I wish to call attention to the fact that the Committee upstairs have gone outside their powers, and directly in face of a Standing Order of the House, by inserting in the Bill Clauses 54 and 55, which deal with dairies and laundries in connection with the spread of infectious disease. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who was the author of the Standing Order, will say whether he is prepared to defend the course which has been taken.

^* : This matter was most carefully considered by the Committee, and we were anxious to follow the Instruction from the House. After considerable discussion we came to the conclusion that it was a matter which the Committee were competent to deal with without infringing the Instruction.

As my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees has appealed to me, I have no hesitation in replying to his challenge. The course which I took in regard to the Order was to require the House not to sanction any Bill containing a clause contravening the existing law; but I entirely differ from my right hon. Friend as to the character of these clauses. I am quite willing to take the view of the Committee. I think it is sufficient in this case for my right hon. Friend to have called attention to the existence of the Order, and to wait until the President of the Local Government Board shall have expressed an opinion upon the matter.

^* : I am afraid that I cannot express any opinion upon the subject. The matter being one of order is rather for the decision of Mr. Speaker. If you rule, Sir, that the question is one which is dealt with in the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Act, and cannot be dealt with by a clause in a Private Bill, there will, of course, be nothing further to be said. I, for one, should regret that by any too closely drawn words in the Standing Order these clauses should be struck out. They are such as I should be glad to see embodied in the general law. I am bound to admit that the Chairman of Committees did sound a note of warning when the Standing Order was under discussion, but I think that the principle of the Order is a sound one, and I am prepared to support it. I should very much regret to find that the Order has been so strictly drawn as to prevent these clauses from being inserted in the present Bill.

^* (3.15.) : I wish to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) as to the great care which was taken in regard to this Bill by the Committee upstairs. They went through the Bill clause by clause, and arrived, after the most careful consideration, at the decision that there was no violation of the Instruction when they sanctioned these clauses.

I have no right to make any further observation, but I wish to remind the House that the Bill deals with matters which were agreed to be dealt with by the Order passed last Session.

^* : An appeal has been made to me as to the question of order. If it had been reported that the Bill contravenes the Order passed last year, it would be necessary for me to consider it; but there is no such Report before the House. I have had no opportunity yet of examining into this matter, nor was I aware that the question was going to be raised. If the House is satisfied to allow the clauses to remain it is entitled to do so, or the Debate may be adjourned.

^* : The real question is whether anything has been done which contravenes the Standing Order or brings the Bill within it.

^* : When any direct reference is made to me I shall be prepared to give my opinion, but as the question has not been formally raised it will, perhaps, be better to allow the Bill to go on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered.

I beg to move in page 26 the omission of Clause 55, which requires persons engaged in laundries to furnish lists of the names and addresses of the owners of the clothes washed or mangled whenever it is certified by the Medical Officer of Health to be desirable, with a view to prevent the spread of infectious disease. I may explain that a similar clause appeared in the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Bill last year, but after considerable discussion in Committee it was rejected by 166 to 35. By rejecting that clause the Committee conveyed an intimation that it was not prepared to allow any Local Authority to adopt that provision at their own discretion, and without the sanction of Parliament, after strong reasons had been shown. The ground of the rejection was that the House considered it too important a subject to be left to the Local Authority. The clause in the Keighley Bill has, since that decision was arrived at, been considered by the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, but before the discussion was entered into the Chairman of the Committee, if he will allow me to say so, prejudged the whole case. He said it was quite true that this clause was struck out of the Bill of last year, but in his opinion it was most unwisely—or rather unfortunately—struck out. Three witnesses were called before the Committee, including the Medical Officer of Health, but no evidence whatever was given upon this clause, and when Clause 54 had been agreed to the Chairman without discussion simply puts the question, "That Clause 55 stand part of the Bill." No evidence of any kind from Keighley was given in support of the necessity of the clause. When I originally gave notice of opposition, both to the dairy and laundry clauses, the Corporation of Keighley issued a circular to Members of the House in support of the Bill, but in that circular they do not say a single word about this clause. The whole of their defence of the Bill is directed to the dairy clause. The laundries of Keighley are only three in number, and it is true that Petitions have emanated from them in favour of the clause, but I doubt whether the signatories really knew anything about it. There is a public washhouse in Keighley, and if it should come within the operation of the clause very great inconvenience may be caused. I doubt very much whether the Corporation of Keighley attach any importance to the clause. Indeed, I know that some of them do not. The clause in itself is bad; it will cause great inconvenience and it ought only to be adopted after the strongest possible evidence of its necessity. I beg to move that the clause be omitted.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 55.—( Mr. Walter MLaren. )

Question proposed, "That Clause 55 stand part of the Bill."

^* (3.25.) : I altogether dispute the statement of the hon. Member that there has been no evidence from the locality in favour of the clause.

^* : I said as to its necessity.

^* : I hold in my hand a telegram from the Town Clerk of Keighley which states that a Petition has been signed in favour of the laundry clause by all the proprietors of laundries within the borough. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence from the locality in favour of the clause. There is nothing exceptional in the clause. I remember finding a similar clause in about 40 local Acts when the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Bill was before the House, and in 1889 and 1890 a similar clause was inserted in such local Acts, as among others, Bootle, Cheltenham, Grimsby, Newport(Mon.), Norwich, Scarborough, Sheffield, Stockton-on-Tees, Swansea, Tunbridge Wells, and Walsall. Allusion has been made to the rejection of a similar clause last year when the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Bill was before the House. I will explain how that occurred. I had charge of that Bill, and the House knows how difficult it is for a private Member to pass any measure to which there is any opposition. Finding that a few Members strongly opposed the laundry clause, I thought it wise to abandon it in order to save the rest of the Bill. I therefore agreed that it should be omitted, and having done so, I felt bound in honour to vote against it myself, and to induce other hon. Members to do the same. That accounts for the size of the majority that threw out the clause. This clause has been found, so far as I know, to work well; for years it has been inserted in local Bills by the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House, which Committee made a special reference to it in their Report of last Session; its provisions are contained in the model Bill and clauses issued by the authorities in another place; and I do not see why an exception should be made in this case.

^* (3.30.) : The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment is mistaken in supposing that there was no consideration of the clause in Committee. It was most carefully considered. I myself asked questions with regard to it, and I ascertained that there was a strong feeling in Keighley in its favour, and no opposition to it whatever. We could not ascertain that there was a single person in the Borough of Keighley who objected to the clause. We had the evidence of the Mayor, who was surely entitled to speak for the inhabitants to that effect, and I do not know how the Police and Sanitary Committee are to discharge their duties if they are not to be guided by the opinion of the localities. The hon. Member says that the clause was not put to the Committee. He is mistaken. No clause is ever passed without being put to the Committee. I put this clause, and there was one dissentient voice, but the hon. Member for a Division of Yorkshire refused to take a Division. I myself have had terrible experience of scarlet fever owing to there being no supervision over laundries, and the inhabitants of Keighley could do nothing better than have this clause. I trust that the House will support the decision of the Police and Sanitary Committee, who work very hard during many months of the year.

^* (3.35.) : Having served on the Police and Sanitary Committee for some years, I think it is only right that I should defend the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was sent, and say that there never was a Chairman less inclined to force his views on a Committee. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) says he does not think that the Corporation of Keighley care for this clause. I happen to know to the contrary, because I have this day received a communication from the Town Clerk which shows the great interest the inhabitants of Keighley take in the clause, and how they approve it. Nor is the House without precedents for the course now proposed to be taken. Since the rejection of a similar clause last year in the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Bill it has been inserted several times in Local Acts, and between 1889 and 1890 it was inserted no less than eleven times. Keighley is a town in which there is a strong feeling against compulsory vaccination, but the inhabitants are most anxious that their sanitary regulations shall be strengthened, and that they possess every other security for the public safety.

I hope the House will carefully consider what, in this case, has been done by the Police and Sanitary Committee. The question was before the House last year, and by a majority of five to one they determined that it was a clause of a most dangerous character, and rejected it. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) talks about precedents. Now, the House inserted a clause of this kind in the Tottenham Local Act, but when the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. J. Howard) had his attention called to the effect of the clause, he at once ascertained that the people of Tottenham were not in favour of it, and it was rejected in another place. The question is whether the Police and Sanitary Committee or this House is to legislate. Surely a decision of the House, arrived at by a majority of five to one, ought to have some consideration paid to it. If you wish to protect the public you must protect them through the laundries. I have never been able to find a case, and I challenge hon. Members to produce one, where infection has been spread from a laundry. I think that people ought to be severely punished who send infected clothes to a laundry. All those who understand the question are agreed in asking the House not to pass the clause.

^* (3.50.) : As a member of the Police and Sanitary Committee, I should like to say a few words in reference to what took place in the Committee. In justice to the Chairman, I must say that he did put the clause, and I said "No;" but when he asked if I wanted to take a Division, I again said "No." The hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Lees Knowles) says that the clause is working well in other towns.

No, I did not say that. I said that a similar clause had been inserted in other local Acts.

^* : At any rate, no one can bring forward any instance in which this power, though given in several Bills, has ever been put in operation, or has ever resulted in any way beneficially. I therefore think it is a useless, and perhaps an absurd clause; but in accepting the decision of the Committee, I attached great importance to this point: that it is a very different thing for the House to insert a clause in a general Bill applying to the whole country, and for a Committee to insert a clause in a Bill applying to a place like Keighley, where there was a request for it on the part of the Corporation and no opposition whatever. Therefore, although I did not like the clause, I did not carry my objection to a Division.

I am unwilling to enter into the merits of the clause, but, after what the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) has said, I feel bound to state, from my own professional knowledge, that diseases have been spread from laundry operations. In this case the Committee took into consideration the unanimous desire of the Corporation of Keighley and the entire absence of any opposition to the clause. It would have been a strange proceeding indeed to have rejected a clause which was unanimously desired by the inhabitants. I am altogether in favour of Home Rule for localities, and I therefore appeal to the House not to yield to the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Bill read the third time, and passed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the barracks in Albany Street, Regent's Park, are to be rebuilt, and not the officers' quarters; whether he is aware that the whole building is in a very dilapidated state; that the cellars and servants' kitchens are damp and unwholesome, and that disinfecting powder has to be freely used to combat the smells below; and that as regards sanitary arrangements, such as we understand at present, there are none; and whether he will allow an inquiry to be ordered, as these quarters, being so close to the Regent's Canal, suffer mostly during the hot weather from the stagnant water?

The Regent's Park Barracks will not be rebuilt, but great improvements will be made, in which the officers' quarters and mess-room will be included. The building, though old, is not dilapidated; the basement rooms are dark, and not such as would now be constructed, but they will not be used as living rooms. Proximity to the Regent's Canal is undoubtedly inconvenient, but the building is considerably above the water level. The whole sanitary arrangements and drainage of the barracks will be reconstructed, and the Military Authorities are perfectly satisfied with the proposed alterations.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is prepared to give effect to the petition of fish- curers and inhabitants of Baltasound, Shetland, in which they beg that a post and telegraph office may not be established at Squarefield, the house of the newly-appointed postmaster; and whether he will require the new office to be in premises which are not licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks?

^* : I understand that Mr. Anderson, who has been nominated by the Lords of the Treasury to the situation of Sub-Postmaster at Baltasound, does not propose to conduct Post Office business in the premises in which the licensed grocer's business with which he is connected is carried on; and, in these circumstances, I see no reason, as I stated in answer to the hon. Member's question on the 1st instant, for refusing to give effect to the nomination. As far as I can gather, the premises where the new office is to be established will be generally convenient.

I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name—

"And provided that in case of School Board schools the school rate does not amount to 1s. in the pound on the rateable value of the school district."

The effect will be to prevent the new 10s. fee grant being available for School Board schools in districts where the rate is already is and upwards. When the Education Bill of 1870 was before this House the proposal was to limit the School Board rate not to is., but to ld. in the £1. Sir Massey Lopes moved the following proviso:—

"Provided that the sum so paid shall not exceed in any one rate the amount of a penny in the pound on the rateable value of the area included in the school district."

That proposal was most seriously made to the House, and it received the most hearty support of a gentleman who then bore the name of Mr. Vernon Harcourt —I presume the same gentleman as the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt)—who contended that education was an Imperial necessity and ought to be an Imperial charge. Mr. Forster, in his reply, defended the imposition of 1d. rate, but said the rate would in no case exceed 3d., although he admitted that the rate he was imposing was not altogether a just one. He said—

"He did not complain, however, of the hon. Baronet making a strong protest against a mode of taxation which be felt to be not entirely just."

If the mode of taxation was not entirely just when it was supposed it would never exceed 3d. in the £1, I contend that it is very far from just now that the rate has in many cases risen to 1s. and above 1s. Considering that this is the first time any great alteration is being made in the Education Act, I believe I should be wanting in my duty to my constituents if I did not endeavour to induce Her Majesty's Government to assent to some limitation being imposed upon the extravagance of the School Board schools. It is said if we limit the rate to 1s. the School Boards will conclude that that is the proper rate, and they will all jump up to it at once. I propose, therefore, that if the rate reaches 1s. the School Board shall not have the benefit of this particular grant. In cases where the rate is 11d. or a little over, the School Board will, if my Amendment is adopted, be inclined to keep it at that level, because they would gain nothing by going beyond 1s. unless they went up to 1s. 4d. In my own division the average rate is 5d. In Loughborough, which contains one-third of the voting power of the division, the Board have been very economical, and the rate has been kept down to about 3·5d. In the town of Leicester the rate is already 11·5d., but in the suburbs of Leicester it is in one place, Aylestone, 19·2d.; in another, Belgrave, 14d.; at Hinchley, 13·3d.; in Evington, 18·5d.; in Humberstone, 18·9; and at Seagrave, 12·5. Some very important evidence has been published by the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London School Board (Sir R. Temple). The concluding sentences of his Report are a good reply to those who say that we who oppose the raising of the School Board rate are hindering the progress of education. The hon. Member shows that, notwithstanding the vast increase in the School Board rate in London, so far from education having advanced pari passu, it has gone back. He says—

"This brief review, then, shows that the continuous growth of expenditure is to be found in every branch of the Board's work without exception. This growth is out of proportion to the increase of schools and scholars. The number of schools and scholars increases slowly, but the expenditure increases faster. The rateable value, which affords a basis to the taxation for defraying this expenditure, increases quinquennially in a certain ratio. But this ratio is exceeded by the ratio of the growth of the precept taxation during the same period. Meanwhile, the standard of instruction, though fairly well sustained, is not rising, nor is there any countervailing advantage in return for the increased cost. I have, then, to submit that we are spending too much money, and yet are failing to make the educational progress that we ought. But, despite all drawbacks and shortcomings, I adhere to what has been said in my previous statements as to the moral good which the Board has effected, the enlightenment which it has diffused, and the organisation which it has employed for combatting the social difficulties in such an area as that of the Metropolis."

That being so, and the School Board rate having reached 11·5d., it is time by raising this question, first to make a protest against the extravagance of School Boards, and, secondly, to endeavour to incorporate into the Bill a provision which would have the effect of discouraging that extravagance. If my proposal were carried, the voting power of School Boards would not be interfered with. I intended to move an Instruction to this Committee to limit the rating power to 1s., but that was ruled out of order, and there is consequently nothing left me but to propose my present Amendment. In the Report of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple), to which I have already alluded, allusion is made to a very serious departure from the intentions of those who framed the Elementary Education Act. He says—

"Then there is a particular item to which I must draw attention financially, namely, this £3,000 for selected schools for upper standards. This is a new expense of an important character, which may grow indefinitely. It amounts to this: that in certain selected schools, the scholars of the upper standards belonging originally to neighbouring schools, are to be gathered together, and so concentrated as to receive special instruction from teachers devoted to them alone. It is for this special teaching that the extra charge of £3,000 is needed for this the first year of the arrangement. It will recur annually, and, if not checked, will increase, no doubt. These will be, of course, very superior and excellent classes. But the teaching afforded them will be nothing less than secondary or superior education, in the very midst of our elementary system. Undeniably this is grafting secondary instruction on to our Board school system at the charge of the rates. Financially, I submit that this is beyond the intention of the law, but the Board and the ratepayers will judge. I, for one, should welcome the affording of this secondary or superior education, but I submit that it ought to be at the cost of those who benefit thereby and not at the cost of the ratepayers. Now that fees are to be abolished by the now legislation, there can be nothing paid by those benefited, and if this secondary education is to be allowed then the rates must inevitably bear the cost."

Although the education given in these schools is very good, it is not of the kind which the public ought to be called upon to pay for. I have here a letter from a working man pointing out the great grievance under which he suffers. He is the owner of a small house in the district of Hammersmith, and it is upon him and persons of his class that the burden of these rates falls so heavily. I believe if we were to put a limit to the extravagance of School Boards we should, to some extent, recoup the Treasury for its generosity in extending the limits of age from 5 and 14 to 3 and 15. I was amongst those who heartily supported that extension. I am always prepared to promote the cause of education, provided religious liberty is not interfered with. In the Report of the Commission on Education it is specially pointed out that the voluntary schools are in danger of being thrust out of existence through the competition of the Board schools with the unlimited resources at their command. In the interests of the elementary denominational schools I also recommend the Amendment to the Committee. The average cost of educating a child in a Christian school of whatever denomination is considerably less than the average cost of educating a nondescript child in a Board school. The cost of educating children in Roman Catholic schools is less by 8s. Per head. At present Board schools have tremendous pecuniary advantages, al- though they are really as denominational or sectarian as any voluntary schools, for I suppose that at Board schools people favour at least theistic conceptions of a kind which Voltaire might have approved. The fact that children are educated at voluntary schools at a less cost than at Board schools constitutes good ground for giving relief to the former. Many of my constituents, I may observe, are bitterly disappointed by the proposals of the Government respecting voluntary schools, and consider that they have been betrayed on this question of education. There are a good many Conservatives in the country who believed that when the education question was reopened that at least the 17s. 6d. limit would have been dealt with and the voluntary schools put upon terms of equality with the Board schools. I dare-say, however, there are reasons why that is impossible at present; and as long as Home Rule is in the atmosphere, we must be prepared to put up with a good deal. As to the effect of my Amendment, I do not believe that it will be thought a grievance in any part of the country, while it certainly will afford considerable relief to those who not only pay the school rate but also support voluntary schools. There are, I believe, 11,900 schools belonging to the Church of England, 551 to the Wesleyans, 946 to the Roman Catholics, and only 4,714 Board schools. The Amendment if carried would only affect the few School Boards whose extravagance has led to the imposition of a Is. rate. Of course, if the ratepayers do not mind paying a high rate they can still keep these Boards in power, but I think the adoption of this Amendment by the House would constitute a warning to School Boards against extravagant expenditure, and he a reminder that our present educational system was accepted in the belief that the rate would in no instance exceed 3d. If the Amendment does not meet with that amount of support which I hope hon. Members will give to it I will not press it to a Division. Under any circumstances, I hope the Debate upon it will be finished before the dinner hour.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 15, at end, to insert "and provided that in case of board schools, the school rate does not amount to one shilling in the pound on the rateable value of the school district."—( Mr. De Lisle. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* (5.12.) : I certainly hope that this discussion will not last until the dinner hour. My hon. Friend has referred to many matters, and among other things he has told us that the Government have more or less offended their friends in the country by bringing in this Bill. We are, as he knows, proposing to give a fee grant of 10s. per head, and it may be interesting to the hon. Member to know that in the county which he represents the average attendance fee is 9s. 8d. per child. But the more important matter is whether we as practical men should attempt to engraft upon the Bill now before the Committee such a proposal as that made by my hon. Friend. I am well aware that in many quarters much apprehension has been caused by the gradual increase of the School Board rate. It is true that the rate has grown and grown, but under what circumstances? Under a representative system, and a system of triennial School Board elections. Therefore, if the ratepayers are anywhere aggrieved by the expenditure of a School Board they have the remedy in their own hands. I am often asked why the rate is so high in the Metropolis. The reason may be that there are thousands and thousands of ratepayers in London who will not take the trouble to cross the street in order to record their votes at elections. As long as that apathy continues the public can scarcely complain with justice. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

I beg to move, after "1876," in line 23, to insert "so much only of." The section as it stands upsets the 17s. 6d. limit in two respects. In the first place, it provides that the money payable under the Bill shall in future be counted as money coming from local sources, and it modifies it in a still larger sense with regard to schools having a fee grant which will exceed the fees accruing to the school in the course of last year. I think that the proposal contained in the Bill is a reactionary and retrograde proposal. The principle of the Act of 1870 was that Parliament should make a grant from the Imperial Exchequer for the purpose of public education equal to the amount raised in the localities for the same purpose. That is a thoroughly sound principle, because it brings a stimulus: to bear upon persons in the localities to contribute and to do everything in their power to make education efficient. But that principle was modified by the Act of 1876, with considerable loss to a large number of the working classes and to the Imperial Exchequer. Under the Act of 1870 Local Authorities, whether School Boards or managers, had undoubtedly to make great exertion to comply with the conditions laid down by the Act. But under the Act of 1876 it was not necessary to meet the Parliamentary grant with local contributions until that grant exceeded 17s. 6d. That provision in the Act of 1876 has had a prejudicial effect. In 1876 the amount received as local income in voluntary schools was £1 ls. ld.; in 1889 it had fallen to 19s. 8d. In 1876 the voluntary subscriptions were 9s. 6d. per child in average attendance; in 1889 they had fallen to (is. 1 ld.; and while there has been a considerable decrease in subscriptions, the increase in the fees has been most marked, especially in these districts where there is no School Board. In the interests not only of the voluntary schools, but of education generally, it is desirable that the income from the localities should be kept as high as possible. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale said that the result of relaxing the old limit of the Act of 1870 would be to turn the voluntary schools practically into denominational and sectarian schools supported almost entirely by the State. Not only have subscriptions decreased under the Act of 1876, but endowments are made to come in aid of local subscriptions, and grants made by the Science and Art Department for drawing have been reckoned as money coming from local sources. That is bad enough, but now we have a proposal that every farthing paid by the Imperial Exchequer is for the future to be regarded as coming from local sources. If the Imperial grant is made greater, we ought to exact greater local effort. It is unfair by a side wind to upset the limit laid down by the Act of 1876. In a large number of schools there are no voluntary subscriptions whatever, and in 40 per cent. of them the subscriptions amount only to 2s. 6d. per child in average attendance. The effect of passing this section as it stands will be to reduce the amount of subscriptions to a much lower point than they now stand at. I have no special animus against voluntary schools, but I think experience has proved that it is wise to adhere as closely as possible to the principle of the Acts of 1870 and 1876. There are two School Boards in Merionethshire which will make of this fee grant a very large profit; one will receive over £1,000, the other about £600 over and above the fees it now receives. What is true of these School Boards will be true of several schools all over the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present I would appeal to him as guardian of the Public Purse to make it incumbent upon Board schools and managers of voluntary schools to make some efforts to meet the large and generous grants made to them out of the national Exchequer. With that view I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after "1876," to insert the words "so much only of."—( Mr. Thomas Ellis .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I think the Vice President and his Department must have had some searchings of heart upon this subject. We have been told that the 17s. 6d. limit would not be disturbed by this clause. You are disturbing it in the most serious way. Prebendary Row, one of the most distinguished authorities on this subject, has said—

"One of its great advantages is that indirectly the 17s. 6d. limit will be abolished for rural schools of the class I am interested in."

I regard that result as hardly fair, and it certainly would have been more satisfactory had this question been left alone. If you are indirectly abolishing the limit, you are doing an unreasonable thing. I know what is going to be said—that you are going to help districts which charge low fees. But in rural districts do not want to see the voluntary contributions reduced in any way whatever. I think we have done a great deal too much in that way. Another important point is, are you justified in this extraordinary process or arrangement, which says that the local resources must be brought up to at least 17s. 6d. in order to meet the Parliamentary grant? You are shovelling out a mass of money from the Treasury, and you are going to give the managers of voluntary schools a grant which for present purposes you will describe as "local resources." You are going to plank down a Parliamentary grant, changing its name to local resources, and thus you will enable the Local Authorities to make up the sum of 17s. 6d. I think this proposal to abolish indirectly the 17s. 6d. limit is an unfair one.

^* (5.34.) : The hon. Member who introduced this Amendment denounced this proposal in this last sub-section as reactionary and retrograde. Now, my challenge to the hon. Member is, that it is not reactionary if the Education Department does its duty in regard to this extra sum which has been devised. I hope and trust that these proposals will be far more educational in their character than hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to suppose. It will be absolutely impossible for the Department to deal exceptionally with any school; it must secure absolute efficiency in these schools. The principle in which we have proceeded is that there should be some uniform fee grant to be applied to all schools—Board or voluntary, otherwise we would not have been able to get our proposals through the House. It is an incident of our proposal that in certain circumstances the 17s. 6d. imit is varied, but I deny that we are making the alteration by a side wind. Far from its being a retrograde it is a distinctly educational movement. It is urged that it would be an evil thing if certain of the subscribers were to put the balance in their pockets instead of spending it on education. But it is perfectly certain that if managers do that the efficiency of the school would not be maintained, the school would remain in its present position, and the 17s. 6d. limit could not be exceeded. Under all the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government feel bound to maintain this sub-section as it stands, and I would urge upon hon. Members opposite that after all, if a grievance arises, it can only be in the direction of educational effort, and where the managers spend the extra money on increasing the efficiency of their schools.

The right hon. Gentleman says that this is really an educational Amendment, by which the extra fees shall be counted as local subscriptions. That is assuming that all the schools to which this applies are already inefficient. But the majority of these schools are not inefficient, and had anyone on this side of the House suggested that they were, no one would have repudiated it more vigorously than the right hon. Gentleman. One friend of mine said he could not make his schools any better, and he would have to spend the money on books for the children. The right hon. Gentleman does not realise what is going to happen; he does not know the extent of the wastefulness and extravagance of his proposal. I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he here, would know. In hundreds of rural districts this will practically do away with the necessity of voluntary subscriptions. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Take the Isle of Anglesey as an illustration. There are there two small parishes contiguous, with a population of 259, and each with a school at no great distance one from the other, and with fees amounting to 4s. 6d. or 5s. The 10s. grant would leave 6d. or 8d. per head required to maintain the schools. Why were these schools not amalgamated? The reason given in the evidence before the Royal Commission was, because to have done so would have been to lose the extra grant. Last year another £10 was given to each of these small schools, making £20 each which they receive. When this fee grant is paid, the amount paid by the State to these schools will be £2 2s. for every child. That will be done in hundreds and thousands of instances, wherever there are small schools, and you are doing away practically, in these cases, with the necessity for voluntary subscriptions. An article, written by one of the most able men in England, appears in the Contemporary Review, and it shows that in Somersetshire a number of schools already receiving £1 11s. per child will have an additional 10s., making £2 1s. per child. The right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. W. H. Smith) was in this House when the raising of the limit to 17s. 6d. was so strongly contested, and no one was more urgent against it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Forster declared that the raising of the limit from 15s. to 17s. 6d. was a breach of the compromise made in 1870, and held himself at liberty, therefore, to take a new line. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he is two or three years older will find that this money is being wasted, and not spent in promoting the efficiency of education; he will see, by reason of the laxity of some of the provisions of the last Code, and by the laxity of the Department's administration, wastefulness and extravagance in the application of this money.

^* (5.45.) : Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is usually fair in his remarks, but he seems, in the remarks he made about the Isle of Anglesey, to have forgotten that 8d. per head would only be required in aid of the 10s. in order to carry on the schools.

In addition to the 10s.

^* : What chance is there of the 17s. 6d. limit being exceeded, seeing that the difference is to be met by local resources?

Of course, in the Isle of Anglesey it will simply abolish voluntary subscriptions altogether.

^* : It will not abolish voluntary subscriptions altogether, but in cases where the subscriptions are 10s., 12s., or 14s., they will come down to a lower amount. I have taken the right hon. Gentleman's own example of the operation of this subsection to show how utterly impossible it is that it can have the injurious consequences anticipated. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the recent additional grant, I do not think he had in his mind the Code, which provides that where there is no elementary school within a certain distance of a population, the Department may make a special grant in addition to the ordinary grants, amounting, if the said population exceeds 200, to £10; and if it does not exceed 200, to £15, If the Department does its duty it has constant power of revision which would result in the withdrawal of the special grants if they were found to be no longer necessary. The proposal comes to this: In the districts where the fees have been exceptionally low—in sympathy with poor parents, and in order to get the children to school, subscribers having put their hands in their pockets—it is felt that such towns or districts should not be penalised for their past efforts in the cause of education by putting them under exceptional disadvantages, as compared with those places where the school fees for the parents have been maintained nearly level with the cost of the school. If the Educational Department does its duty—and it is a department which has never, and I hope never will, be filled by political influence, and may be confidently expected to do its duty in the future as in the past—no part of this 10s. grant will go back to the pockets of subscribers, save where exceptional sacrifices have been made. This proposal, after all, will do nothing more than contribute to the efficiency of education. We believe the provision to be fair and reasonable, but if you begin to take individual instances, then you will make any Bill of this kind impossible. If we give the fee grant all round, it will not in our judgment, endanger the Exchequer, so far as any wasteful expenditure is concerned, and it will greatly increase the efficiency of education in elementary schools.

I think this Amendment will seriously injure the voluntary schools in very poor districts. Low fees, and no fees, have often been charged, in order to get the children to school. In this country a very large number of Roman Catholic schools are in that position, and if this Amendment were passed a very considerable sum of money would be taken away from several of the Roman Catholic schools. The money to be given under this Bill is to be reckoned as bonâ fide school pence, and if you tamper with that principle, you will destroy the poor schools in Ireland.

^* (6.0.) : Reference has been made to the grant to schools for small populations. If the right hon. Gentleman will read Article 107 of the Code he will see these grants are excluded from the calculation altogether.

^* assented.

Does the right hon. Gentleman question the accuracy of my statement that these schools will receive more than £2 per child?

^* : The Department has the power, looking to all the circumstances, to withdraw the grants under Articles 104 and 105 of the Code.

^* : There is another point I wish to draw attention to. Suppose a case where the fees are now 7s. and the subscriptions 12s. As the law now stands, that school will be able to receive a grant of 7s., plus 12s., that is, 19s. What are you now proposing? You propose to substitute for this 7s. a 10s. fee grant, so that when this Bill becomes law the school will be able to receive a grant of 10s., plus 12s., or 22s., instead of 19s. The school will get 3s. extra by the substitution of the 10s. fee grant for the 7s. now provided by way of fees, and it will get another 3s. under the present sub-section. In other words, it will receive payment of the money twice over.

^* : For results.

^* (6.2.) : The framer of this Amendment appears to have had no regard whatever for the growth of the schools. The growth of schools in our manufacturing districts will largely increase, while this provision makes the previous fee a fixed charge That, I think, is in itself a grave objection to this proviso. Having desired for a long time that there should be some modification of the l7s. 6d. limit, I cannot at all regret the proposal which will in some degree modify the severity of that condition. I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield speak of schools as being thoroughly efficient. I thought his view was that perfect efficiency could not exist in a school, that no school in this or any other country could be so perfect that no improvement could take place. I think that any pressure which will increase the efficiency of a school is wholesome.

"Thoroughly efficient" is well understood in the Department. When a school is thoroughly efficient you cannot ask more.

^* : It may be efficient within the requirements of the Department, but it still may be capable of improvement.

^* (6.5.) : If we wish to increase the amount schools may earn why should we not do it fairly for all? Why should we do it in the most extraordinary and exceptional way suggested? Take the case of a place like Birmingham, which cannot be regarded as a poor place. The amount of school pence there is 5s. 6¾d a head. The Government propose to give the schools there 4s. 6d. per child more, and then, under the guise of a clause intended to limit the Imperial Grant to the amount of the local resources, they say the Birmingham schools shall have the right to earn 4s. 6d. more than other schools. What possible justification is there for such a proposal? Under no system of reasoning that the Government can adopt can they make out that the increase of 4s. 6d. is a reason why they should increase the power of the Birmingham schools to earn a larger grant than the cshools in the North of England. If the Government persist in this matter, I hope they will favour the House with an estimate of what the additional cost to the Imperial Treasury will be. Yesterday they refused to grant £3,000 in respect of evening schools, and now they are propounding a scheme for spending an indefinable amount.

The First Lord of the Treasury admits that a larger grant may be obtained from the Imperial Treasury under this new process, but says it will be only as result of merit. Take the ease put by the hon. Member for Huddersfield—the case where the subscriptions amount to 12s. and the fees to 7s. There is a total local contribution of 19s. Under the present Code if the school earns 22s. it is not allowed to get 22s., but only 19s, because the locality has only contributed 19s. The objection now taken is that the 19s., without any real increase in the local contributions, is converted into 22s. The 12s. local contribution remains exactly the same, but the 7s. fee is converted—nominally and fictitiously converted—into 10s.

^* (6.10.) : I do not know whether the hon. Member attaches importance to the figures relating to Birmingham which he has cited, but those figures do not happen to be accurate. The figures the hon.Gentleman quoted,namely, 5s. 6¾d. per child, are the figures of the Board schools in Birmingham. The fees in the voluntary schools of Birmingham amount to 9s. 9¾d. per head. As I understand the hon. Member's argument, the hon. Gentleman has some fear lest there should go into the hands of the subscribers to the voluntary schools, through a process which has been elaborately explained, some of the funds to be given under the Bill. It must be admitted that it has been shown that the new system may, under certain circumstances and in certain cases, be liable to considerable abuse; but, as I take it, it is the office of Her Majesty's Government to prevent abuse. [ Opposition cries of "No!" ] Additional supervision exercised on behalf of the Department, and the claim which the Department can make to have additional efficiency in the schools, will prevent abuse taking place. No doubt the Bill will throw a great deal of additional responsibility upon the Education Department. All those places which have hitherto been accepted by the Department for inefficiency—namely, poverty and the like—will be sweptaway, and it will be the duty of the Department to see that efficiency is thoroughly maintained in accordance with the resources which the schools have at their disposal. Under the circumstances, it seems to me we may safely trust the Department to prevent the abuses which have been so carefully explained to the Committee.

^* : When I made my former remarks I had not the voluntary subscribers in mind. I pointed out that the Board schools in Birmingham receive now in school pence 5s. 6¾d. per child. The Government now propose to give them 4s. 6d. per child more, and in virtue of that 4s. 6d. more, the Birmingham schools will have the right to earn from the Imperial Treasury 4s. 6d. more than other schools which are not so situated. The 4s. 6d. is given freely, and it may be used well; but why should it enable Birmingham to get another 4s. 6d.? Birmingham will practically get 9s. In Manchester we shall not get 9s., but have to pay a good deal more. I think the proposal is utterly indefensible and unreasonable.

^* (6.15.) : Birmingham has charged a low fee, and Manchester has charged a high fee. Is it contended that Birmingham is not to have the advantage of the 10s. grant in regard to the 17s. 6d. limit because it has paid out of the pockets of its ratepayers the difference between 4s. 6d. and 10s., or, as in the case of Manchester, 14s.? It would be most unfair to Birmingham to deprive it of the advantage of the difference between the 4s. 6d. and 10s. If Birmingham has made great sacrifices in the past, it ought not in consequence to be penalised in the future.

I will not go into the question as between Birmingham and Manchester, although I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles as to the discrepancy. I rise to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have made any calculation as to the amount which this matter will involve. At present the grant is in round figures £3,250,000, and that represents an average grant of 17s. 8d. If you are going to add 4s. to that grant—[ Cries of "No!"]—well I do not say you are, but I want the Committee to realise that to add something like 4s. to the grant would be an addition of something like £800,000. If you add 1s. to the grant, there will be a considerable addition. If the Vice President of the Council will give us some stronger assurance than he has hitherto given us on this point, he will remove some of the regret we shall feel in being beaten in the forthcoming Division. I think we have a right to ask that if there is a surplus it shall be spent in improving the efficiency of the school.

^* : The Department has not the date for any accurate estimate with regard to the effect of this proposal, nor do I think there is much in the past to judge by. The deductions have up to this date not amounted to more than £36,000, but I think the cost of the proposal will not amount to anything like that sum.

I think it will be found that this clause means a great deal more than an expenditure of £36,000. Certainly some means should be taken to increase the efficiency of the schools.

(6.22.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 218.—(Div. List, No. 318.)

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to adopt the Amendment I have now to propose. I do not think much argument is required to establish my point that there is no Department from which we ought to have fuller statistics than the Education Department, and yet the information we do get is really not nearly so full as that we get in relation to other Departments, and which is not so interesting to Members of the House and the great mass of the people. Taking up my Parliamentary Papers recently, I found among them the most exhaustive information in reference to police expenditure; the fullest information about the cost of police clothing in every county and borough, for instance. Now, it seems to me that when we are making this large grant of £2,000,000, and coupling with it certain conditions as to the amount to be contributed by local effort, we may expect that full accounts should be rendered to Parliament.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, after line 25, to add:—"(4) The Education Department shall report annually to Parliament the amount of fee grant paid to each school during the year, and the amount of rates raised or voluntary subscriptions contributed towards the expense of such school."—( Mr. T. Ellis. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* : I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this. The annual Report now gives very full information, and such an addition as this will add very considerably to expense, labour, and delay.

I think my hon. Friend would be justified in pressing this. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have at once agreed to give these details. The Department have the information, and I think there would be no difficulty in giving these particulars. In relation to this large grant I think we ought to, demand this, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman consults the heads of the Department he will find there will be no difficulty.

^* : There would be no difficulty in including this if it is as easy to do so as the right hon. Gentleman imagines, but I think at any rate it should he left to the Department and not imposed by statutory obligation. It may have the result of delaying the Report, the production of which is desired as early as possible. There would be no difficulty in furnishing the information from time to time in the form of a Return, but I do not think it is desirable to make it a statutory obligation.

I recognise the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to meet our wishes, but I can assure him that the accounts being regularly made up there would be no difficulty or delay about it.

^* : If that is so, then the Department will be ready to give it in the form of a Return.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment substituting the word "may" for "shall," making it a direction to the Department? It will really be only bringing our educational statistics up to the level of those supplied in other countries. If we can have the information in a Return there cannot be much difficulty in including it in the Report.

^* : To use the word "may" will not carry the matter beyond where it is now. We may do it now. But I do not think we are justified in declaring it shall be done.

I urge this, because it is often very difficult to obtain required information if we do not happen to have moved for a Return. From time to time separate Returns are moved for and prove very useful. For instance, there is the Return granted on the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) which has been of extraordinary value during the discussions upon this Bill. I desire that instead of increasing the bulk and number of Returns we should have the information included in the Report by the simple addition of a column. I am willing to alter the word "shall" to "may" as indicating that the House expects the information.

^* : I think there should be no difficulty in giving this information, but I do not see the advantage of inserting the word "may." We may be satisfied, I think, with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will give an undertaking that it shall, if possible, be included in the Annual Report, and so individual Members will be released from the necessity of moving for it as a Return.

^* : I will certainly endeavour to give the information desired. I will not give a definite pledge; but certainly the endeavour shall be made.

I am sure the Vice President will see that it will be far more convenient and very little extra expense to include this in the Report; it is simply the addition of another column.

^* : But there is a difference in inserting this as a direction in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to ask the Vice President a question in relation to the decision we arrived at the other night—the assent of the Government to the proposition that the grant of 10s. shall extend to children between the ages of three and five. The acceptance of the proposal by the Government was rather sprung upon the Committee, and there was no discussion at the time. The fees for infants are at present generally very much less than the fees paid for older children. The average fee is about 2d. a week. By granting 10s. in respect of infants I calculate that £60,000 will go as an additional subsidy to the Board and voluntary schools, and that £40,000 out of the £60,000 will go to the latter. I wish to know whether the Vice President of the Council will consider the advisability of reducing the grant from 10s. to 7s. or 7s. 6d. I do not think that we ought to vote away recklessly so large a sum as £60,000. The educational needs of the infants may be met by a smaller sum than is necessary for the older children.

^* (6.48.) : Before we leave this clause there is a point upon which it would be well to have information. I think my right hon. Friend will find, if he looks into the operation of Section 3 of the clause we are now about to pass, that it will land us in much greater expenditure than he seems to anticipate. It will be observed that while the limit in Manchester and other places in the North will be 17s. 6d., Birmingham will be 22s., Bristol 21s., London 20s. 2d., and so on with other towns, and in some cases I think there will be surprise at the expenditure that will result. I trust that before the Report stage a reliable estimate will be prepared showing what will be the exact effect of this clause upon the taxation of the country. The country ought to have the information with as little delay as possible.

^* : Yes, I think it is due to hon. Members that they should have this information. The matter is being gone into thoroughly, and I engage before the Report stage is taken to see whether an estimate can be given. The point raised as to infants' fees shall also receive careful consideration. There was no indication the other night of a desire that the grant in respect to infants should be varied, and I am afraid if I had suggested it at the time that suggestion would have met with strong opposition.

I hope we shall be very careful about reducing the infants' grant. There is a difficulty now about obtaining skilled teachers for children under five. As to the additional grants to voluntary schools, I have now thrown away all scruples on the subject. We are engaged in demolishing the voluntary system, and may as well carry the demolition as far as possible. I shall offer no further opposition to grants to these schools, being certain that when a rational Government come into power they will take care that institutions altogether supported by public money shall also be subjected to public control.

^* : I sincerely trust the Govern- ment will not yield to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poplar with reference to the infant fee grant. The average of 10s. was arrived at by taking the fees charged for all children. This figure is too low, as I have already taken occasion to point out; but if the children under five are exempted from the calculation the proposed fee grant will be still more unfair than it is now.

^* : Do I understand that under the clause there will be different limits in different parts of the country? In the North of England there will be a 17s. 6d. limit, while in Birmingham there will be a 22s. limit, in Bristol a 21s. limit, and in London a 20s. 2d. limit.

^* : I really think it will be perfectly possible for Manchester or Liverpool or any other town to earn quite as much as Birmingham.

If there is any difficulty on the point, towns have only to raise the School Rate as Birmingham has done, and then they will earn an equal amount. What some hon. Members apparently want is to get money from the State with the object of sparing the ratepayers. But I rose simply to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to consent to the suggestion to entertain a lower grant in respect to infants. The grant is to cover the average on all grades, and it is desirable that the education of infants should be conducted on the best plan, and the most recent improvements in the Kindergarten system should be carried out; but it is an expensive system. We do not want the infant schools simply converted into nurseries, and money is well spent in laying the groundwork for the future teaching the children will receive, and the subsequent teaching becomes of double value from the early training. I hope, therefore, there will be no thought of reducing the amount of the fee grant.

^* : I trust the Government will not agree to the suggestion. The greatest effort will have to be made to meet the change, and it is represented to me by those interested in education in my constituency that the amount of the fee grant will fall short of the amount raised by fees by about 3s. ld. per scholar, and the fee grant is met by the grant from the Education Department. Large sums, therefore, will have to be provided from somewhere.

^* (6.55.) : Speaking from considerable experience in reference to School Boards, I can say that there will be no hesitation in asking for an additional Id. in the £1 from the ratepayers. But I think that under the clause as it stands, districts where the school fees are now high in fees will be penalised as compared with other districts where the schools have been conducted on a low-fee system. In some districts ratepayers will have to pay another Id. in the £1 to carry out the Act, while another district, where a different education is being provided, will be privileged in the competition, and make a profit out of the transaction, as the result of the policy hitherto pursued. I am perfectly satisfied that when they have fully realised the situation the Education Department will recognise the obvious unfairness of the arrangement, and will guard against the danger which has been indicated by the hon. Member for Eccles.

At the present time there are 11,766 voluntary schools without subscriptions, and yet have all the denominational advantages, and the number under the operation of the clause the number will probably be doubled. The condition of things to which we are coming is, that we shall be handing over to certain high-minded gentlemen interested in religion or with other pretensions, State Subventions for the carrying on of public educational institutions, in the management of which the public will have no control. These are institutions in which the people of this land are more interested than in almost any other institutions, I want to know where the system is to end. At this moment, as we have heard, there are about 40 per cent. of denominational schools where the subscriptions are only 2s. 6d. That amount will be increased, and I only want to point out to the country a fact pregnant with meaning, namely, the mischief that will be involved in handing over half the elementary education system of this country to persons who have no manner of claim to the exclusive control of that system. I have no hope of any modification in the Bill in the direction I desire, but I make this statement to reserve the right at a future time of insisting upon a more complete system of control by the taxpayers over the elementary educational system of the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2.

^* (7.5.) : The Amendment I now beg to move must be taken in connection with two other Amendments that stand in my name, namely, in line 9, to leave out "except as by this Act provided," and then to leave out Sub-section 2. The object of the Amendment, which I at once admit is of a sweeping character, is to provide that where schools do come under this Act and wish to make themselves free they shall be really free from top to bottom, and permanently so. I do not intend to deal with the Amendment at any length, but I wish to say that the essential principle of the Liberal creed upon free education is bound up in this Amendment. We are determined not to go in for a free education which shall permit the charging of a fee in schools which receive the fee grant. The Liberal Party go in for the genuine article, absolutely free education, which I believe the people of this country demand. It will be said that this Amendment will affect the high-fee denominational schools in the North of England. That consideration does not weigh with me. I shall be exceedingly glad if the result of accepting the Amendment would be to stimulate the subscribers to high-fee schools in the North of England to come up to the standard of subscribers in other parts of the country, such as the County of Somerset, to which reference has been made, and to make them put down their cash if they wish to retain the control of the schools. I trust, however, that these schools will be absorbed into the organisation of the School Board system, and then practically there will be no limit to the funds for education, as they will be supplemented out of the rates. I have put down the Amendment, because I have said every time I have addressed my constituents that what the Liberal Party was going for was genuine free education, and not one of a stunted and limited nature.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word "grant," to the word "no," in line 9.—( Mr. Channing. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'Where the' stand part of the Clause."

I am afraid that the most sanguine controversialist could not possibly hope that the Government would accept this Amendment, nor did I put it down on the Paper in any such hope, but I think that at this point it is most important to call the attention of the Committee to the extremely peculiar working of the Bill, and to ask some rather pressing questions of the Government. Now I humbly think that the Government have not taken the most judicious course in giving free education to the country. They would more wisely have adopted the principle of the Scotch measure, that in every school which accepts the fee grant education is thenceforth to be entirely free. The Government have not adopted that principle. I would here refer the Committee to the 3rd sub-section of Clause 3, by far the most important part of the Bill. It is by the operation of that sub-section that free education will be swiftly or gradually spread over England and Wales. And I want to call the attention of the Government to the extreme difficulty that will ensue by this indirect mode of progression, and to ask my right hon. Friend opposite what the process is by which the great benefit of free education will be given over a large part of the country? We know that in five-sixths of the schools with comparatively small attendance, in the south country schools, the Welsh schools, and the Board schools for the most part, by the automatic operation of the Bill, education will become entirely free. In Northumberland, Cumberland, and part of Durham the condition of the country schools is this—the fees are very high because wages are high and the parents well off, and in many cases the education is extremely good. What will happen in these places? Managers who can afford it will at once make the school free, first, because it is the intention of Parliament to give free education, and, secondly, because if they still retain a 2d. or even a 1d. fee their poorer neighbours will be in a satisfactory position to demand that the school shall be made free. I cannot imagine that anyone who wishes to maintain the relations that ought to exist between the managers of schools in the country and their poorer neighbours would desire that they should have a hold over him which they forbear from exercising, or that they should exercise it and extort from him that free education that they ought to give. This may not be the case in connection with most schools. In these schools with high fees the managers are very often country clergymen not very well off, and if the landlords, who may or may not be well off, are not willing to give any higher subscription, the state of things will be that the parents will have to pay a 1d., 2d., or 3d. fee unless they choose to put the Education Department in motion. What does putting the Education Department in motion mean? A curious light is thrown on that subject this morning by the excellent Report of Convocation in the Times. The whole subject was admirably discussed by the Bishop of London, who was complimented at the end on the great knowledge that he showed. Some of his observations were very remarkable and interesting. How is the Education Board to be put in motion in order that these people in these remote villages may get the benefit of free education? Do not hon. Members know enough of some country villages to know that it is a very serious matter for agricultural labourers to apply to the Department to the detriment of a country clergyman in order that the managers may take upon their shoulders the burden of maintaining these schools, and that the schools may be free. What did the Bishop of London say? He said—

"He wanted to know how the localities were to express their wishes. Was it to be done by the parents themselves, or by busy bodies who were to formulate the wants of other people."

The Bishop of London is a very kind man, and I do not think he quite knew what a very strong thing this was to say. The "busy body" would be probably some sterling man of the middle class who was not afraid of anyone in the village, and it might be only through him that the parents in these remote villages would often be able to express their wants. I must say I think it is to be deeply regretted that this most disagreeable cause of dissension in the country villages was not removed by the Government taking the course which was taken in Scotland, and saying—"Parliament has given £2,000,000 at least for the purpose of giving the country free education, and free education it shall have from the northernmost point of Northumberland to the southernmost point of Cornwall." There is another class of schools which exercise the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, those schools in North Country towns in which the fees are very high and the subscriptions very low. There is a North Country town in which, putting aside the Roman Catholic schools, the Church schools, with 3,600 children, receive £3,450 in fees and £192 in subscriptions. Now, just imagine what that means if free education is to be given in this town. It means that even if you retain one or two schools for people who are willing to pay special fees, at least seven times as much subscriptions as are received now will have to be raised, and then see the process by which free places will be found in these schools. I saw to-day a resolution passed by the managers of the voluntary schools in Sheffield, and I entirely agree with it. They said, in effect, that the compulsory provision of school accommodation without fees in any school district would keep the system of adequate school provision in a chronic state of unsettlement. Well, that is the very least you can say. These schools, it seems to me, will be in the unpleasant position of feeling that the Department may come down on one or other of them at its will, and say, "You must provide free places." They would answer, "Oh, but there is no reason why you should fix on my school," and the Department would reply, "You must find free places somewhere." I believe that there will be the greatest amount of uneasiness, confusion, and friction caused by the desire of each school to maintain its position as a high-fee school, while the Department will be bound to find a certain amount of free accommodation. I hope the De- partment will take steps to see that in those schools where the fee rises according to a standard that such a system shall not be continued in any school which receives the fee grant. I regret that the boon of free education is not given by the Bill in the direct way in which it has been given in the case of Scotland. Hon. Members have made speeches which can only prove that there still remains in their minds the idea that, after all, it is a good thing that people should pay fees. If that is the case we ought not to have had this Bill. It is because, among other things, it keeps up that notion that I am sorry we have the Bill in this shape. Considering that this is the turning point of the Bill, that this is the actual process by which free education is going to be given, I think we should have a very clear explanation from the Government of the process by which, in these two cases of rural districts and towns without School Boards, the process is to be carried out.

^*( (7.21.) : The right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he does not intend that a Division should take place with regard to this Amendment. Whether that be so or not, I think the points he has raised are fair points to urge, although I feel bound to throw out a suggestion that the speech of my right hon. Friend was rather more a speech against the Second Reading of the Bill than one to be made in Committee, and it rather surprised me, after the many speeches that have been made by right hon. Colleagues of his in favour of the Second Reading. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said he did so in favour of an absolutely free system of education. I have before now defended the system adopted in the Bill. I believe it will be found to be a fair and just system, and one which will maintain the best elements in our present schools, among others the preservation of fees. I believe that nothing would be more fatal to education in this country than the entire abolition of fees, because one effect of such an abolition would be the establishment of a vast number of private adventure schools, practically in many cases without control. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find that not only in the vast majority of the agricultural districts of England and Wales, but also in a large number of our large towns, a considerable number of schools will become free directly the Bill passes. Reference has been made to the high-fee schools in Northumberland and Durham. In the mining districts of Northumberland and Durham there is a system called "poundage"—that is to say, a deduction is made from the wages of the miner and supplemented by a payment from his employer. This deduction is included in the column of fees, and so accounts for the apparently high total. I am of opinion that no hardship will result from the Bill in these districts, and that a mining population which is content to pay a high fee by means of deduction from wages in order to maintain the efficiency of the schools will be perfectly willing still to submit to a deduction, minus the 10s. grant. I have been pressed as to what will happen in the case of parents who wish to have free schools. That question will, I think, be better discussed under Sub-section 3 of Clause 3. I do not think, however, that there is any village in England or Wales, however remote, where the tiniest possible grievance that may arise with regard to education may not be brought within a few hours and with perfect facility under the notice of the Education Department. Gentlemen opposite would be perfectly astounded if they saw the great masses of correspondence with the Education Department dealing with the tiniest difficulties and the smallest details of school life. The right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the Amendment have urged that we are travelling on wrong lines, and that we should have abolished fees altogether. I have already alluded to one point in regard to which I think such a thing would be most disastrous to the cause of education, but there is another consideration of almost equal importance. The immediate result of free schools everywhere would be the absolute destruction of all high-fee schools, and I should like to know where the money is to come from in order to give effect to such a project. It is all very well for Members to urge that the buildings will be handed over to Board schools, but I can assure them that nothing of the kind will happen. The Amendment and the speech of my right hon. Friend point to proposals that we think would be disastrous to the cause of education, and that would result in an enormous demand being made on the taxpayer.

This is a somewhat particular point, and I may say in regard to it that some of us on this side of the House do not see the necessity of dividing on the Amendment, because we believe it will not be long before we shall be enabled to establish "this hateful system of universal free schools " to which the right hon. Gentleman seems to object. The First Lord of the Treasury seems to think that 83 per cent. of the whole of the schools will be at once free, and under Clause 3 we shall have a strong lever which will enable us to create a great breach in the wall surrounding those schools which still charge high fees, and very rapidly it will result, I think, in the freeing of the voluntary schools as well. The Vice President of the Council has argued that you do not want a universal system of free School Boards, which he thinks will be the ruin of the private adventure schools, but there can be no doubt that a number of those schools would still remain, although, probably, the number would not be very large. They would exist in certain parts of the country, but, speaking generally, throughout the entire Kingdom, we shall have established a universal system of free schools accompanied by all the evils which the Vice President of the Council has pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire and other parts of the country where he seemed to think parents liked to pay high fees. I think if he were to look further into the matter he would find that the reason why the fees are high is because the subscriptions are low. The operation of this Bill, in my opinion, will be this: that the parents will have the choice of sending their children to the free schools or of continuing to pay those high fees in the voluntary schools, and that I think is quite sufficient for our present purpose.

^* (7.35.) : I would remind the Committee that when this Bill was first introduced the hon. Member for Poplar denounced the system of fining down, and protested against the scheme of the Govern- ment as imperfect and insufficient. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council says he does not wish to see a universal free system in this country. And the Mover of the Amendment does not wish that. We have already passed an Amendment allowing any school, the managers of which may choose to do so, to keep itself outside the Bill. We say, in point of fact, if you accept the fee grant you ought to become a free school. The right hon. Gentleman says he wants high grade schools, but high grade schools and high feed schools are not synonymous terms. The high feed schools in the North of England are not high grade schools, and the education which is given in them is not nearly so good as that which is given in the School Board schools of Birmingham. What we protest against is the wasteful plan of the Government in giving a system of free education to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the result of passing this Bill will be an addition next year to the taxation of the country amounting to £1,880,000 for England alone. What is the total amount of the fees? They are almost precisely the same amount, namely, £1,885,000. This sum of money ought to give us free education in all our public elementary schools. As a matter of fact, however, it will only give us free education in 80 per cent. of them. I think, therefore, it will be seen that this is a wasteful grant, and for my own part I cordially support the proposal of my hon. Friend.

^* (7.40.) : I cannot altogether agree with this Amendment. In many of our large cities there are parents who send their children to elementary schools, and who prefer to pay some small fee. At the same time, in all these large towns there is a residuum of the population, in some cases numbering many thousands, who are not fit to associate with the children of respectable parents. [ Cries of Oh, oh! "] Hon. Members may cry "Oh, oh; " but I myself have seen many of them, and I think there are few hon. Members in this House who cannot corroborate my statement. It is not right to take the children of drunken and dissolute parents, accustomed to all kinds of disreputable language, and to place them among the children of the respectable artizan class. This is no imaginary evil. At any rate, it is one which is well known to myself. I have been connected with a very poor Sunday school, in which something like 1,000 children have been trained, for the last 10 years, and I know the corrupting and contaminating effects of mixing up children coming from the lowest dens and accustomed to the foulest language and the most vicious habits with the children of respectable parents. Therefore, I think some choice ought to be offered to parents by allowing them to send their children to schools in which small fees are charged.