools and being educated together with the greatest success. I think we as Scotsmen should be only too glad to see that system adopted here, and the benefits arising from that extended to this country.

This question in London is not, after all, of a very extensive character. The total number of schools charging fees in the Metropolis in June last was only 179, and the fees varied from a nominal fee of 1s. a year to 9d. a week. The largest sum received by any individual school was £1,254 a year, and the total received from fees in all these schools was only £26,525, which is not a very large sum in comparison with the huge total cost of education. I contend that the London County Council in adopting their present policy, have endorsed the principle of free elementary education of the people provided by the public, and have strictly followed on the lines adopted by the London School Board previously. It is the fact that the County Council provides the education in the non-provided schools, although it does not provide the fabric of those schools, and therefore I venture to argue that it is only simple consistency that the education should be free in the non-provided as well as in the provided schools, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess at the head of the Board of Education will not yield to the suggestions of my noble friend, but will support the action of the London County Council in this respect.

* THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY)

My Lords, before I reply to the Questions that have been put to me I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just sat down in congratulating my noble friend behind me on his extremely clear and lucid speech, and I would venture to express the hope that having now broken the ice he will give us the advantage of hearing him in future debates. He has concisely stated the view which, as representing the Board of Education in your Lordships' House, I hold with regard to the Questions put to me; but I hope my noble friend Lord Kinnaird will not think that because I hold those views I deprecate for one moment the Questions he has asked or the speech which he delivered. I am afraid, however that I can only give him the answer that we can do nothing in this matter.

The London County Council have undoubtedly acted within their power as local education authority, but I very much doubt whether the action they have taken in compulsorily abolishing fees in non-provided schools is conducive to educational interests. I have no doubt in my own mind that it is not in the interest of the ratepayers; and, parenthetically, I would like to point out that the high rate for elementary education in London and some other parts of the country at the present time is due, not to any new requirements of the Board of Education, but to the action of the local authorities themselves. I learnt for the first time, from the observations of Lord Burghclere, that the London County Council had consulted the managers of these schools with regard to their action; and I was about to observe that if no such consultation had taken place the managers of these schools, which have done so much for the education of the rising generation, had not been treated with the fullest courtesy.

The chairman of the education committee of the London County Council has contended that the remission of fees is a necessary corollary of the Act of 1902. But I think that gentleman, as well as noble Lords opposite, has overlooked the fact that the Elementary Education Act of 1891 did not prohibit fees to be charged, though it gave patents a right to claim free education. That Act specially recognised that in certain cases it might be desirable on educational grounds that fees should not be abolished. The Act of 1902 undoubtedly gave the local authority the power which has been exercised by the County Council, but I do not think it altogether contemplated its exercise in this manner. I do not see, in the speech of the chairman of the education committee to which I have alluded, that any really good or valid reason is given for the abolition of these fees, which will, I am afraid, result in the closing of some, I hope not of a great many, of these schools. There was no compulsion whatever on the parents of the children attending these schools to pay fees if they claimed free education for their children. There is undoubtedly a place in the educational system of London for such schools; and by abolishing the fees the County Council are depriving those parents who are willing to pay them in return for the educational and personal advantages which their children receive, of a right they have enjoyed up to the present time.

I agree with the noble Lord opposite, Lord Kinnaird, that great hardship will be done to schools dependent upon fees for the maintenance of their buildings, and that serious and useless expenditure will fall upon the ratepayers, if schools which were doing good work are closed and buildings to supply the educational wants of the children are erected at the expense of the ratepayers. If all the freepaying children in these schools were to be rehoused by the County Council, it would cost from £700,000 to £1,000,000 at least. The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, Lord Tweedmouth, told your Lordships that the fees in London amounted to £26000 a year. It has been customary under Section 14 of the Act of 1902 for the local education a thority to take one-half of that sum, the other half going to the managers; and consequently to abolish all fees, means that the sum of £13,000 will be lost to the ratepayers. Therefore, I cannot see that great good will accrue from the action which the London County Council have taken. Lord Welby, the chairman of the finance committee of the London County Council, spoke out very strongly the other day on a subject on which I have frequently addressed your Lordships, the subject of economy; and he impressed upon the County Council that if they were to do their duty by the ratepayers they must give special attention to the financial effect of educational proposals. He added that, although he believed that education should be promoted, a too rapid increase in the rates would create a reaction which would retard the progress of education. I share Lord Welby's view on that question. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Kinnaird, has asked whether the Government would consider the desirability of taking some steps which would give the managers time to formulate some plans to mitigate the hardships which threaten to destroy many highly efficient non-provided schools. The Answer to that Question rests with the local authorities. I believe that in the interests of the parents, of the children, of education, and of the ratepayers, the local authorities would do well to encourage great voluntary efforts. Although the Board of Education can do nothing in this matter, the noble Lord has my sincere sympathy

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

My Lords, I should not have ventured to address your Lordships to-day had it not been for the speech that we have just heard from the Minister in charge of the education of the country, which to my mind throws such a light upon what I did not myself need much light thrown upon, but what I may call the whole atmosphere and feeling of the Board of Education with reference to the law they have to administer, that I feel compelled to notice one or two of the points in that speech. He, of course, had to admit that he had no power to do anything in the matter raised in the noble Lord's Question, but the whole of his speech was full of sympathy with the noble Lord and clearly expressed a desire to do all he could in this direction. The noble Marquess is at this moment engaged in carrying on a civil war with a large portion of the people of this country, and the section who are engaged in that war have largely taken up that attitude from a profound distrust of the feeling and tendency of the Board of Education over which the noble Marquess presides.

If I may be allowed to travel from the main question and follow the noble Marquess in some points which he mentioned but which are not really raised by the notice on the Paper, I would take up his challenge that it was not fair to put upon the Board of Education responsibility for any part of the increased rate which people are complaining of throughout the country. I wish at ones to traverse that statement, and to say that it is very largely owing to the action of the Board of Education that the rate has been put up. There are two things which the Board of Education might have done in their modifications of the Code. They might have required those structural reforms which Lord Cross's Commission, ten years ago said had been too long delayed and ought to be enforced. Any alteration in the requirements of the Board of Education with regard to structures would have fallen mainly on those private managers with whom the noble Marquess has so much sympathy, and consequently there has not been the slightest alteration in the Code as to what should be done there. On the contrary, the noble Marquess the other day at Poole gave an assurance to his audience that he was considering how he could relax those structural obligations, clearly with a view of easing the position of the ill-built schools of which local authorities are now complaining. But, on the other hand, when we come to questions affecting the maintenance of the school, the staff, and so forth, which fall on the ratepayers, the Board of Education have given amplitude to their Code which enables them greatly to increase the stringency of their requirements and the yearly cost of maintenance.

When Mr. Lloyd - George's party in Wales claimed that they were maintaining the denominational schools there at the level of efficiency which had satisfied His Majesty's inspectors and the Government in 1901, the Board of Education replied that they had nothing to do with the standard in 1901, and that the standard which they were entitled to enforce was that of the Code for the time being; and everyone knows that the Government inspectors, backed up by the Board of Education, are in school after school demanding steps greatly in excess of what was hitherto the minimum. There is no minimum in the Code now, for the Code contains a paragraph which says that they shall consider all the circumstances. I am not complaining of pressure being brought to improve the standard of education and the qualification of teachers, and to diminish the size of classes. All these things are good things; but I cannot let the Department which is exercising this pressure say that their action is not increasing the cost of education to the ratepayers. In the mere matter of pupil teachers, about which we had a debate last year, the increased cost of preparing those teachers has become enormous in consequence of the new regulations transferring them to the secondary schools up to sixteen, and only allowing them for two years as half-timers in the schools. I do not, as I have said, complain of steps being taken to improve the education of the country, but I do complain of the noble Marquess and his Department saying that the increased cost is all the fault of the local education authorities and that the Board of Education has nothing to do with it. At the same time it is showing the animus of the Department, for, while they do not mind what they put upon the ratepayers now that the ratepayers have to bear the burden of maintenance, they have not in any way increased the stringency of the requirements which rest upon the managers.

Coming to the Question asked by Lord Kinnaird, the noble Marquess said that in the schools specially referred to there was no exclusion. There has been no exclusion since April 1st, because on that day fees ceased to be demanded, and therefore it is an obligation resting on the managers of those and similar schools to admit children who apply. I could tell the noble Marquess that the Westbourne Park School and similar schools have bean the greatest hindrance to education in Paddington for years. Ever since I first went on the London School Board that part of London has suffered from a deplorable lack of school provision. We were continually making representations to the Board of Education that owing to the high fees these schools were unavailable for the poor population of the district, and we asked that the vacant places in these schools should not be counted against us in our desire to provide new schools. There were three specially high feed schools, and though, these schools had a large number of vacant places and were not available for the district, nevertheless we were told by the Board of Education that they would not entertain the proposal that these vacant places should be deducted from the available accommodation of the district.

The Westbourne Park School pre-eminently was a hindrance to the education of the district. It was a class school— a genteel school for the lower middle class, who were not to be contaminated by rubbing shoulders with common children. As a matter of fact, this school, which is a good school of its kind, did draw children from other parts. It was a collecting ground for what I may call the children of the lower middle class. That made it all the greater grievance in this district, these school places not being available for the children of the district. It was high time that that should cease. I can tell the noble Marquess that this class snobbishness is much more superficial than you would believe. I should like to ask Lord Kinnaird, who says the children in the Westbourne Park School will be driven to private academies, how much the roll has fallen since April 1st. They have had nearly two months in which to flit. Will the noble Lord say that 100 have left? We have no evidence that any have left. We went into all this when we freed the schools under the London School Board. We freed all the schools— those frequented by the children of the well-to-do, and those frequented by the poor, and we found it made no difference.

I think it is very desirable that we should, if possible, break down any feeling of caste in the public elementary schools, and get children of all classes to study together side by side. My belief is that that is very easily done if you do not play up to this demand of people for social exclusiveness. I do not believe that this school, if it is well conducted, will lose 100 of these children. What will happen will be this. I dare say a number of children who came to this school by train because they could get exclusiveness by the payment of this fee, will settle down at a school nearer home and save their railway fares. If the London County Council were to order their education committee to get a return of the children on the roll on April 1st and those now on the roll I am confident that the bugbear about driving the children to incompetent academies would disappear altogether.

The noble Lord opposite, in his maiden speech, spoke of a loss to the ratepayers of £26,000. The total fees in London amounted to £26,000, and on the basis on which the London County Council have worked, the loss to the ratepayers would be £13,000, which is about 1½th of a penny rate. But I will undertake, to say there will be no loss to the ratepayers at all. Schools charging fees create friction and difficulty in getting children to school, and render a certain amount of accommodation practically unavailable. Therefore if the London County Council retained these dandy schools they would be compelled to build other schools for the non-fee paying children, while at the same time these schools would have vacant places, and that would far outbalance any loss to the rates through not getting a share of the money paid in fees. I regret the attitude taken by the noble Marquess, and should have thought that the best education of the country would be the paramount object of his Department.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

My Lords, it is with diffidence that I take part in this debate and follow the noble Lord opposite, whose experience in education both in London and in Wales has been so wide, and whose devotion to it is so sincere. If I am not mistaken, no President or Vice-President of the Education Department has ever appeared to the noble Lord to be worthy of anything but the penitent's stool, and it is to be hoped that the next President will be able to satisfy the noble Lord. I have been a teacher for twenty years, and was surprised to hear him refer with very faint praise to the important regulations for the training of pupil teachers. Personally I think the step taken in that matter was a very wise step. Then I understood the noble Lord to say that he did not approve of the Board of Education pressing for progress in the staffing of schools.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I beg the right rev. Prelate's pardon. What I said was that while I thought the improvements in the training of pupil teachers and in the staffing of schools were for the good of education, they had cast a heavy burden on the rates, and therefore the noble Marquess was not entitled to say that no increase in the education rate was due to the action, of the Board of Education.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

I take it that the noble Lord's contention is that progress in staffing is good, but progress in structure is better.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

Not at all.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

I contend that until the burden of education is made more national in character and the system of local taxation greatly reformed the amount that can be levied by way of rate for education in this country is strictly limited. We have, therefore, to make this choice, whether it is more important in the interests of educational progress to incur expenditure on the teaching staff or expenditure on structure. Of course, I put on one side all questions such as ventilation and sanitation. As one who has been a teacher for many years I assert that anyone who knows the practical work of a school from the inside will agree that the first charge should be an ample expenditure on the teaching staff. The noble Lord referred to the noble Marquess as making a civil war on somebody.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I said a civil war was raging.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

It does not alter my point. I am not aware that there is anything going on in Wales that can be accurately described by such a phrase, and I hope the noble Lord will take a more cheerful view of the character of my countrymen. The noble Lord referred to voluntary schools as badly built, badly drained, and badly equipped. If there are any buildings within the sphere of operations of the local education authority over which he presides which are in this condition, I am sure the noble Lord will see that the authorities do their duty; but I would point out that at the date of the passing of the Education Act there were as many provided as non-provided schools in Wales the buildings of which were in need of repair and improvements, and the pace at which the managers of the non-provided schools are attending to these matters will compare very favourably with the pace of the local authorities in the same direction. I am not in a position to criticise the noble Lord's remarks about particular schools in London, but I am quite sure that I have the highest authority behind me when I say that there could not be a greater educational heresy than that staffing should come second to structure.