^* (3.55.) moved, in page 2, line 34, the omission of Sub-section 3, which gives the Education Department power, after the expiration of a year from the commencement of the Act, upon representation being made that in any district there is a deficiency of free school-places, to require, after inquiry, such deficiency to be supplied in the manner provided by the Act of 1870. The hon. Baronet said: In moving the omission of this sub-section, I make the last stand that can be made, and urge the last pleas that can be urged, on behalf of the voluntary system and of the Church schools. My contention is that while the voluntary system in the villages is fairly protected by this Bill, the voluntary schools in our large towns will be most seriously affected by this clause. They are schools of a superior order, which have hitherto held their own against the competition of the School Boards in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and other Northern counties; and it is against these schools that this sub-section will be principally directed. To them this subsection is as the shaft that sticks in the wounded side, "hœret lateri lethalis arundo." Now, I would ask the House to join with me for a few moments in grappling with the operation of this subsection, and I shall be able to show that the provisions therein contained, with regard to the principle of the Bill, are unnecessary. What is the ordinary type of these schools? They may have four classes of scholars, one class with a 3d. fee, one with a 4d., one with a 6d., and one with a 9d. There may be a number of schools of this type in a town, carrying on the entire elementary education without help from the School Board or the rates. And there are many towns in the North thus situated. The average income would range from 15s. to 20s. a head. Now, if by the operation of this section the managers were compelled to accept an average grant of 10s. per head in lieu of these fees, thus depriving them of half their income, the eventual fall of those schools would be financially certain. The voluntary system would be no longer able to keep its head above water, and must strike its flag to the pirates of the School Boards. But I hope it will not come to this. The House is aware that in the schools I have mentioned attention is paid to the 3d., 4d., 6d. and 9d. classes. Now, the operation of this Bill will be to free the 3d. class; thus in every one of the large cities there would be this 3d. class absolutely free. In most of these schools also there will be some children educated free at the charge of good Church people. Accordingly the children, when they begin their school life in the lowest class, will be free, but when they enter the higher classes they will have to pay a fee according to the scale above mentioned, less 3d. in every case according to this Bill. I hope that the parents will consent to continue the payment of fees for the educational and social advantages their children will receive. Now, these arrangements would work automatically, and would provide free places everywhere, so far according to the principle of the Bill. And this would be satisfactory to the voluntary managers. On the one hand, there would be always free places at the bottom, while in the upper classes the income of the school would be sustained. And there was no need to make further provision. But by this sub-section representations can be made to the Education Department, not by Local Authorities nor by Representative Bodies, but by any body of persons—they may be opponents of the Church, and objectors to the voluntary system—that the amount of free accommodation provided is insufficient. If there is such free accommodation for 50 provided by the above arrangements, they will say it ought to be for 100; and if for 100 they will demand they will demand 200, if for 150 they will demand 300, and so forth. This may be done by agitators with the knowledge that such demands must kill these voluntary schools. And to whom are these representations to be made? They are to be made by irresponsible persons to the Education Department. I would certainly trust my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council with the interests of the voluntary schools; but, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend cannot live for ever politically, and the power will some time pass to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, who are they? They are the very statesmen who have declared that the policy of the Bill ought to be the introduction of the School Board into every large town, and ultimately everywhere. I am not imputing to them anything they have not themselves declared in this House. They have been drumming it into our ears every night for the last 10 days, they have been drilling us into this belief, and they cannot be surprised if we take them at their word. These representations will, therefore, be made to Ministers who have a predilection for School Boards, and the effect will be that the free places in voluntary schools will be augmented by order, not according to the wants of the parents or of the children, but according to the wishes of those who have an ulterior purpose to serve—the supplanting of the voluntary system by Board schools. Yet, further, this kind of mischievous agitation may ultimately affect the minds of the parents, and instead of being content with free places in the third class, as above explained, will begin to think that they ought to have their children's education free in those classes where higher fees prevail. [ Opposition cheers. ] The Committee will see that I am rightly interpreting the views of hon. Members opposite. Then we should come back to the danger with which I started. The school would lose 20s. of fees and receive 10s. in compensation, and so must succumb. The effect of the sub-section must be to bring the School Board into all those large towns of the North of England where hitherto the voluntary system has worked quite well, and, once established, the School Board will never stop until it has absorbed all the elementary education. The School Board is an ogre that eats up everything within reach, and it regards the voluntary schools just as a cannibal might regard an African traveller. You may ask how it is that I know. My answer is that I belong to a School Board, and have seen this done under my own eyes during the last seven years. I hope that, after all, the voluntary schools may survive the danger with which they are threatened, but that danger ought never to have been thrown in their way. The disposition of every School Board will be to act after its kind in every town where it is introduced. Once the thin end has been inserted the wedge will be driven home in all its length and breadth. The mill of the Board may grind slowly, but in the end it will pulverise everything opposed to it. I have myself received notes of warning from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Salford, and Sheffield, and I have no doubt there are many other towns in which the feeling is the same. Indeed, I believe it is true of every town in the North of England where Churchmen do congregate. The voluntary system may surmount the peril by renewed exertions. Not in vain, but with entire success, has the net been spread by the Opposition in the sight of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. But school managers will now know of the danger which impends, and, in combination with their supporters and with the parents, will, I hope, present an unbroken front to the School Board as common enemy. I say this in no spirit of hostility to the School Board, which has its proper duties in such localities as East London, the southern bank of the Thames, and wherever there is darkness, poverty, and misery in any town or district. In such places the Board does noble work, which could be done by no other agency. Such work it can becomingly do without trenching on the goodly preserves of the voluntary system. I have conferred on this sub-section with the Chairman of the London Board (Mr. Diggle, who understands the subject probably better than anyone else in England, owing to his combined knowledge of the School Board and of the voluntary system, and I find that he also is seriously alarmed for the safety of the upper - class voluntary schools. I have hopes that, in spite of everything, the voluntary schools will succeed in passing through the danger—a danger which ought never to have been provoked, as it is by this clause. As one who has given his brains to the School Board, while his heart was with the voluntary schools, I have thought it my duty to warn my hon. Friends around me that this sub-section implies a menace, and threatens to hand over to the spoiler that which we regard as one of the most precious of our national possessions.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from the word "if," inclusive, to the end of the Clause.—( Sir Richard Temple. )

I merely wish to avail myself of this opportunity of pointing out to my hon. Friends who sit on this side of the House that they have now an opportunity of showing that they still entertain the principles they have always advocated. They need not fear the defeat of the Government now, because the supporters of the Government are to be found on the other side, and not upon this. Perhaps it is only right and proper that it should be so, because the Bill is founded on principles which the Opposition have always maintained, and which we on this side have always repudiated.

As I have not intervened in these Debates before, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) into his scriptural illusions, but as I am entirely opposed to any grant being given from the Public Purse to any school in which any form of sectarian religion is taught, I hope the prediction of the hon. Member that the voluntary system will be destroyed by this Bill may be accomplished. No doubt the voluntary system has done good work in the past, just as the old stage coaches did; but as it is now as extinct as the dodo or the stage coach, I think the time has arrived for relegating it to the limbo of all useless things.

^* : I am inclined to think that my hon. Friend has made this grave and serious matter almost humorous. I look upon the matter as a very important one, and join with my hon. Friend (Mr. H. T. Knatchbull-Hugessen) in the hope that a few of what I may call the flabby Members on this side of the House will pluck up courage to vote against the clause. I know that we shall not be able to beat the Government, but we ought to make a better show than we did on a recent memorable Division. What is this clause? It is the agitating clause of the Bill. If any agitator wishes to make out that something is wanting in order to attack the denominational schools, he will be encouraged by this clause to do so. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Northampton says "hear, hear," as I expected he would; for there is a certain section of Members on the other side of the House whose only idea of the Bill is to convert it into a machine for agitating against the voluntary religious schools. This clause will not only give them the power; but directly encourages them to do so. The Education Department are, under the clause, to be themselves satisfied before they take action. I have every confidence in the Education Department as at present composed. But it will not always be managed by its present political head, and the next head may desire to do away with the voluntary schools, which the hon. Member for Northampton so much dislikes. The clause puts power into the hands of the Department that will enable that object to be accomplished. Such a clause offering direct encouragement to agitation is, to my mind, both unfair and unwise. There are some people who think that School Boards ought to be universal. If it is thought desirable to have School Boards and nothing else, very good. I and many others should regret it, but we should know what we were about. It is a remarkable fact that the pamphlet recently issued by Mr. Fitch, of the Education Department, on the effect of free schools in America, Belgium, and France, shows that in those countries there is a regular agitation growing up to try and get more of the very system which we are so anxious to abolish, namely, the extension of religious, or what we call voluntary schools, and to partly, at least, support denominational schools out of the public funds. For these reasons I strongly support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham, although I know that it will be altogether futile, and that hereafter the Education Department will have to give in to the continual agitation, chiefly political, of those who desire to stir up strife and injure denominational schools.

^* (4.23.) : May I express a hope that the Amendment will be put in such a form as will enable other Amendments to be moved, after it has been disposed of.

I propose to put "That the words 'if at any time' stand part of the Clause."

^* : What does that do? Does it get rid of the sub-section?

No.

Question proposed, "That the words 'if at any time' stand part of the Clause."

^* : I desire to say a few words upon the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham. He made a somewhat amusing speech, but he drew a very gloomy picture of the immolating effect of the clause upon voluntary schools. His picture of the attitude of School Boards in the Metropolis was scarcely fair. He spoke of them as poaching upon what he called the "rich preserves" of the voluntary schools, but I have only to say, as I have said before, that such gloomy anticipations and prophecies as those in which my hon. Friend has indulged I altogether disagree with. I believe that the result will be entirely the other way. It will be treated simply as an educational measure, and not as one that is to get rid of the voluntary schools. My hon.

Friend has suggested that, in place of this sub-section, which provides that any person may represent to the Department that free accommodation is needed, there should be inserted a provision for placing voluntary schools in the hands of Local Authorities.

^* : No; I did not suggest that.

^* : I certainly took down the words "Local Authority," and I understand that the suggestion of my hon. Friend was to place more power in the hands of the Local Authority. Now, I venture to submit that if one thing could be more injurious than another in regard to the future of the voluntary schools of this country it would be to place them in the hands of Local Authorities. It is perfectly obvious that if the Local Authorities were opposed to voluntary schools, they might, from political motives, set this clause to work. As the clause stands, the third section will, I believe, work extremely well in regard to the voluntary system in future. It will mean this—that any aggrieved body of parents, may sign a Memorial and present it to the Education Department, and from that simple channel it would become known to the Department that free education was demanded. My hon. Friend argues that the clause will be utterly destructive to a large number of voluntary schools. Now, the average fees paid in the Church schools in England are 10s. 8d. per head. In the Wesleyan schools the average fees amount to 16s. 2d., and surely my hon. Friend knows that the Wesleyan Body consider that the financial arrangements of the Bill constitute a very handsome offer and are prepared to meet any emergency. The advocates of Church schools, which only receive an average fee of a little more than 10s. a head are going a little beyond the mark when they say that the Board schools, under this Bill, will bring about the absolute ruin of the voluntary schools. I would only urge again, as I have urged before, that a good deal may be done by a system of grouping and co-operation, especially after the very large concession which Her Majesty's Government have already made in regard to the inclusion of children between three and five years of age. I do not think I need detain the House any longer on this question. I have only to repeat that I appreciate the difficulty in which the schools in the North of England will be placed, but I am confident that if they boldly meet the emergency they will prove equal to it, and that the gloomy prognostications of my hon. Friend and the aspirations of hon. Members opposite in regard to the denominational schools will alike be disappointed when the measure is fairly tested.

^* (4.32.) : The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to representations which have been made on this subject, and I feel it to be my duty to place before the Committee a representation from another important body which holds views very different from those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman—the Stockport District Teachers' Association—comprising over 300 certificated teachers, and representing a considerable section of Lancashire as well as Cheshire. This Association have passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of this part of the clause, on the ground "that it will lead to the extinction of the best voluntary schools," and "that its insertion is not in accordance with the pledges that nothing in the Bill should injure the voluntary system." This view of the consequences of this clause is that taken by the Party opposite, almost to a man. It is one of their principal reasons for supporting the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President says that hon. Members opposite are mistaken in their conclusions—that they are under a delusion in imagining that the Bill, or this particular clause, will have any injurious effect on the voluntary schools. Of course this, to a great extent, must be a matter of mere belief, for experience can only practically settle the question. But all we know is that the language which has proceeded from hon. Gentlemen opposite has pointed with entire unanimity to the threatened destruction of the voluntary schools. There is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Mundella). We have seen him during the past few days in all his glory, telling us that this clause must stand and the other must go out. He has lost no opportunity of launching his diatribes against the schools of Lancashire. He seems to hate a Lancashire school almost as much as he does a Lancashire mill. In this connection it is not unimportant for us to consider that at some future time, sooner or later, the operation of the Act may be placed in the hands of the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division and his friends, and, after the opinions they have expressed, there can be no doubt as to the spirit in which the Act will be worked by them towards the voluntary schools within it, the elements of endless mischief. Worked industriously with the rancour which characterises the language of the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot doubt what the fate of the voluntary schools will be. Then let us consider how this clause may be used. Any number of persons may demand a free school, or free accommodation in a voluntary school. We will suppose that in a school of 200, 100 demand it. If they are to be provided with free accommodation, why should the others go on paying fees? [ Opposition cheers. ] Aye, hon. Members opposite see all these points quite clearly. Nobody is blaming them for not discerning thorn, but it is astounding that Conservative Members do not see these things. It is to them I am addressing arguments, which on hon. Gentlemen opposite would be quite thrown away. In the school I am supposing 100 persons demand free education. Well, how is the matter going to work? Lord Cranbrook has explained the whole matter in a speech reported in this morning's papers. "No school," he says, "need be entirely free so long as free places are supplied as far as they are required." This is indeed valuable information. A number of children walk into a school paying nothing. A number of others, belonging to precisely the same class, continue to pay fees for the honour and glory of the thing. But those who pay must give more than they did before, to make up for the loss occasioned by others refusing to pay. And this is to go on for ever, one man making great sacrifices and the other coolly accepting them. Time will soon dispel these visions. It will soon be seen that a mere handful of discontented persons in a district may be able to light a fire that will not easily be put out. They will wish for political or other reasons to strike a blow at certain school managers; they will send up their demand to the Department, the order will come down, the school will be cut in half, or closed altogether. But we go on saying, these things can never happen, because we, the Conservative Party, are passing this Bill, and we are the friends of voluntary schools. It is notorious that we stand by our friends and our principles. Those rapid conversions which are so deplorable in the present frivolous age are repugnant to us. But sometimes great parties have inflicted serious injuries on interests which they professed to serve, because they could not or would not foresee the inevitable results of their own measures. The summer-day's security which we are now enjoying will not last very long. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who may probably be regarded as the true father of the present Bill, tells us what is before us. He is always clear sighted and practical, and he informed us in the Debate Of February 21, 1890, that "No parent would send his child to a voluntary school where a fee was charged, when he could send the child to a Board school free of charge." He "expressed his own personal opinion that denominational schools were a bad thing." And in the Debate on the introduction of the present Bill, speaking of Stockport and other places similarly situated, he said, "The result would be that the voluntary schools would have to make their schools free, or else new schools would have to be established." All this is very plain and very true. We have no right to complain of the right hon. Gentleman. He finds this Party ready to perform a work which he never could induce his own to undertake, and he makes use of it. No doubt, he must secretly enjoy the spectacle of the Conservative Party embarking upon a policy which must destroy the voluntary schools, but his ingenuity fully entitles him to this performance, in which we make the faces, and he speaks the words. These are the things the friends of voluntary schools should consider. But they have had no time to consider them. The Bill was introduced at a late period of the Session, and thus far it has been pushed through at railroad speed. In our proceedings in Committee no con- cessions have been made to this side unless they were also demanded by the Party opposite. Was not that a memorable incident which occurred the other night, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained very fully that a certain demand from the other side could not be yielded; that it would throw all the finances of the country into confusion; that chaos would overtake us if he gave way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham soon changed all that. He waved his magic wand, and there was a transformation scene. The Chancellor of the Exchequer vanished through a trap door, and the First Lord of the Treasury came forward with his usual urbanity and gave what was demanded. Sir, I am aware that it may be said, Look at the United States—there it is the Board schools which are growing weaker, while the denominational schools increase in strength. If that be so, it seems to prove that the people do not set so much by this inestimable boon of free education as you seem to imagine, that they do not want it, and prefer to have what they do want, and pay for it. In that case, why are you going to inflict an additional £2,250,000 of taxation upon the country? Why do you provoke a battle of the schools in all the populous districts of the land? In reality, the analogy attempted to be drawn between this country and the United States is misleading. The increase of voluntary schools there only takes place in districts where a majority of well-to-do persons reside. Where all the parents are persons of narrow means, voluntary schools cannot flourish side by side with Board schools. One set of parents, earning no more than another set, will not go on paying fees when there is a free school just round the corner. We oblige the children to go to school; the United States do not. There is no general compulsory law there, and in the States where it does exist it is almost a dead letter.

No, no.

^* : Of course, the right hon. Gentleman who contradicts me knows better than anybody else. When hon. Members presume to make a speech about education he usually begins his reply by telling them they do not know what they are talking about, and ought to go home. The more, however, the right hon. Gentleman examines into the question the more he will see that my statement is in accordance with the facts. The children in the United States go voluntarily to school, and in many parts of the country they are sent to denominational schools, because the parents wish to keep their children a little select. Even in Republics these objectionable ideas prevail. But we have a compulsory law, and now we say to the parents, "you shall send your children to school and shall not pay for their education unless you like. We will cast the burden upon another section of the community, many of whom are almost as poor as you are." Supposing they put on any of those aristocratic airs which excite so much indignation on the other side, and say, "We do like to pay for their education, they must be fined for it." If the thrifty artisan sends his child to a select school and pays the fees as long as he can, you say to him, "Not only shall you pay for the education of your own child, but you must pay something towards the education of your thriftless neighbour's child." That is a severe sacrifice to ask of him. The thriftless man has hitherto been paying, say 3d. a week, for the education of his child. That 3d. will represent to him a pint of beer and a screw of tobacco. He will consume the pint of beer, smoke the screw of tobacco, and leave somebody else to educate his child. My belief is, that this clause will end in the destruction of the voluntary schools in large towns. I believe it will throw the educational question into the roaring cauldron of Party politics, and the result will not be good for education or for politics. I believe that it will sow dissension among large classes of the community, and that it will be a tax on the provident for the benefit of the improvident. Believing these things, I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

^* (4.52.) : We are, after all, friends of education on both sides of the House, although, whilst we prefer voluntary schools, gentlemen opposite prefer Board schools. While I support the voluntary school I do not object to the existence of the Board schools, and I hope that Gentlemen opposite in their support of the Board school system do not mean to imply that the voluntary school system is altogether bad. I represent one of the great manufacturing towns in Lancashire where the School Board has existed side by side with the voluntary schools ever since the Act of 1870 came into force. The Board School system there has by no means destroyed the voluntary schools, and I do not think that, even under this sub-section, it is likely to do so. We can still find plenty of money to support our voluntary school system, and I think we are likely to be able to do so. I should like to ask the Government and Members opposite to give us a little more time than is granted under this section to recover from its effect. Hon. Members opposite are no doubt anxious to improve the cause of education. They have shown their sympathy by promoting many educational reforms, using for the purpose what I may call, without meaning any offence, the socialistic agency of the State. We on this side are endeavouring to further the cause of education by means of the individualistic agency of voluntary subscriptions. Hon. Members opposite must admit that while they generally call the tune we generally have to pay the piper. I do not object to paying the piper for what will be done under this sub-section, but I think we ought to have a little more time to prepare for doing so.

I rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment. It is a most remarkable fact that not a single Member on the other side has risen in this Debate. If we wanted a complete justification of the attitude we take when we say the Bill is drafted in the interests of Members opposite, I think we could not have a more complete and absolute proof of that fact than the circumstance I refer to. The vice which a great many of us see in this Bill, and more especially in this clause, is that it absolutely ignores the fact that England does not constitute a homogeneous community. There is a rural England and an urban England, and we hold that to a very large extent this Bill will eventuate in the sacrifice of rural England for the purpose of conciliating urban England. In some respects it will be of great advantage to the rural districts. Every eleemosynary gift to poor people must bring some advantage, although whether it is a lasting advantage is another matter. But we hold that the benefit has been purchased at the cost of demoralising our educational system in the great towns of the North of England. I rose, however, to speak not so much on the side of the voluntary schools as on the side of education itself. We have struggled for 30 years past to build a great many schools, and have been impressing on our artisans who are getting large wages that it is a great advantage to them in every way to have schools where high fees are charged, and now we are going most effectually to destroy that kind of initiative among them. But we are going to do something that is much worse. We are going, in my view, to increase the gap which separates the very poorest portions of the town population from the artisans who earn considerable wages. If the voluntarists are to fight their battle it must be by constituting select schools in which to collect the cream of the working classes. I represent a constituency consisting almost entirely of artisans and wealthy manufacturers. The former live in the town, but the latter have homes 10 and 12 miles away from it. Can it be expected that this wealthy class will continue to subscribe to maintain voluntary schools which are threatened with absorption by the School Boards? I foresee danger and disaster awaiting education in our northern towns. Hon. Members are indulging in fantastic ideas when they suppose that it is possible in those towns to induce all classes to make use of the same schools. There are many classes amongst the masses, and artisans who receive good wages will insist that their children shall be separated from the dregs of the population, the children of the pavement. I hold that the Government are making a great mistake. It has been the privilege of the Conservative Party in the past to advocate and support great measures of social reform, and it will, I hope, be our privilege in the future to do so again, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the present measure is a form of legislation that strikes at the fundamental principles of our political faith. I am afraid that the real motive to which the existence of this Bill is due is a belief that it will pay. With an appeal to the country impending, it is no doubt tempting to try to conciliate a large section of the community by legislation that is popular though capricious, but I warn Her Majesty's Government that having once embarked upon these enterprises they will be unable to stay their hand. They will create an inexhaustible appetite for legislation of this kind, and their conduct and that of the Opposition reminds me of a race between steamers on an American river when the passengers encouraged the captain to sit on the safety valve and to put the cargo in the stoke-hole, and when the result was an explosion.

I have listened with great pain to the observations that have fallen from my hon. Friends. Their speeches are speeches against the Bill, and the provision which they now specially attack is essential to the measure. Without it the Bill could not be passed. The hon. Member for Stockport has used language imputing that the Bill has been sprung upon the Conservative Party as a surprise. I would remind my hon. Friend that two years ago the Prime Minister announced that this education policy was the policy of the Conservative Party, and would be carried into effect as soon as financial considerations should permit. In my opinion, it would be difficult to draw a Bill less disagreeable than the present one to the voluntary schools which charge high rates of fees. There have been vaticinations of a terrible kind as to what will be the effect of this clause upon those schools. I remember very well that in 1870 some of my hon. Friends entertained precisely the same views as to the consequences of the Elementary Education Act which was introduced by Mr. Forster, and which I supported. I am, however, glad to be able to say that my hon. Friends' forebodings were not realised, and that the voluntary schools throughout the country—not only Church of England schools, but Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, and Congregational schools—rose to the occasion and made every effort to supply still better education. In answer to some of the criticisms that have been passed upon the clause, I may point out that there are voluntary schools in some places in Yorkshire side by side with Board schools; that the voluntary schools charge higher fees, and that in spite of that they are preferred by large numbers of the artisans. I am informed that there are managers of schools in some of the poorer parts of London who have made up their minds not to accept the 10s. grant, in spite of the consequences with which they are threatened by the School Board for refusing to accept it. A manager in the East End whom I know is convinced that the parents of the children at his school will prefer to continue to pay the unreduced fee charged hitherto rather than send their children to a free school, and consequently he has determined not to accept the 10s. grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said that in the United States a large portion of artisans and workmen preferred to pay fees in select schools where, perhaps, their children would not receive as good an education as in the free schools. Why, then, should not parents in England, where people have more aristocratic tendencies and tastes, choose to pay fees rather than allow their children to go to a school which they do not themselves approve? I believe that the character of our school system will be maintained under this Bill. My hon. Friend (Mr. Howorth) states that he would not have had a word to say if the Bill applied only to rural districts and villages. But what would the representatives of some of the great town constituencies say if the Government proposed to exclude Lancashire, Yorkshire, and parts of Cheshire? There would be a movement of popular indignation against any such proposal. In short, it is utterly impossible that the Government could propose a measure which should not be applicable to the whole country. The Government hold that people who have been willing to pay high fees during the past will be willing in future to pay lower fees if proper arrangements are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham referred to the time which should be allowed to the schools to make arrangements. A reasonable time is given in the Bill. A year is a very long time. They might set about the arrangements between school and school at once. The Motion of my hon. Friend behind me was opposed to the measure, but the Government propose it, believing that they are doing the best they can for elementary education and for voluntary schools, and that other arrangements would not be so favourable to either.

^* (5.15.) : This is a question which vitally affects the interests of my constituents. I cannot but say that I have listened with regret to the speech of my right hon. Friend who sits below me. I confess that while I am perfectly prepared to support a Bill for free education which will not injure voluntary schools, I am not prepared to vote for this clause, because it will injure those schools. On March 20 last year the Prime Minister said that the intention of the Government was to deal with assisted education in such a way as to put the voluntary schools in a position from which no hostile majority could dislodge them. The Government are living in a fool's paradise if they think they are putting the voluntary schools in a position from which no hostile majority can dislodge them. The Government have put them at the mercy even of a hostile minority in every district of the country. I represent a county district in Lancashire, and except in a portion of that constituency comprised within the area of the City of Manchester there is not a School Board in the district. The right hon. Member for the Brightside Division will say, "So much the worse." The right hon. Gentleman has on various occasions attacked the schools of Lancashire, because, he says, they charge high fees, and are bad schools in themselves. But the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education, referring to the disadvantages under which Lancashire labours on account of the large number of half-timers, goes out of its way to remark that the Returns from Lancashire, showing a total percentage of 91·32 passes for reading, writing, and arithmetic are only exceeded in Leicester and in the Metropolitan District. You say you are going to grade schools. How can you grade schools in places which are called villages, in the North, but in other parts of the country are called large towns? The difficulty of grading the schools is that they belong to different denominations. I know one of those places in which there are two Church of England and two British schools, one Wesleyan school, one Roman Catholic, and one Swedenborgian. How could we grade such schools? How can we find free places for the Church children among the Swedenborgians or for the Wesleyans among the Roman Catholics? If we limit help to the people who really want it, I should not be afraid. But I am afraid of the action of what the Bishop of London called "busybodies" and of the action of politicians. I say the voluntary schools will be placed at the mercy of a hostile minority, who, having demanded and obtained a certain number of places in the first year, will demand more free places in the next year, and so will go on from year to year, until the voluntary school can no longer exist. One word on another side of this question. I think it was the First Lord of the Treasury who told us the other day that this would put no charge upon the ratepayers. But this is exactly what it will do in constituencies such as mine, for it will be quite impossible for voluntary schools to continue under it, and the result will be the introduction of School Boards and school rates into districts where they do not exist now. If the Committee, and if the Government, are willing to look forward to this as the future position with satisfaction, I have nothing more to say, but certainly it is another point upon which the Bill is different to what we were led to expect it would be. If the Government and the House really think that free education at the expense of the State ought to be granted to all, let us say so at once; but do not let us, while pretending that this will not be a burden upon the ratepayers, insert at the same time a clause which, in the opinion of all who have studied it, must infallibly bring about that result. This Bill goes far beyond, not only the speech of the Prime Minister himself, but of the words in the Gracious Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the Session, when we were told that our attention would be directed to a measure for alleviating the burden pressing upon the people owing to the system of compulsory education. We have now, by extending the limits of age, given up all idea of tying the measure to the system of compulsory education. But we shall by the measure, if it passes with this clause struck out, do that which we were invited to do—alleviate the burden upon the people. We shall free education in 70 or 80 per cent. of the elementary schools, and we shall give material relief to parents in other cases by the reduction of fees. But if you insist upon this clause you are, without consulting the ratepayers of the district, and in defiance of the wishes of the supporters of voluntary schools, putting an engine into the hands of those who will work it to the destruction of a system you are pledged to support.

^* (5.33.) : I desire to add a few words of appeal to the Government to extend the term beyond which the Act will come into operation.

That question arises on a subsequent Amendment.

^* : I will not refer to that subject further, but I thought to simplify matters. In any case, I propose to vote for the retention of this subsection, for I think it is essential to the Bill. It contains the principle of the Bill. So far as I understand the sub section, it will be to substitute Board schools where voluntary schools will not provide free education. That will be the result of passing this sub-section, and on this ground I am prepared to support it. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth) has addressed a somewhat rambling argument against the principle of the Bill, and he seemed to make it a charge against the Government and the Conservative Party that they should support the principle of free education. Now, I think from a Tory point of view nothing can be more Tory. I do not know for how far back the hon. Member dates his Toryism; but if he will only date it back to the Middle Ages, when monastic institutions began to grow, and when alongside every Benedictine Abbey there was a school giving free education, then I think, from an historical Tory point of view, we need not be afraid of the principle of free education. With reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham has said, I am sorry that he a chief officer of the School Board was not here to support me when I attempted to put a muzzle on the appetite of the ferocious ogre he has alluded to. I brought forward a Motion to refuse the new fee grant of 10s. to Board schools when the school rate amounts to 1s. in the £1, which would have had the effect of muzzling the ogre, but he did not give me the support I might have expected, and allowed the opportunity to pass. But I hope all those who appear to be opposed to this sub-section will, when we come to consider the question of extending the time when this Bill will come into operation, support the hon. Member for Oldham should he think it necessary to take a Division.

^* (5.36.) : I do not think with the First Lord of the Treasury that if this subsection is rejected it is tantamount to a rejection of the Bill. I was sorry to hear him say that, for I am afraid that I must vote for the omission of the sub-section, and, therefore, my vote may be construed into one given in hostility to the Bill, though in my conscience I do not think that will be the effect of voting against the sub-section. If the sub-section is the very kernel of the Bill, without which the Bill cannot pass, we cannot be accused of a desire to unduly delay progess if we devote a little time to the discussion. I think my right hon. Friend must have found within the last few days that this Bill has caused a large amount of discontent, not to use a stronger word, among those whose interests he has a sincere desire to serve. I am not going to allow myself to be led into a Second Reading speech and argument, a course which by your kind indulgence, Sir, some of my hon. Friends have adopted; but I wish to point out that if some sort of concession is not made to our view, this sub-section may be made an engine of very serious evil against voluntary schools. If at any time it is represented—the Bill does not say by whom—to the Education Department that there is not the necessary amount of free school accommodation, then the Department may, with certain formalities, declare that the accommodation must be provided. Now, I call attention to this possible contingency. There are certain schools known as certified efficient schools, which do not receive a grant; they are inspected by Inspectors, and supported partly by fees and partly by subscriptions. What is to prevent anyone in that district, parents or not, representing to the Department that a certain amount of free accommodation is desirable? What is to prevent the peace of the parish—which has long existed in a peculiar manner, perhaps, but in a manner that commends itself to the inhabitants—what is to prevent the peace and harmony of the parish being upset for the sake of supplying accommodation that nobody desires or only a very inconsiderable number of persons demand. Surely the sub-section ought to have some provision that the representation should be limited in some responsible manner by inquiry by a Local Authority, or there should be some sort of guarantee or assurance that there shall be a bonâ fide expression of opinion by persons really interested, and that there is real need for the accommodation. It has been suggested that the difficulty might be met by the grading of schools, but it is acknowledged there would be a good deal of difficulty in supplying in voluntary schools the means for this sub-division. For instance, in Maidstone, taking that as a fair illustration of a town in the South of England, where there is a School Board, but no Board schools, there are, hitherto, only schools supported by voluntary contributions, and there the same difficulty will arise which has been referred to in connection with the high-fee schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire. But without going further into the merits of the question, I must say unless Her Majesty's Government will give a real consideration to the facts of the case as put before them by those who, having been engaged in the work of education ought to know, unless we get some sort of assurance that these facts are being considered and not merely met by official answer, I must vote for the Amendment. The sub-section may be used as an engine for destroying the system we have so long supported, and if we cannot get an assurance that it will be modified in the manner sketched out I must vote with my hon. Friend.

^* (5.45.) : My hon. Friend behind me has referred to the drafting of the sub-section, and has asked how the Department are to prevent bogus demands for free education. The security is to be found in the words "If the Department are satisfied after inquiry that such is the case." This is the task which has been thrown on the Department ever since Mr. Forster's Bill became law, and the same intelligence has only to be shown in the future as had been shown in the past to avoid all the difficulties anticipated by the hon. Member. The hon. Member added that the Government have made no concessions to hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench. This is not so. The Government have made large concessions with respect to infants and half-timers.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

^* : I only wish to say, in reference to the concession to half-timers, that yesterday when Lord Cranbrook received the deputation on the subject, we demonstrated that there will be an actual loss of 2s. 6d. per scholar in the half-time schools.

(5.50.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 269; Noes 38.—(Div. List, No. 321.)

^* (6.4.) : I beg to move the omission of the words "the expiration of one year from." I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that this sub-section is essential in order to give a large portion of the population a chance of getting free education. But I am afraid that the provision of a delay of one year will act disadvantageously in districts such as Preston and Stockport, because the clause cannot begin to come into operation until after the twelve months have passed, and it will take much more than a year for the Education Department to go through the formalities attendant on the establishment of a School Board. What are the formalities which have to be gone through under the Act of 1870? First, the Education Department requires a return of the school accommodation in a given district; then the Department has to notify to the people of the district that there is a want of accommodation; then the people of the district may claim to be heard on the question, whether or not the statement of the Education Department is an accurate and trustworthy one; then a public inquiry may be ordered, and not until it has taken place will the Department issue a final notice that a certain amount of free school accommodation must be provided. Lastly, six months must elapse before the Education Department can order the establishment of a School Board in the district; then the Board has to be elected, and it has to set about building a Board school. All this lengthy process will have to be gone through under this section, and, therefore, I say that Stockport and Stalybridge, Preston and Prestwich may have to wait not one but three years for free education, instead of getting it simultaneously with the rest of the country. Hence, I ask the Committee to strike out these words. The Vice President of the Council informed us, in answer to a question, that during the year allowed by this subsection, the tenth section of the Act of 1876 will be enforced. Now, we have been supporting this Bill very heartily, because among other reasons we hold that all connection between education and pauperism should at once cease, but under this sub-section parents during that twelve months will still in these cases have to apply for the remission of fees to the Guardians.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words "the expiration of one year from."—( Mr. Summers. )

Question proposed, "That the words the expiration of' stand part of the clause."

^* (6.10.) : It is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. The clause has received very great consideration, and this section of it was framed with the very obvious object of giving the voluntary schools in the districts time to meet the exigencies of the case. I may point out that immediately the Bill comes into operation a vast number of schools will at onto become free, because their average fee is less than the fee grant of 10S.

I did hope that the Government would have given some consideration to this Amendment, and at least have met us half way. I am as anxious as any one to press forward the consideration of this Bill, but it is necessary to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in some of our larger towns a year will elapse before the Department will under this section be able to move with a view to securing free education, and that the inquiry which will have to take place may delay the matter two years further. I think the Government might have met us by reducing the period from one to six months, but if they decline to do that then I trust my hon. Friend will rest satisfied with having made a protest.

One point seems to have altogether escaped attention. There is a marked contrast between this Bill and the Act of 1870 in this respect. The Act of 1870 immediately it was passed conferred its benefits on the people; there was no intervening period provided between its passing and its coming into operation. Yet under this sub-section a whole year is to be wasted. I do protest most heartily against that.

I hope the Government will not give way on this point, for this delay will give the voluntary schools an opportunity of meeting the difficulty in which the Bill will place them. I think too that in many cases parents will continue willingly to pay fees if by so doing they can avoid the necessity of establishing a School Board.

^* : Although I think some intervening period is desirable, I hold that the two years which must practically elapse under this section is an excessive amount of time. I have been informed that the effect of this Act will be to immediately free every Board school in Birmingham, whereas the denominational schools will not be free for two years.

^* : May I point out that there will be nothing to prevent the voluntary schools coming to an understanding among themselves. They will at once get the full advantage of the Act, and will become either free schools or schools charging a diminished fee. I believe that many of them are already preparing for the change. It would, however, be a great hardship to compel them to come in without allowing them ample time to make the necessary arrangements.

^* (6.20.) : I think the interval provided for in this section should be longer rather than shorter. Although I am not in the least afraid of the effects of the Bill, and although I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty in getting the subscriptions for voluntary schools, yet I think it is rather hard to call upon the subscribers to make up the difference between the fee grant and the income they used to receive from fees, and at the same time, perhaps, have to provide additional accommodation. When once an expenditure is occurred on bricks and mortar there is no telling how heavy the burden may become. I trust that the Government will not give way on this point.

^* : I hope that my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division on this Amendment. If we are going to give free education to the people the boon should be conferred upon them at the earliest possible moment. I wish to take this opportunity of pointing out the unfairness of the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule.

Order, order!

There can be no reason for allowing two years to elapse. We may have a General Election in 1892, and then, if hon. Members meet with the success they, anticipate, it will be in their power to give immediate operation to this provision.

(6.25.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 186; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 322.)

^* (6.38.) : I have an Amendment on the Paper to insert "two years" in lieu of "one year" in this clause, but after the discussion that has just taken place, and seeing that the Government will not give way under any circumstances I do not intend to move my Amendment. I am glad, however, that I put it on the Paper, as it may have enabled Ministers more successfully to resist the last Amendment.

In what way is the necessity of providing free places to be brought before the Education Department?

^* : The most obvious way of bringing to the knowledge of the Education Department the demand or necessity for providing free places in a school would be to send a memorial. The Department is deluged at all times with all sorts of complaints and requests. The whole system of the Inspectorate has been changed by the altered conditions under which the Code is administered, and through the visits of the Inspector the wants of a district in regard to this matter can be easily ascertained.

I am not altogether satisfied with this explanation. I would point out that we are creating a new sight, and if only one parent insists on free education for his child, it ought to be given.

I, on the other hand, think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory, and that there is no doubt the Education Department would act on the representations made to it.

^* : The object of the Amendment I rise to move is to make Sub-section 3 apply not only to cases where the public school accommodation without payment of fees is insufficient, but also to cases where such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after "fees," to insert "or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population."—( Mr. Channing ).

I hope the Government will not object to the Amendment. It is better, in the interest of all parties, that the words should be inserted.

^* : The case of the refusal of a School Board in Wales to sanction a Roman Catholic school, which had been referred to, showed that hardship might arise if the words were not inserted.

^* , pointed out that the words were already in the Act of 1870. He had long been of opinion that the proper exercise by the Department of their existing powers would have put a stop to the grievances complained of by the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Wolverhampton the other night.

^* said the Government could not object to the insertion of the words.

Amendment agreed to.

(6.45.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from the second "and," to the word "case," in line 40, inclusive.—( Mr. Lloyd-George. )

^* : Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "suitable and sufficient?"

The right hon. Gentleman in a previous clause has already accepted the words sufficient and suitable accommodation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insert the word "suitable?"

^* : It is for the Inspectors of the Department to see that the accommodation is sufficient, and it is not necessary to repeat the words over and over again.

As a matter of drafting the words "suitable and sufficient" might be accepted, and it would then be the work of the Department. The word "insufficient" will not do. It rather represents building accommodation than the accommodation of the classes.

^* : Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept the words of a subsequent Amendment which stands in my name.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after "fees," to insert "or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population."—( Mr. Channing. )

I believe both sides of the House are agreed; and I think it is better in the interests of all parties that you should insert the words of the hon. Member.

^* : If I remember rightly, a case has several times come before this House, as it certainly came before the Education Commission, in which the Roman Catholics properly complained that a School Board in Wales had refused a Roman Catholic school. That case shows how easily hardship might arise unless words were inserted which make it clear that the accommodation shall be suitable to the population. It is a most important thing that there should be no proselytising of children by forcing them either into denominational or into the Board schools.

May I point out that there would be no great harm in applying those words.

^* : Not only would there be no harm, but they are already in the Act of 1870, and I have been long of opinion that had the Department properly exercised its power in respect of requiring suitable accommodation, a stop would have been put to such complaints as we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton the other night. They have power to compel managers either to give up teaching in a way which is objectionable, or to require the establishment of a School Board in the parish. I hope words will be inserted which will emphasise the opinion of the House of Commons that the accommodation ought to be suitable.

^* : We do not object to the insertion of these words, as it appears to be the general desire.

^* : Perhaps the words could more properly be inserted after the word "age."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after "age," to insert "or that such accommodation is unsuitable for the wants of the population."—( Mr. Channing. )

Other Amendments made.

I beg to move what is only a verbal Amendment. It is to insert after the word "age" the words "requiring such accommodation." As the words stand, application might be made for a greater number of free places than are required, whereas the object is only to supply them to those children who are in need of free accommodation. The object of the words I propose is to supply free education only to the extent necessary.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after the word "age" to insert the words "requiring such accommodation."—( Viscount Cranborne. )

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

The representation made to the Department is that certain accommodation is required, and that in itself is sufficient. The words proposed are unnecessary.

All that I want is that it shall appear on the face of the Act of Parliament that free education shall be given only where the children require it.

^* : I think the words would rather emphasise the meaning of the clause, and I cannot see that they would do any harm.

^* : "Required" is an ambiguous term. If you insert these words, it would be necessary to inquire whether the parents cannot afford to pay.

This is an endeavour to mark a class distinction, and certainly goes to mar the beneficent principle of the Bill, which is that every British child may have a free education if the parents demand it. If you draw a distinction between those children who do not require free education and those who do, you at once destroy the rights which have been created by the Board. I earnestly protest against this very serious proposal.

As I understand the word "require" is merely used in the sense of desire—when it is desirable that such accommodation should be afforded.

It seems to me it would be a mistake to use the word "desires." Not one in 20 of these children will desire to go to school.

I would suggest the words "for whom such accommodation is desired."

^* : I think it is necessary that some words of this kind should be put in. It appears to me from the clause as it stands that if a single child were found in any district for whom there was not a free place, the Education Department would have to provide a free place whether there was a demand or not. That is not the intention of the Government as I understand it. It is only when parents require and demand a free place that one is to be provided.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the alternative? The parents of the child will still have to go to the Board of Guardians to obtain remission of the fees.

^* : I think the words "if such accommodation is desired," will accomplish the object we have in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to, in page 2, line 38, after the word "age," to insert "for whom such accommodation is desired."—( Sir L. Playfair ).

Earlier in the evening we had the last wail from the denizens of "the cave," and we also heard expressed by Gentlemen opposite who represent important constituencies in Lancashire and elsewhere, their dislike of free schools, and more especially, their dislike of School Boards. The object of my Amendment is, to provide that, as between the fee-charging school and the free school, there shall be no social distinction, and no inferiority on the part of the free school. I know the Vice President has a great affection for variety in our schools, but I understand that his desire for variety is chiefly in reference to the question of fees. We contend, at all events, that the variety shall not extend to the quality of the instruction given, or to the curriculum, or the buildings, or teachers. The proposal I have to make will, I trust, have a limited scope, because it will not apply to the case of rural districts where there is only one school, and where, therefore, there can be no inferiority between one school and another, and I hope it will not apply to cases where School Boards exist. We desire that our School Boards should not free one school here and another there, as unfortunately they have done in some schools in Scotland, but that they should free every school they have under them. In towns, however, where there are no School Boards, if the parents demand free schools the demand will have to be accepted, and it will be against the interest of those who manage and own the voluntary schools there to give free education if they can help it. They will lose a certain amount of income if a free school is introduced, and they will desire therefore to discourage the demand for free schools on the part of the parents in those towns. There will, therefore, be a very great temptation indeed for them to throw some sort of stigma on the free schools, and to discourage parents from demanding a large number of free schools. Some words should be put into the Bill to prevent them handing over as free schools the worst they have. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire to prevent that from taking place. We know quite well the great difficulty the Department have in condemning any school which is nominally efficient. We are not asking for any superiority for the free schools, but we say that it is not right that there should be any possible chance that these free schools should be in any way inferior to the fee-paying schools. We do not desire, and I think it would be a great educational evil to get back to the system of ragged schools which prevailed some time past in the country.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 38, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "or that such free accommodation is inferior in the character of the staff, equipment, amount or quality of teaching to the general condition of the schools charging fees in the school district, or that the premises do not conform to the rules for planning schools contained in the Code."—( Mr. Sydney Buxton. )

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

I am unable to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member has stated, and rightly, that I am in favour of a system of grading and of variety in schools; but the Education Department is responsible for seeing that each and every school is kept up to a certain standard of efficiency, and that duty the Department will continue to fulfil in the future as in the past. The acceptance of this Amendment would be an indication that Parliament considers the Education Department practically unequal to the performance of its duty. I do not admit that after the Bill passes free schools will be found—

"inferior in the character of the staff, equipment, amount or quality of teaching that the general condition of the schools charging fees in the school district."

I can only repeat the assurance I have already given, then when the Bill becomes law the Education Department will be equal to the emergency of seeing that it is properly carried out.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desire and determination to have all the schools efficient, but as a man of common sense he must know that, as to condition of building and relative efficiency, some schools in the country are inferior to others. He will not deny that the Government Inspectors are of opinion that the buildings and fittings of some schools in some populous districts are far below the standard that the Department might reasonably desire to see them brought up to. I will quote a few words from one of his own Inspectors on the subject. Not long ago, speaking of some of the struggling schools, one of these gentlemen said—

"The Inspector must either refuse the grant, and thereby abolish the school, or he must recommend the grant for work he knows falls infinitely short of the standard laid down for him in the Code. He chooses, probably, the most merciful power he has, giving the grant for work that he knows falls infinitely short of the standard laid down by the Code, and from that hour he perpetuates bad teaching by rewarding imperfect effort."

If one of Her Majesty's Inspectors can speak in those terms, surely it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has succeeded in the path he has marked out for himself of seeing hat

"each and every school is kept up to a certain standard of efficiency."

I know several School Inspectors intimately, and I can say from conversations I have had with them that their difficulty has been that the only lever by which it has been possible to bring schools to a standard of efficiency has been the lever of condemnation. Some of the schools that have been known to be the worst schools have had warning given to them this year. I hope that the schools of the worst kind will be brought up to the level of the others, but the idea that all schools are of one standard—I was going to say is little short of ridiculous, but, at any rate, it does not correspond with the facts. When you have a group of schools affected by this Bill the managers will meet together and say, "It is quite clear we must have one free school;" and unless words such as these are inserted it will be only human nature to give up the worst. The school buildings vary in efficiency—some of them are modern; others are 30 years old—so that to say that they can all be brought up to the same standard is a theory which will not hold water. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council does not want to see the free children put into the worst schools. Some words ought to be inserted in order to show that where there are a series of schools that nobody pretends are quite efficient an effort, at least, shall be made to secure that a fair amount of efficiency is provided for the free school children.

^* (7.17.) : The Amendment contains two very different propositions; one is that "the premises should conform to the rules contained in the Code." That is reasonable, though I am not sure that the words are necessary. But the first part of the Amendment provides that the free schools shall be equal "in staff, equipment, and quality of teaching to the schools charging fees in the school district." Now, the whole object of starting fee-paying schools will be to secure a larger staff or better equipment than can otherwise be obtained. The clause goes on to say that the Education Department shall "supply the deficiency;" that would mean in staff or equipment. But, as I understand, what is really wished is that the free schools shall be equal, not to those which, being specially well equipped, may fairly charge a fee, but to the general requirements of the Code. I am not sure that this object is not already secured, but if not, to carry out that object some modification of the words will be necessary. If my hon. Friend would modify his Amendment in that sense I think it would be well worth the consideration of the Government, but probably the best plan would be to ask the Vice President of the Council to consider the matter, and, if necessary, to bring up some words on Report.

^* : I would submit that what the right hon. Baronet desires is already provided in the words "efficient suitable." The Amendment aims at a condition of things which does not exist, and is not likely to exist, and it lays down a rule which would be unworkable.

The hon. Member has not dealt with the arguments of my hon. Friend, and least of all with that remarkable quotation which has been read to the Committee from a Report of one of the Inspectors. That Report shows that there are many schools that are unfit for the Parliamentary grant, and do not come up to the requirements of the Act. They are simply allowed to exist from considerations of pity—because it is known that if the grant is not continued the school will collapse. There is a distinct danger that in certain towns a poorly equipped school would be given over to the non-paying children, and I say that if that happened it would be a calamity in itself. It would be wholly against the spirit of this Bill; and not only that, but I venture to say that if a condition of things of this sort were allowed to continue in some of our towns for a number of years the worst evils contemplated by the Mover of the Amendment would be brought into existence. I trust the Amendment will be adopted, and if it is I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council that he will earn the gratitude of the country for putting the free schools in the same position as to efficiency as the schools where they happen to have fee paying children.

I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, either in Committee or on Report, to agree to the insertion of words to insure that where a free school is accepted it shall be a school up to the general standard of efficiency that prevails, I will not say in the district, but in the country. I would suggest words which would not be objected to, namely, "or that such free accommodation is inferior in the character of the staff, equipment, amount, or quality of teaching to the general standard of public elementary schools." That, I think, a very reasonable Amendment, and one the Government could hardly refuse. The right hon. gentleman has agreed that in towns where the parents rely on voluntary schools they may assign such and such schools for the supply of free education. It is because I do not desire to weary the Committee, or to raise the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I do not quote the Reports of the Inspectors; but I could, if necessary, point out passages in which these gentlemen have described some of the voluntary schools as "old dingy sheds," which ought to be swept off the face of the earth. Schools of this kind are perfectly useless, and if they do not come up to the requirements of the Education Act they should be got rid of. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that, but they are not got rid of. There is not a large town in the North of England where there is not a school of this kind. These schools are not got rid of, and I am afraid will not be got rid of for some time to come. Time is given to these schools to raise new subscriptions, the difficulty of raising new subscriptions is pointed out, the compassion of the Department is appealed to, and as a result schools that are totally inefficient and do not comply with the requirements of the Code are allowed to go on from year to year. Unless this clause is amended a group of schools in a large town receiving large grants may pool their fees, take over the excess grant, and assign the worst schools in the district to free education—schools that are deficient in building, in teaching staff, in light and air, and every reasonable requirement. I think the free schools should be at least fair average schools. Will the right hon. Gentleman secure that? If the right hon. Gentleman will give us that, I do not think we ought to press him any further.

^* : I am afraid I cannot answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman in the affirmative. The effect of this Amendment would be practically to pass a vote of censure on the operation of the Education Department. It has been said that there are schools existing which ought not to exist. But there is a continuous operation going on under the New Code by which such schools are diminishing as fast as possible. There is the strongest motive power to further this decrease. Beyond that, the Department has decided again and again that this accommodation is to be suitable and sufficient accommodation, and I consider that those words cover the whole case.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to the acceptance of the Amendment, and it seems to me that he does not fully appreciate the point raised. The object of the Amendment is in no way to pass a censure on the Department or the Inspectors, but to protest against a state of things which has been shown to exist. The object of hon. Members opposite is apparently to make the parents dislike free schools, in order that a large amount of support may be given to the other schools. As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept this proposal we shall have to press it to a Division.

^* : I would point out that there is a sanitary aspect of the question relating to these schools which seems to have been somewhat overlooked. Many of these schools are extremely unhealthy, and if there is one class of scholars which ought to be looked after in this respect it is the poorer class. There are all sorts of defects in many of these schools as regards light and ventilation, as well as the amount of sanitary accommodation afforded to the children. I think we should see these defects remedied, and in the interests of public health, as well as of decency and morality, we ought to take care, not only that the children should receive their education free, but that every precaution should be taken to put the schools in the best possible sanitary condition.

(7.32.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 323.)

^* (7.50.) : The object of this Amendment is to give a period, after the wants of a district have been ascertained, during which voluntary aid might be provided to meet those wants. Towards the end of the year after the passing of the Act, and within a month or even a day of that time, some one might go to the Department and represent that there was an insufficient amount of free public school accommodation, and the supporters of the voluntary schools might know nothing of it until it was too late to supply the deficiency, although they might be willing to do so. Nobody would be damaged by this Amendment if accepted, because it does not matter, looking at the subject from an educational point of view, who provides the education so long as it is provided. I think a year is not too long a period to give for providing the required accommodation. I assume that it is not intended to use the Bill as a means to promote the Board at the expense of the voluntary schools, and my object is to provide that everybody shall have a fair field and no favour.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 40, after "case," to insert "The department shall publish a notice of their decision as to the amount of additional free public school accommodation which appears to them to be required for the district, and directing such accommodation to be supplied; and if not otherwise provided, within one year from the time at which such order was issued."—( Mr. Talbot. )

^* : I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The first objection to it is that under Sub-section 3 a year must elapse before any representation can be made to the Department; and after that the Department would be bound to make a local inquiry upon notification being made to them. Then by Section 9 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 the Department must give notice of their decision. Therefore, so far as the earlier part of the Amendment is concerned, its object is met by the Bill, which provides that the deficiency is to be supplied in the manner provided by the Act of 1870. Then my hon. Friend further asks that another year should be given. Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the new position created by the sub-section as it stands, and they believe they have provided machinery which will adequately meet all demands, and if another year were to be added very great difficulty might arise.

I wish the Committee to consider the way in which this measure would work in certain parts of the country. In places such as Darwen, which I have the honour to represent, the Bill, when passed, would be received with absolute consternation. No one would have the least idea what places would be required. They would contemplate the position with stupor, and do nothing at all. I do not understand by what machinery it is proposed to find out how many places would be required. Is there to be a house-to-house visitation? It is evidently intended that a little grace should be given, for the Bill provides that no step can be taken until a year after it has passed. It is quite obvious the important time for delay is not after the passing of the Bill, but after the decision of the Department that a certain number of places are required. Every delay is of value, but there is no very particular value in the year after the passing of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to transfer the period from the passing of the Bill to after the decision of the Department, I, for one, would assent to the alteration. I appeal to the Committee as to whether this is not a perfectly reasonable proposition. For my part, I do not believe that any sound argument can be brought against it.

^* : I should like to ask the noble Lord by whom this Bill will be received with consternation? Certainly not by the people; because the purpose of the Act is to give them free education, and they would hardly exhibit any consternation, for they would expect the voluntary schools to adjust themselves to the Act. Well, what does the Amendment propose? Why, that three years' delay shall take place. First of all, one year is to be allowed before any action is taken, and another year will be spent in an appeal. Now it is actually proposed that a third year shall be added to these two years before the free education in the Bill is provided. It is said that no one would be damaged, but certainly if this Amendment is passed voluntary schools will be damaged. When the people know the intentions of Parliament, will they consent to allow voluntary schools three years' grace before they receive the benefits to be conferred by the Act? If it were a question of Party interests, I should be delighted to give the three years' grace, because it would have an effect at the General Election very prejudicial to the Government; but in the interests of education the third year's delay ought not to be granted.

^* (8.2.) : I wish earnestly to appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, because no greater injury could, I believe, be done to voluntary schools than would be done by accepting it. A year has been left, during which it is hoped the managers of voluntary schools will make their arrangements in their respective districts, and at the expiration of that time they will, under the operation of the Act of 1870, have ample time to do what is required. If it should be shown that voluntary schools are standing out against a public demand for free education that will be a great misfortune for the voluntary schools, and it will not only stimulate a general desire for School Boards, but it will shake the confidence of the public in the devotion of managers to the cause of education. My hon. Friends who support the Amendment have not sufficiently realised the arrangements that are provided for in these cases. The Bill allows a year, which intelligent managers will make good use of. It is my impression that as soon as any school becomes free there will be a general ferment with regard to free schools, that the population of each district will make known their wants within a limited period, and that managers will be able to arrive at a satisfactory idea of the extent of the accommodation that will be required. I am confident that they will provide before the end of the year the free school accommodation that is required. I believe in their intelligence and in their devotion to the interests of education and of religion, which has induced them to make sacrifices for voluntary schools, and the proposals the Government have made, after the most careful consideration, are ample to give all the time that is necessary to protect the interests they desire to preserve.

I have to ask one question. I wish to know how much time is allowed by the Education Department for supplying the requirements made in their order?

^* : If my noble Friend will turn to the Act he will see that the several stages are most carefully set out, and practically the time will be fully as long as is proposed by the Amendment.

^* : Rather longer.

^* : It is almost impossible that adverse proceedings could be taken against any managers much under a year.

The position in these cases is altogether different from what it is when new schools have to be provided. The schools are already in existence, and therefore so much time is not required.

^* : I hope it will not be thought I have made an unreasonable proposal. I quite understand that there are a great many stages to be gone through, and that considerable time must elapse before a final order can be issued. Bnt it is after the final order is given that I ask for grace; I do not care so much about the intervening time. The people who have to act on the order want time to consider what they will do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I propose to move the omission of the latter part of Sub-section 3 in order to place the words in a separate sub-section. The words are the following:—

"The expression public school accommodation in that Act (1870) should include public school accommodation without payment of fees."

These words, as they stand, would be limited by the context of Sub-section 3. But hon. Members will find on reference to Section 18 of the Education Act that a School Board is bound from time to time to provide such additional school accommodation in its district as may be necessary, and if the words I now propose to omit from Section 3 of this Bill were put in the form of a separate clause, the effect would be to give existing School Boards power to provide additional school accommodation at once, and without waiting for a requisition from the Education Department. I, therefore, move the omission of these words, with the object of placing them in a fresh section.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "fees," in page 3, line 2, inclusive.—( Mr. Pickersgill. )

^* (8.15.) : I must oppose this Amendment. The words as they stand are perfectly consistent.

Is it not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to give existing School Boards the power to which I have alluded?

^* : They already have it.

I am aware they can provide fuller educational room in their own schools; but suppose the voluntary schools insist on continuing to charge fees, will the School Boards have power to erect new Board schools?

^* : I hardly think that point arises on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived

Of the next three Amendments which stand in my name I only propose to move the third, which is to add, at the end of line 2, page 3, the following proviso:—

"Provided also that for the purposes of this Act it shall not be held that sufficient public school accommodation without payment of fees has been provided where a portion only of the school places in any school are made free."

I make this proposal in order to lay down clearly the right of a parent to have free education for his children without inquiring into his circumstances. I venture to assert that if the Bill remains in its present form it will not contain that principle. I have understood from the first that one of the main objects of the Bill was to put an end to the vicious system by which relief from fees can only be secured by applying to the Guardians or to the Remission Committees of School Boards. I may be told that the Bill as it stands will be sufficient to meet this difficulty, and that if a parent represents to the school manager his desire to have his children educated free he will get his wish complied with. But I do not think that that will be the case. We shall, I fear, still have discrimination by school managers between one class and another. Under this Bill the parent in some cases will still have to go to the Board of Guardians. That is what I wish to prevent. This Amendment will have the effect of preventing the managers of schools from discriminating between the scholars who pay and those who do not pay, and will thus remove the danger of the stigma of pauperism from attaching to those children who receive free education. The hon. Member for Evesham seems to think I have put these words on the Paper with the intention of embarrassing the action of voluntary schools. That is not the case. I believe there is only one place in which the principle of free places has been effectively carried out, and that is at Birmingham; but the evidence laid before the Royal Commission by Dr. Crosskey showed that even there the system of issuing free orders has led to men accepting them being taunted with the fact by their fellow men, with the result that bitter disputes have occurred. I believe if the Bill is not altered on this point, the effect will be that not only in large towns, but also in rural districts where the school fees have exceeded 10s. a year, there will grow up a system of free places in schools as distinct from free schools, and this I urge would be most undesirable. It will tend to perpetuate social discontent. That danger we ought to avoid; we ought not in our schools even to run the risk of differentiating between one class of children and another. Is not the right hon. Gentleman contemplating a power of discrimination between one class and another in schools in which the fees now slightly exceed the 10s. grant. I fear that he is. He said it would be the duty of the Department to see that the sum raised by fees in the future did not exceed the sum now received over and above the 10s. fee grant. But, at the same time, he admits that the Department will not have to take cognisance of the manner in which the sum is raised, and that the managers may distribute it as they think fit, and call upon certain parents to pay higher fees. This, I repeat, will result in certain children being subjected to the social stigma of pauperism. I press this Amendment most earnestly on the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that before this Bill leaves this House he will take steps to ensure that in the large towns school managers shall be compelled to place free schools in different parts, and give reasonable accessibility to them to those who desire it. As to the rural districts in cases in which the fees have in the past exceeded the 10s., I hope he will provide a means of preventing a discrimination between the children of poor parents and those who can pay a fee.

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 2, at end, to add "Provided also, that for the purposes of this Act it shall not be held that sufficient public school accommodation without payment of fees has been provided where a portion only of the school places in any school are made free."—( Mr. Channing. )

^* (8.25.) : Surely the hon. Member does not expect me to accept this Amendment. The result of doing so would be to destroy the whole framework of the Bill. It is essential that managers should have power to discriminate between the children, because it would be most unfair that a district where there are only 15 children whose parents desire free education should be put to the expense of providing free education for the whole of the children whose parents are able and willing to pay for them. The idea that any stigma of pauperism will attach to children who receive free education is absurd.

^* : I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Division, but will be satisfied with having expressed his view that in large towns, at all events, there ought to be no discrimination made between the children in a school. In that proposition I am disposed to agree. I admit that there would be a great deal of difficulty in carrying out that proposal in the rural parishes. I should like to obtain from the Vice President an assurance that he intends to introduce a clause repealing the necessity for applying to the Guardians for the remission of fees, for, as long as that remains, the stigma of poverty will apply to those who have to so apply.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman must see that we must, first of all, decide the actual interval. Then this point can very well be dealt with in the Schedule of the Bill.

I have heard with very great regret the decision of the Government. Scotland possesses universal School Boards and free education, and we in England ought to have a system which would prevent differentiating between various classes of children. The very words the right hon. Gentleman has just used indicate clearly what will be the position of the poor people in the agricultural parishes. There are to be free places for the children of those parents who cannot pay fees. By this Bill you will really fix the stigma upon those parents, not only of inability, but of unwillingness, to meet the demand made by the managers of these schools. The measure of the Government, after all the professions that have been made on its behalf, really casts free education to the winds. I am quite satisfied that the sectarian schools in the towns must so accommodate themselves as to have free schools in every populous locality, but my anxiety is really for the 10,000 agricultural parishes where there is to be set up by this Bill a system of ticketing of the different classes in the same school—some children will pay nothing, others will pay a small fee, and others a higher fee. I am satisfied that in the interest of the schools themselves right hon. Gentlemen have made a serious mistake. This provision must create a deep sense of wrong, humiliation, and dissatisfaction, and that will simmer, and when a General Election comes I suppose the public in the rural districts will understand what it is that is being given to them—that a dole is really being given to them. We shall not hesitate to let the country understand that whereas this Parliament has given to Scotland a system of universal School Boards, it has withheld it from England, and placed a stigma upon the parents who cannot afford to pay school fees for their children. I am persuaded great injury will be done not only to the elementary education, system of this country, but also to what are known as voluntary schools.

^* : The Vice President objected to the statement that there will, by this clause, be set up in the schools a pauper distinction. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows that something of the kind exists at the present time, and that children are divided into two classes, those who pay and those whose fees are remitted. During the recent elections in the rural districts the barn doors were placarded in all directions with statements as to what the Government was going to do for the people; but now we find a good deal of all that was a delusion, and we now understand that distinctions which have hitherto prevailed are going to be maintained.

^* (8.36.) : Nothing could be more painful than some of the distinctions which were formerly set up in schools. I knew of one school in Yorkshire in which there were free scholars and paying scholars. The free scholars were put on one side of a partition and the paying scholars on the other, the master from his high desk being able to overlook the two bodies of children. The general terms applied to the two classes of children were sheep and goats. That is not so likely to occur in future, but hon. Members must remember that this Bill really provides for the admission of free scholars into a practically fee-paying school: free scholars can come in, as I understand, more or less as paupers. If the Vice President cannot make any provision of the nature indicated in the proposed Amendment I hope he will instruct his Inspectors to see that in the schools in which free places only are given no kind of invidious distinction shall be maintained or imposed.

^* : Let me point out to hon. Members that this Bill entirely alters all the circumstances by putting the children on the same level. No one child can say to another, "You are paid for and I am not," because the Government Grant of 10s. will pay for each—every child will be the recipient of State bounty.

Let us take the case of a parish where there is only one school, where there are very few children for whom free places will be provided, where some of the children will be fee-paying children. There will be set up every week, by the bringing of fees in the hands of the majority of children, a pauperising stigma, a ticketing of the children who enter the school free. I cannot conceive a child placed in these circumstances who must not every day of his life realise the inferior position in which he is placed. On the other hand, suppose that a great majority of the places are made free in order to meet the poverty of the great majority of the parents. You will have a small selected fee-paying class. Does anyone believe that this small superior, or fee-paying, class will not be regarded as the first class in the school, to the infinite injury of the common life of the school? It is evident that Government have moved in this matter to save the voluntary schools from other changes which are impending. (8.42.)

I wished to ask a question of the Vice President of the Council, but the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I am sorry if I have been the occasion of bringing the right hon. Gentleman back prematurely, but I wish to ask him a question in reference to some words used by him in reply to my hon. Friend, which may be somewhat misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his remarks said the Bill retains to managers the power of discrimination they now possess; and as the discussion was upon the question of procedure for the remission of fees, I think an impression was created that there might be a certain power of discrimination with managers as to free entrance to schools.

^* : No; I did in discussion use the word discrimination, but I was then following the line of .argument of the hon. Member, and the word was used in relation to the different grades of fees, and I said it was desirable to retain that system. The discrimination I referred to was as between fee and fee, not as to any discrimination managers might exercise in regard to the allotment of free places.

^* (9.20.) : I only wish to say why I think I must take a Division. The power of differentiating classes by fees is frequently made the means of excluding certain classes of children from a school, but that is not the point to which I attach the greatest importance. The power of going behind and considering whether parents are suitable persons to have for their children free places in a school is a power that may be used as a means of coercion and oppression in rural parishes where clergymen have the management of voluntary schools. I feel it my duty to press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to

Clause 4 omitted.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to

Clause 7.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, leave out from "the expression 'fee,'" to "on their behalf and," in line 19, both inclusive.—( Sir W. Hart Dyke. )

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 22, at end, add "and the expression 'average attendance' shall, for the purposes of the fee grant, mean average attendance calculated in accordance with the said minutes."—( Sir W. Hart Dyke. )

This, I think, has reference to half-time attendance. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what, under the Amendment, will be the amount of the fee grant in respect to half-time, whether it is to be in excess of the 10s., and, if so, how much—how much will be the demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for freeing the half-time schools, and why he introduces the fee grant in the case of half-time?

^* : This is introduced to meet what we consider the fair demand made by hon. Members behind me in respect to half-time scholars. It has been pointed out that the Bill as now drawn operates to place half-timers at a disadvantage, and this Amendment is proposed in order that half-time scholars may be on the same level with full-time attendance in regard to the fee grant as well as the ordinary Parliamentary grant. We believe that this proposal meets all requirements. We take the half-time attendance, and adding thereto 50 per cent., give a fee grant of 7s. 6d.

Half-timers are to receive 7s. 6d. instead of 10s., and I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the change. I think it must have been contemplated in the original draft of the Bill. I confess I have some regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to go a step further. The half-time scholar is practically equal to the full-time scholar, and learns quite as much or very nearly as much in the half-time attendance as the full-time scholar does in full-time attendance, and the same appliances and teaching staff are required for the half-time scholars. It is much to be regretted that half-time is not placed on the same footing as full-time, receiving the 10s. grant instead of 7s. 6d. I do not think the distinction made merely because of attendance half or full-time is one that can be justified. It will be felt as a grievance in the schools in the North where the half-time system prevails, and I confess I do not altogether abandon the hope that before Report stage is passed the Government will take a further step and consent to the half-timers being placed in exactly the same position as full-time scholars as regards the fee grant.

^* : In my opinion, the Government have made a fair and indeed a liberal offer in regard to half-time, but already the noble Lord is asking for more. It seems very difficult to satisfy the demands of the noble Lord. For my own part, I think the half-time schools deserve liberal treatment, and I am thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made this concession. I, for one, should very strongly object to their going any further in that direction.

^* (9.30.) : I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me to thank him for the concession he has made in favour of the half-timers. I can assure him that the subject has been discussed with great anxiety in our manufacturing districts, because we felt that the Bill as it stood contained a defect. I have received a communication from the borough of Wigan from which I find that the half-timer and the full-timer in many of our voluntary schools pay the same fee. The concession made by the Government will, however, not quite meet the case, and I hope that the matter will be fully considered before the Report.

^* : I would appeal to my noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne) to give way on this point. The Government have made so many concessions that those of us who have been strong supporters of the voluntary systems are content now to leave the matter in their hands. I feel sure that those whose children are going to be relieved by the operation of this Bill will themselves support the Government, and I would appeal to Lancashire Members to put their shoulders to the wheel rather than their backs to the wall.

I cannot allow these words to be added without making some reasonable protest in the interest of economy. The Government have made many concessions on this Bill, but I think the most gratuitous and extravagant has been on this question of half-time. We have always allowed that half-time counts for two attendances. It is only fair that should be so, because there is great difficulty in teaching the half-timers and in keeping them at all within reach of the ordinary full-time children. There is no doubt that nothing adds so much to the laboriousness of the teacher's work as having in his school a number of half-timers, and there can be no doubt that the half-timers do not keep abreast of the fulltimers. [Viscount CRANBORNE: Yes.] The noble Lord contradicts all experience and all the common sense of the case. He appears to out-Herod Herod in this matter. It is fair to make some recognition of the labour the teacher has to go through in instructing half-timers. That is done by making an allowance on the attendance. Now you are going to make it on the fees also. In the Bill as it stood the Government dealt with half timers—that is to say, they provided that two attendances should count for 10s. But there is a system which has grown up in Lancashire of charging half-timers extravagantly. If the conditions in the rich manufacturing districts of the North are compared with the conditions in the South, where the landed gentry contribute largely to the schools, the com- parison is, in respect of fees, all in favour of the South. In order to satisfy the Lancashire discontent—which is not creditable to some of the Lancashire Members—the Government is now giving 10s. for the attendance of full-timers, and 7s. 6d. for half-timers. This is an extravagant fee grant, and will only tend to the multiplication of half-timers. I am not going to divide the Committee against it, because I know the Government would beat us, and I do not want to waste time, but I do enter my solemn protest, first against the extravagant charges with regard to half-timers, and next to the Government giving £22,000 or £25,000 additional grant by this Amendment. Happily we are indebted to some gentlemen in this House for having reduced by one-third the period of half-time. I hope, for my own part, we shall get rid of the other two-thirds some day.

^* (9.39.) : It does not seem to me that the speech just delivered is particularly relevant to the question before the Committee; but, as to the abolition of half-timers, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to come to Lancashire and make such a proposal. I wish to thank the Government for the concession they have made to us.

I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consideration of this great concession made to half-time scholars, he will not consider the desirability of compelling schools to take half-time children at reasonable fees?

^* : It is only fair to my North Country friends to remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that equal payment for full-timers and half-timers prevails under the School Board of Bradford. I have just learnt that in voluntary schools at that place the halftime scholars only pay half fees.

Question, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

^* (9.42.) : I beg to move to omit "September" and insert "November." As the Bill will not become law before the end of July, and as the month of August is a recognised holiday month, the managers of schools will not have proper time to make arrangements for availing themselves of the Act by the 1st of September. On the Treasury Bench this question is mixed up with financial matters, but I do not know why the Opposition should wish to rush the Bill through the House in this absolutely unprecedented manner. [ Opposition cries of "Oh!"] No Bill of similar magnitude has ever been passed at such a speed. There can be no great necessity for hurrying on the operation of the Bill. What can it matter to hon. Members opposite whether the Bill comes into operation in September or in November? Do they imagine it will become unpopular in the interval? [ Laughter. ] Though my own fears are greater than my hopes, I am only proposing this Amendment with a view to secure the easy working of the proposed new arrangements.

(9.45.) Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out "September," and insert "November."—( Mr. Talbot. )

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

Although I have given notice of an Amendment to substitute January for September I support the Amendment in the interests of large districts. The proposal of the Bill will be all very well for some districts, but in many suburban districts where there will be a large amount of grouping there must be careful consideration before the Bill can be satisfactorily put into operation. To my mind six months would be none too long for the arrangements managers have to make. At all events, my hon. Friend's Amendment is necessary, because August is the general holiday month, in which it will be difficult to get managers together. In large urban districts, such as Liverpool, there will have to be grouping of schools, and the best way of meeting the Bill will be to arrange which shall be free schools and which graded schools, but these arrangements cannot be made hurriedly, and therefore the Amendment before the Committee is a reasonable one.

The reason for this Amendment is simply this; that we want our constituents to have the benefit of this legislation at once. The country is expecting this benevolent legislation to come into operation from the end of the school year, which terminates on the 31st of August, and all the Opposition desire is to see the original suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out, and elementary instruction made free as soon as possible in the majority of elementary schools. As to time being given for the necessary arrangements to be made, in many districts there will be 12 months allowed, but under the Bill as it stands, the Act will come into operation at once. The people have a right to ask that now that Parliament has decided to give them this boon there should be no delay in allowing them the benefit of it.

^* (9.52.) : I hope that under no consideration will the Government accept this Amendment. There is a very strong feeling that the sooner this measure comes into operation the better. If it were possible I would say the 15th of August, instead of the 1st of September. I regret the line some Lancashire Members have taken in connection with this Bill—offering opposition in so many ways. I trust the House and the Committee on this and the further stages will take every necessary means to facilitate the progress of this most useful and popular measure.

The hon. Member for the University of Oxford has said it would not matter to us on this side of the House whether the date were September or November; but I would tell him that it matters a great deal to the parents of the children in our elementary schools. The school fees between September and November will average about 2s. for each child. If there are three children going to school, the fees will amount to 6s. The amount which would be paid by the parents would be one-sixth of the annual fees, or close upon £400,000. The Amendment would deprive the parents of this large sum and cause them grievous disappoint- ment. It would be breaking faith with them.

I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accede to this Amendment. I think the least we can expect is that the Government should keep the promise they have made to the public outside. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford seems surprised that we should be in such a hurry to get the Bill through, but our answer to him is that we believe in free education, and want to see it enjoyed by the people as soon as possible. We shall support the Government in carrying the Bill through.

^* (9.55.) : I am afraid the Government cannot make the proposed change. They can hardly go back upon what they have proposed. I believe that from this time forward the managers of the schools that will be affected will see that it is necessary to make the arrangements that will be required on the 1st of September, and long before the holiday month of August they will have completed their arrangements. If I could meet the views of my hon. Friend I should be glad, but, looking at the engagements of the Government, I cannot do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

I beg to move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 2:—

"It shall be the duty of the Education Department to secure, by provisions in the Code and by instructions to the Inspectors, that in the case of any school partly supported by rates or voluntary subscriptions or endowments, where the fee grant exceeds the total previous fee income of the school, such surplus (unless the Education Department certify that the expenditure is not necessary or inexpedient) shall, in the first instance, be expended by the School Board or school managers of such school in the improvement of the school accommodation, or in promoting increased efficiency of education under the conditions of the Code; provided, in the case of any school which is wholly supported by grants from the Education Department, or where the rates or subscriptions and endowment together do not amount to 5s. per scholar in average attendance, then the whole of such surplus shall be applied for the purposes aforesaid, and it shall be the duty of the Education Department to secure such application."

This clause deals impartially with Board schools and voluntary schools, and it is limited to schools in which the fee grant exceeds the previous fee income. I wish to appeal to hon. Members opposite to believe that I am acting in absolute fairness with regard to voluntary schools and Board schools. They are both part of the educational system of this country. The Board schools carry on their work with great advantage to the people over whom they have control in regard to educational matters, and the voluntary schools exercise a large and useful influence, and I do not wish to show any partiality to the one class or the other in this clause. We are giving this fee grant for the purpose of cheapening education, and making it better than it has been. We hope that more and more scholars will reach the higher standards of the Code. There are degrees of efficiency. For example, the principal grant under the Code is 14s. 6d. in the best schools, and 12s. 6d. in others. The first part of the new clause deals with Board schools and voluntary schools in the same sense. Some School Boards draw liberally from the rates for the cheapening of education. In Birmingham, for instance, the fees average 5s. 7d., and the difference is made up from the rates. In Somerset the subscriptions have been large and the fees low, and when the subscribers have been giving large subscriptions, and the fees have been low, and the schools have been efficient, they have quite as much right to be considered with reference to the surplus as the schools in Birmingham, in which the fees have been kept low at the expense of the rates. The first part of my clause deals, practically, equally with both classes of schools. Subscribers have have as much as ratepayers to be considered with reference to the surplus of the fee grant over the fees, and it is equally right to use the fee grants in reduction of subscriptions as in reduction of rates. I do not believe that in either case they will do it, because they will prefer to advance the character of the education by the use of the surplus. If the schools are efficient they have the right, if they choose to exercise it, to diminish the rates or to diminish the subscriptions. I have said in the first instance that efficiency shall be secured. Suppose there are half-a-dozen schools in Birmingham that are not efficient. I say their surplus shall first be applied to secure efficiency, and having secured efficiency to the satisfaction of the Education Department, they may use the surplus either in the reduction of the rates or reduction of the subscriptions. I think that the managers of both voluntary and Board schools will admit that that is absolutely fair. The second part of my Amendment says that where there are no subscriptions the surplus shall be wholly applied to increase the efficiency of the school. There are 1,176 schools in the country which have no subscriptions at all. In future the fees are to be paid by the State. The schools cease in every sense to be voluntary schools, they are purely State schools, and it is surely right under these circumstances that any surplus there may be shall be used to promote the efficiency of the school. My right hon. Friend will agree with me that all schools are not efficient. In all probability the teachers in the 1,176 schools which receive no subscriptions the teachers are badly paid and are of an inferior class. I wish that any surplus may be used in obtaining more efficient teachers, a better system of teaching, and better school appliances. The hon. Member for Stockport said to me to-day that in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke of the building of voluntary schools as an interesting historical reminiscence. I repeat that the building of such schools is an interesting historical reminiscence, and contend that it is the present participation of such schools in the act of education which makes them alone have a claim to be considered as voluntary schools in the future. How can the 1,176 schools be considered voluntary establishments? For their own sake, and in order that they may be useful to the education of the country, I ask that any surplus there may be shall in the first place be used in increasing the efficiency of the schools. Hon. Members know there are means of getting teachers cheaply. Some teachers do other things beside teach; they become the organist of the church, and in this way diminish the charge on the school. I desire it to be enacted that all the money shall be used for education. Up to that point I think all will agree with me. If you do not make this enactment, the voluntary schools that have no subscriptions will become the butt of every person who wants a Board School: he will say they are not voluntary schools at all. What is a voluntary school? I will read the remarks the Lord President made on the subject to a deputation from the Church School Association which waited on him two days age. Lord Cranbrook said—

"The Royal Commission, you will remember, said, in one of its recommendations, that voluntary management was only excusable on the ground that people paid subscriptions."

But here are 1,176 schools that have no subscriptions at all. If you wish to keep them as voluntary schools you will, at all events, agree to that part of my clause which provides that any surplus shall be employed in improving the efficiency of the schools. There may be a difference of opinion as to the third branch of my clause, but if the Government refuse to accept it, I believe they will do much injury to the voluntary schools. I do not want to itensify the isolation of voluntary schools from the people, but you will intensify it if you allow a number of voluntary schools to pay back the subscriptions out of the surplus income. There are a great many schools in the country the subscriptions to which amount to 1s., 2s., 3s., or 5s., and which will be paid back out of the surplus, unless we provide against it. In the Second Reading I pointed out that there are 129 schools in Wales which will be able to dispense with all subscriptions. If they used the surplus, which they can do, for paying back all the subscriptions, they will place themselves in the position of the 1,176 schools I have spoken of, that is to say, they will become purely State schools. There will be great danger to the voluntary schools if subscriptions are repaid out of the surplus. There will be a sham voluntaryism about the schools, for they will take public money and make no effort to fulfil the obligations which the receipt of the money entails. Not only will there be great danger to the voluntary schools, but to the Church establishment also. Their enemies will point to the fact that there are in the country schools belonging to the Church of England that practically have no subscriptions, and yet claim their existence as a preserve of the Church. In the third part of my clause I prescribe that if the subscriptions do not amount to 5s. per scholar, any surplus shall be used for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the education. I commend the clause to the Committee, again assuring hon. Members opposite that I have tried to construct it with perfect fairness towards the School Boards and the voluntary schools. I believe that it will increase the efficiency of education in both, and that it will operate really to the advantage of the voluntary schools.

New Clause—[Fee Grant (surplus),]—( Sir Lyon Playfair, )—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

^* (10.15.) : I fully recognise the fair and impartial spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has moved the new clause, but I shall endeavour to show that the Government will be perfectly consistent in refusing to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman has justly remarked that there are in regard to certain schools two different kinds of efficiency, and I am not disposed to differ with him in contending that, in cases where considerable sacrifices have been made by the ratepayers or by subscribers in the cause of education, and where the schools in such cases are efficient, it is only fair that those ratepayers or subscribers shall receive some relief. The right hon. Gentleman then passed on to deal with a class of schools which are not so efficient, and he fairly urged that some security should be given that in such schools, where the grant of 10s. is in excess of the fees charged up to a certain date, the surplus shall be devoted to increased school efficiency, and shall not go into the pockets of the subscribers. With this object the right hon. Gentleman has moved a clause at the outset of which he lays down that it shall be the duty of the Education Department to secure the object in view by provisions in the Code. But I appeal to the Committee whether it is necessary that such words should be inserted in the Bill at all. The Code is in the hands of the Department; it is the one and only instrument by which it can carry out the object desired, and by which efficiency can be secured, and I submit that if we put a dozen new clauses of this nature in the Bill, not one of them can be more operative or impose greater responsibility than the Code does at present. The demands of the new Code of 1890 are most explicit, and it is impossible by inserting any such clause as this in any Act to impose heavier responsibility than is now laid by the Code on the Education Department. The Code lays down distinctly that the schools must be efficient, and with regard to those schools to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, in connection with which there are no subscriptions, and which are not efficient, every farthing of the extra grant, under the proposals of the Government, will have to go to the improvement of the schools. And if no improvement is forthcoming in a certain time, the schools will be held to be inefficient. The Inspectors will report on them, and the result will be that on the report of inefficiency the penal provision of the Code will be at once brought into operation against them. I venture to urge, therefore, that the whole of the machinery of the proposed new clause now exists in the Code of 1890, and that no addition to this or any other Bill can make the Code more explicit in regard to the demands which shall be made on all the schools referred to. In these circumstances the Government cannot accept the new clause.

^* (10.25.) : As I was the first person to put down this Amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to give me an answer the other day, I think I have a right to ask him for an answer now on the principle of my new clause, as well as on that contained in the clause of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Leeds. The object aimed at by both of us is the same, and the form in which we get this concession, if we are to get it, is comparatively immaterial. We are both anxious to see that by express enactment on the face of the Bill this surplus money shall be devoted to the cause of education, and I am all the more anxious for it as a friend and supporter of the voluntary system. I also foresee the danger to which the right hon. Gentleman who moved the clause referred—and I regard it as a real danger—that if in consequence of the Bill the subscriptions of the voluntary schools materially fall off, as I believe they will in some parts of the country, the voluntary schools will greatly suffer thereby. If the principle of the new clause is met by the Code—if, as the Vice President has said, every farthing of the surplus must go to increase the efficiency of the class of schools in question, what valid objection can there be to declare it on the face of the Bill? I believe that the presence in the Bill of such an express provision will, in numerous cases, be a guide and an assistance to the school managers, and will greatly strengthen their hands against the subscribers. It is not, in my opinion, sufficient—it is not at least so satisfactory—to provide generally that the money shall be expended under the regulations of some future Code. Let the managers of the country schools know how they ought, in the opinion of the Education Department, to spend the money, and there will be much less danger of its being wasted, and of the voluntary schools in the southern portions of the Kingdom being placed in a worse position than at present.

^* (10.30.) : I have upon the Paper a notice of a clause expressing very much the same views as those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, and the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I have been induced to put down that Amendment, not only with the desire that the surplus should be applied to increasing the efficiency of the schools, but that in certain cases, and especially in rural districts, we should have the surplus applied to increasing the healthiness of the schools. In various parts of rural England this 10s. grant will exceed the amount of the fee income, and surely it is to the public interest that in passing such a measure as this there should be a distinct expression of the will of Parliament as to how the surplus should be applied. It will be desirable in some cases that the surplus should be applied to increasing the efficiency of teaching or curriculum, but there are a great number of schools in a condition far from satisfactory in a sanitary point of view: the schoolrooms and buildings being old and dilapidated, and the ventilation and sanitary arrangements being exceedingly bad. On a former occasion when I referred to this subject an hon. Member mentioned to me an instance of a school with 300 scholars where there was no sanitary convenience whatever, but this has since been altered by the action of the Inspectors under the new Code; but the Inspectors in many instances are exceedingly tender in reporting upon deficiences in this respect, because they are anxious to avoid the closing of a school by their interference. They regard the sanitary deficiencies as a less evil than the loss to education from closing a school for not meeting the necessary requirements of construction. Some 12 months ago I brought before the House, by reference to a very graphic Report of the conditions of things in certain villages in Buckinghamshire, instances of schools in the most deplorable condition as regards sanitary arrangements, and now that school managers are about to receive alarge increase of income, it is essential that Parliament should take security that the surplus shall be applied to remedying a state of things nothing less than disgraceful. In North Bucks I gave an instance in the village of Thornborough of a school with 86 children. The school will receive £43 under this grant, and this will be an excess of more than £20 over the fee income and of £7 over the total income from fees and subscriptions. In this school there is only one place provided for the natural convenience of children of both sexes, and this is a condition of affairs incompatible with ordinary decency among the children. Such eases as these I want specially brought under the notice of the Department, and I urge the Vice President to consider some such clause as this, which shall force the Inspectors to take notice of these matters and have these evils corrected without delay. At Twyford, again, in the same county, there is a school of 96 scholars with the sanitary arrangements so bad that the foul gas from a cesspool finds its way into the schoolroom, typhoid fever continually exists among the people, and the death rate among children is higher than in other rural districts, and even in large towns. Such a condition of things is bad for the educational interest of the people, bad for morality and decency, and for the physique of the rising generation; and I say we have no right to drive children into schoolrooms which are death-traps. Where we insist on attendance at school that the children may be educated for after life, we should equally insist that their health is not impaired in the process. At Padbury, in the same county, there is a school with 56 children who are allowed to take water to drink from a pump within 10 yards of a cesspool; at Maids Moreton, again, similar conditions exist, and in too many of our rural districts there is a condition of things disgraceful from a sanitary point of view, and which we should take the opportunity of this grant to at once put an end to. If we place in the Bill some such clause as this proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, or the clause of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), or that in a shorter form of which I have given notice, we should go far to make such a state of things impossible, by making it an imperative duty of In spectors to report to the Education Department, and of the Education Department to see that the surplus of this grant is applied in the direction indicated. I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again to re-consider his position on this point with a view of making this Bill, which will shortly become an Act, as efficient as we can make it for improving not only the education of the children, but the conditions under which that education is carried on.

The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President when first he spoke upon the Bill pledged himself to the position that under this grant the education given in the country schools should be improved, and now we ask him to carry out his pledge and secure that his well-meant intentions shall be carried out. I confess that after hearing the words the right hon. Gentleman used, most of us looked forward hopefully to the result, and it is a great disappointment to find him refusing to insert words which would ensure that the surplus of this money should really be applied to improvements in education. I must say that in Wales, where I have knowledge of the popular feeling, this refusal of the Government to accept this clause will do much to increase the agitation against voluntary schools, because it will be recognised that a large surplus of some £10,000 or £15,000 will be directly given to voluntary schools without any instruction in the Bill that it shall be devoted to education. For my own part I prefer the words of the clause of the hon. Member for Somerset, because it gives a very wide definition of the various ways in which the money should be used not relying upon the Code and the instructions to Inspectors which the Vice President so often speaks about, but giving a clear indication by statutory enactment. By way of illustration I take a case that is within my own knowledge of a school in Wales, managed by the clergy in the midst of a Nonconformist population. The increase of the efficiency of the school was recognised as a necessity, and a voluntary rate was agreed upon to supplement the subscriptions. In the result £50 a year was the amount raised by the clergyman and his friends on the one part, and by the farmers on the other, in about equal proportion. Now, with the surplus this grant will provide, there will be a temptation to the one party or the other to withdraw their support, and no instructions to the Inspectors will ever get the money back again. But if such a clause as this were in the Act the Inspector could say to the managers of the school: "Bear in mind you have now £25 additional money which you must use for the benefit of the school," and the managers would take heed and do this, for if they did not the Inspector would report to the Department. In this particular school we were able to do something to improve the efficiency, but not all that was required. We were able to raise the miserable pittance of the teacher from £25 to £30 for instance; but without the clause there will be the greatest danger of the surplus being treated as a relief to the rate of subscriptions. I venture yet to hope that something may be done in the Bill itself which will have far greater effect than Code or instructions. When this question was raised at an earlier stage of the Bill, something was said about School Boards, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham said it would be reasonable that in such places as Birmingham, where the ratepayers had largely contributed towards the efficiency of the schools, the surplus of the grant should return to the ratepayers, but I am glad to see that the Birmingham Board have, by a majority of 7 to 2, adopted a resolution that the grant should go towards increasing efficiency, and they have expressed an opinion that the Bill should be amended to provide that managers should devote the surplus that the fee grant would give to improvement in building, teaching appliances, and staff until the schools could be said to be in perfect order. I feel convinced in my own mind that if nothing is done on this occasion we shall, especially in Wales, give force to the cry that we are endowing the Church through the Church schools. We have now an opportunity, which seems to me to be a fair one, of dealing with the question by labelling this money, and I cannot understand why we should not remove the grievance.

There seems to be no difference of opinion as regards intention; but there is a difference of opinion as regards procedure. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down went so far as to say that if we confine ourselves to the Code and instructions to Inspectors as to efficiency, we shall, practically, give no effect to the Act, but if, on the other hand, we only insert a clause in the Act, we shall attain all the objects we have in view.

No: I did not say that.

Something to that effect, or I do not quite understand the position of the hon. Gentleman.

My point is this, that with such a clause, which Inspectors would be bound to bring to the notice of School Boards and managers, our intention would be more effectually carried out.

That gives me exactly what I wanted. The argument applies to only a certain class of schools where there is a surplus. Now, I have listened for many years to Education Debates in this House while I held a responsible position in the Education Department, and since, and I have noticed one peculiarity of those Debates, that the educationists who take part in them become so absorbed in the idea of the moment that they lose sight of all other questions, and thus it comes to pass that, in the course of 24 hours, arguments most inconsistent are used in support of successive Amendments: Now, the one statement of fact upon which I think there has been no difference of opinion expressed is that education is not regulated by the fees paid. It has been repeated again and again in reference to the fees paid in the schools in Lancashire and elsewhere, that the education is not the better because the fees are high, but that with high fees the education is frequently inefficient. It is a main argument then that high fees do not necessarily mean good education, but on the contrary, they are frequently associated with inefficient education.

There may be low subscriptions.

I am talking only of fees. On the other hand, hon. Members have said education has been most efficient where fees are low.

And subscriptions high.

But what I am saying has nothing to do with subscriptions. I leave out the question of subscriptions. I am dealing only with the question of fees. I say the proposition laid down night after night has been this, that education is not regulated by fees, that where fees are high education is often inefficient, and where fees are low an efficient education is often given. Now, that being admitted, will hon. Members look at the clauses which have been placed upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds—both of whom have filled the office of Vice President of the Council—and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division. All these clauses have the same fatal administrative flaw, for they propose for the first time to lay down the proposition that where fees are low a higher test is to be applied than where the fees are high. ["No!"] Surely hon. Gentlemen do not understand the consequences of these clauses. I think I can demonstrate this. What is the proposition they advance? A certain test is to be applied where the fee grant is in excess of the fees now raised; therefore the clause moved would apply only to schools in which the fee is below 3d. That is undoubtedly what is proposed, and so, according to the argument which has so often been insisted upon, this test is to be applied only to schools which are most efficient. ["No, no!"] What, then, becomes of the argument that the fee does not regulate the education and that education is frequently more efficient where the fees are low? Again, let me remind the Committee that early in our discussions a considerable amount of time was occupied by hon. Members in showing that the one thing needed to improve education was to multiply Local Authorities, and that being proved to the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but defeated in the House, we have now a proposition that the opinion of the Local Authority is to be overridden and set aside by Parliamentary decree. For days past it has been urged that high fees are associated with inefficient education. ["No, no!"] Yes, I have heard it said over and over again by way of taunt to my hon. Friends behind me who have stood up in defence of the Northern schools where fees are high. But now a clause is proposed making the fee and not the efficiency a test, bringing the low fee school within the test, leaving the high fees above 3d. outside. How can hon. Members support a clause which will have this effect? The test after all should be the result of examination, and what has hitherto regulated the conduct of the Inspectors and the action of the Department is not the amount of fees paid but the efficiency. But you would now absolutely put aside the efficiency of a school, and you say—

"What hereafter is to regulate the conduct of Inspectors is not so much the efficiency of the school as the amount paid in fees."

Now, let me give an illustration. Hon. Members who have experience of such matters in rural districts will know that often there is an efficient school in one parish with low fees, and in the adjoining parish an inefficient school with high fees. To this efficient school, because the fees are low, the grant will give a surplus and this clause would apply, but because the grant is not in excess of the fees in the other case the school would be exempt from the operation of the clause. As a means of increasing efficiency where that is most needed the clause is obviously defective. It is evident you are proposing to introduce a new definition of efficiency which practically would be fatal to the efficiency of our whole system of primary education. Though I argue against the right hon. Gentleman's clause I sympathise with his twofold object to increase efficiency and not to check subscriptions. I have shown that the clause will not promote efficiency, and what is likely to be its effect upon subscriptions? The effect will be to penalise those schools according to the idiosyncracies of Inspectors where subscriptions are low.

^* : If the noble Lord refers to my clause he will see that the first part refers to the excess of the fee grant over the fee income, and that the sanction of the Department shall be required before such is used for the reduction of rates or giving back subscriptions.

I think I have shown that the proposition is one it is impossible for a Government administratively responsible to accept. We, however, quite sympathise with the object, and we have considered whether it would be better to adopt any part of the clause or to fall back upon the Code, and I unhesitatingly advise the Committee to rely upon the Code. It is clear that when four hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have ineffectually endeavoured to frame a clause to give effect to their desire, there is great difficulty in framing such a clause as will meet the different conditions of schools. We shall find a readier method under the Code, and it will be the duty of Inspectors to enforce compliance with instructions under it. One of the instructions is, that in the case of any less efficient school, unless an improvement takes place, the whole grant may be withheld, but it is necessary to give the manager of such school due warning in order that he may adapt himself to the conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds asked me to deal with the question of subscriptions. I will take the case of Birmingham, which is the first big town which occurs in the list. Would it not be unjust to place Birmingham in a worse position than Bradford or Bristol? Under this clause it would be placed in such a position. It would surely be hard to say that Birmingham, because the schools are efficient, and the ratepayers tax themselves, should therefore have a further pecuniary obligation placed upon it which is not put upon others.

^* : I beg pardon. The first part of my clause is to provide for that. If the voluntary schools are efficient the surplus may, under the clause as it stands, be used for the reduction of the subscriptions, and in the case of Board schools it may be used in the reduction of the rates.

What the right hon. Gentleman provides is that where there is a surplus it shall be expended by the School Board or by the managers of the schools. The School Board of Birmingham would, therefore, be in a worse position than the School Board of Bradford, unless they can prove to the satisfaction of the Education Department that their education is efficient. But why should Birmingham, whose education is admittedly more efficient than that of Bradford, have this new test put upon it which has no relation to the efficiency of its schools, but simply to the fees paid? I do not propose to waste the time of the Committee further, but I think I have shown clearly that the propositions which have emanated from the other side of the House are propositions which are absolutely incapable of adoption, and it would be far better to fall back upon the assurance of the Government that in the Code there will be an instrument of promoting efficiency, not only in one particular class, but in every class of our elementary schools.

I do not know whether the noble Lord contemplated that his speech would tend to shorten the Debate, but it seems to me the noble Lord has rendered it almost impossible to finish the Bill to-night. The noble Lord has ranged over the whole of the Debates of last week and has not dealt candidly with the clause before the Committee. A few nights ago the First Lord of the Treasury stated that there were two other clauses which aimed at accomplishing the same objects as the clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir L. Playfair), and recommended the withdrawal of the clause then under discussion in order that the three clauses might be discussed together. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated a preference for my clause. Under these circumstances I felt quite confident that one of the clauses would have been adopted by the Government. The noble Lord has spoken of the injustice which will be done to Birmingham, but the Birmingham School Board does not feel any sense of injustice, and is of opinion that the excess fees should be devoted to the improvement of education and not to the reduction of voluntary subscriptions. The noble Lord says the proper instrument for securing the application of the surplus fees to the improvement of education is the Code. But, assuming this to be so, there ought to be in the Bill an indication that it is the duty of the Department to see that the Code does secure it. There are efficient schools and efficient schools. A school may be efficient that teaches only reading, writing, and arithmetic. There are very few rural schools in England in which the excess of the grant might not advantageously be devoted to the improvement of education. Many such schools are greatly under-staffed, and it ought to appear on the face of the Code that it is the duty of the managers to devote the surplus to remedying such a defect. I believe that such a clause as I have placed upon the Paper would have the effect of maintaining the voluntary schools in a higher state of efficiency. All our contention about fees has been that the amount of the fee does not necessarily indicate the value of the education. I do hope we are not going to continue this discussion any longer. I did expect the right hon. Gentleman would for once have frankly met us, because I thought that on both sides of the House we were agreed that the money should be properly applied.

^* : There is an agreement that the surplus shall be applied to the improvement of education, but the view of the Government is that that is better secured by means of the Code than by adopting an Amendment of this character.

^* (11.13.) : I desire to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the special case of Wales. I think the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that Wales has a special case on the subject of the surplus. Voluntary schools in Wales will by the Bill be rendered not only independent of school pence, but endowed with a surplus of £20,000 a year, and thus rendered independent of subscriptions also. Thus they will be in the unchecked control of their managers, who may make them more than ever nurseries of proselytism. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President has had fully in mind in the drafting of the Bill the importance of dealing perfect and even justice between voluntary schools and Board schools. There is a serious danger that unless some clause by which the surplus is specifically appropriated to education be incorporated in the Bill the relation of the voluntary to the Board schools in Wales will be disturbed in such a way as, by making the voluntary school absolutely autocratic within its sphere, seriously to injure the cause of education. In Wales the voluntary school is a Church school, and in most places it may almost be called an involuntary school. The Board schools have not, for obvious reasons, had the same chance in Wales as they have had in England. I do not desire to bring the religious question into the Debate, but there is a danger that if a measure of this kind comes into operation in Wales it will be regarded as a Party and sectarian measure, will fail of the success which everybody desires for it, and will aggravate the religious situation in Wales, which is already critical. Welshmen have not been slow to admit their obligation to the Government in the matter of education. Something has been done for higher education, and a great deal for intermediate education. The Government are now dealing with elementary education, which is really the basis of the whole system, and I hope they will place in the Bill some mandate providing that Church schools shall not be by this Bill rendered wholly independent as well of subscriptions as of fees, but shall require to maintain themselves in touch with the people, either by securing subscriptions or by giving the surplus to evening schools on advanced elementary purposes. If such a provision be adopted, there will, at any rate, be that form of popular check and relationship between the voluntary school managers and the people which the money relation naturally sets up. As things are, if you, by this large endowment of the voluntary schools of Wales, render the school managers wholly independent of any need to associate with themselves either the people or the parents, you upset the modus vivendi, which is at present barely tolerable, and run the risk of setting up a new source of irritation.