^* (3.50.) : In moving the new clause which stands in my name, I am carrying out a promise which was made when the Bill was in Committee. We have followed the lines of the proposals of the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Mundella). We propose to deal with the question of schools where the average sum received from fees and for books and other articles necessary to school life is less than the 10s. grant.

New Clause—

(Where average rate charged was not in excess of ten shillings no charge shall be made to parent)

"In any school receiving the fee grant, where the average rate charged and received in respect of fees and books, and for other purposes, during the school year ended last, before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and nicety-one, was not in excess of ten shillings a year, for each child, of the number of children in average attendance at the school, no charge shall be made to parent in respect of any scholar,)"—( Sir William Hart Dyke, )

—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."

The right hon. Member for the Brightside Division is not present; but I presume that he would be prepared to accept this clause in substitution for his own. I do not, however, think the clause goes quite as far as was intended by the Committee when the question was discussed. It only affects schools that will be free schools. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go a step further, and apply the system to other schools. What we want to lay down is that not only the fee in excess of the 10s. shall be charged, but that the managers shall be enabled to exceed that average for books, &c. Under the Bill as it stands the manager will not be able to charge a fee in addition for books after deducting the 10s. I would ask the Vice President if he does not intend to supplement this clause by a further Amendment to carry out the intention of the House?

^* (3.54.) : I would suggest to add at the end of the clause, after the word "scholar," the words "over three and under fifteen years of age," in order to bring the clause in conformity with the rest of the Bill.

^* : I would suggest that words should be introduced to the effect that books and other appliances shall be provided free, and as a first charge on any surplus which exists from the substitution of the 10s. fee grant over the school pence.

^* : The Code which has been in force since 1870 lays it down that the managers are to be held responsible by the Department for the conduct of their schools, for their maintenance and efficiency, and for the providing of all needful furniture, books, and apparatus.

^* : Do "books" mean scholars' books?

^* : Certainly; it is "books and appliances," which, of course, includes school books.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "charge," to insert the words "by this Act provided."—( Mr. Tomlinson. )

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

^* : I think it would be better to leave the matter as it is, because under the Bill any parent can claim free places, and under the Code managers are bound to provide school books where the parents do not provide them. If the parents provide the books, their doing so will be regarded in the light of a subscription. The question is a very difficult one to deal with.

I think it is not necessary to amend the clause in the way suggested, but we had better get on to the other and more important parts of the Bill.

I do not think the Amendment would do any harm.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added.

moved to insert the following new Clause after Clause 2:— quid pro quo. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton did attempt to get some consideration for the grant in the Instruction which he moved some days ago, but he was not successful. The strong and formidable objection which was taken against that Instruction, namely, that there is no logical connection between what was demanded and the Imperial grant which this Bill makes, cannot, however, be applied to the present proposals. I demand, as a consideration for the increased grant, increased public control, and I propose to place that control in the quarter from which the Imperial grant comes. I have no great admiration for the Education Department or its methods or results; but the State has no other organ, and until some other is arrived at we shall be obliged to look to the Education Department. I propose to introduce the machinery of the Education Department; and some words would have to be introduced into the clause giving the Department the power of making rules to carry it out. Another set of objections which have been urged against Amendments to the Bill on this side of the House cannot be brought against these new clauses. They in no way involve the religious question, but equally affect the Board schools and the voluntary schools, and, therefore, I claim from hon. Members opposite fair and impartial consideration for my proposals. The object of the clauses is to protect the elementary teachers of England, in the first place, from capricious dismissal by school managers, and, in the second place, from the degrading conditions as to extraneous service which are now imposed upon them. This, indeed, may be said to be the programme of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, an organisation which numbers more than 50,000 teachers, and represents the vast body of teachers governed by the Education Department. It is not difficult to show that the elementary teachers of the country have a grievance which loudly calls for remedy, and I propose that they shall have a right of appeal to the Education Department against capricious dismissal by the managers. The Secretary for War denied a few days since that elementary teachers in the rural districts are subjected to persecution; but it can be shown, if they do not suffer persecution, that they have to bear considerable injustice from the managers of the schools. In a paper read two years ago at a meeting of the National Union of Elementary Teachers by Mr. George Gurling, head master of one of the London Board schools, the question of capricious dismissal was gone into. Mr. Gurling appears to have inquired into various cases of hardship, and he says that in one instance a clergyman alleged that the schoolmaster was his servant, and that he had just as much right to dismiss him as his cook or groom. Another clergyman remarked: "Why cannot a gentleman dismiss his servant without anyone interfering? Now, the servants in regard to whom these insolent words are used are the servants of the State, and to the extent of 75 per cent. their salaries are paid by the State. No complaint is made of the action of the larger School Boards, but the objection comes from the elementary teachers employed in the smaller schools. I will give an example to show what they complain of In one particular instance the Chairman of the Board was in the habit of employing children illegally, and it became necessary to make an inquiry. The master was applied to for information, but he hesitated to give it for fear of dismissal. He was told that he would be protected by the Education Department, and he accordingly gave information which led to a fine of £27 10s. being imposed. The teacher was subsequently called before the Board and told that he was at the bottom of the mischief, and eventually discharged. Numerous other cases have been placed in my hands, all to the same effect. Of course, statements of this kind made in this House can only be second-hand. I cannot guarantee them myself, but I have received an assurance from gentlemen of character and position that they are true. In one instance, I have been furnished with the copy of an agreement between the School Board and the teacher, containing the curious proviso that the teacher should attend the Sunday school and play the harmonium for the handsome sum of £2 per annum! In another case the teacher for eight years had been accustomed to play the harmonium on Sunday. He received no pay, but believed that if he were to decline he would be required to resign his position. I maintain that it is most unjust, unwise, and unfair to subject these public servants to such conditions as I have described. If professions are to be measured by their public utility I know none which would take a higher position than that of elementary teachers. They are poorly paid, and ought certainly to be free from worry. As far as the clerical managers are concerned, it is not proved that they are fit to exercise that despotic authority which the present state of the law allows them. In many respects the clergy of the Church of England are disqualified beyond other men for the exercise of this despotic power. Whatever lofty virtues their calling tends to develop, I do not think the sense of justice is one of them. They live in an atmosphere of female adulation, which, of itself, tends to demoralise them. The transcendental character of the pretensions they put forward on behalf of their duties and authority tends to blind them. [ Cries of "Question!"] I am speaking of the qualifications of clergymen to exercise the powers which they claim. So far as I understand the case, elementary schoolmasters do not demand fixity of tenure; they only ask to be relieved from the capricious action of non-representative authorities and the small School Boards, without the review of such action by the Education Department. I beg to move that the clause be read a second time.

A Clause (Appeal of certificated teacher in case of dismissal,)—( Mr. Edmund Robertson, )—brought up, and read the first time.

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

^* (4.23.) : Her Majesty's Government are not able to accept the proposed clause. The hon. Member has raised no new question, either as regards discussion in this House or outside of it, in airing grievances on behalf of elementary teachers; but so far as the teachers of to-day are concerned, there can be no doubt that, whether as regards the pay they receive, the position they hold, and also the sanitary conditions under which they are called upon to perform their duties, the conditions are enormously improved as compared with four or five years ago. Here and there, in some village or another, some grievance might be urged, but the position of the Education Department in regard to that question is a very simple one. Since 1870 the Department has never had anything to do with the engagement or dismissal of a teacher, and it would, in my opinion, be most prejudicial to the cause of education if it had to sit daily as a Court of Appeal to hear causes between teachers and the managers of schools. Not only has the Education Department nothing to do with the appointment or dismissal of teachers, but, strictly speaking, it has nothing to do with the management of schools; all it has to do is to secure the efficiency of the schools. That is the beginning and end of the responsibility of the Department, and the Government must refuse for many obvious reasons to alter that state of things. I think it would be most hazardous to insert a change in the Bill so vast as this, and therefore I hope the House will negative the clause.

I would go further than my hon. Friend with regard to this clause, and insert after the words "fee grant"—

"The Education Department shall have the right, after due inquiry made and upon cause shown, to dismiss the teacher."

I have had a case brought before me of a child who was beaten by the schoolmaster, and who died after the beating. I have a mass of correspondence here sent me by the father of the child who died. The beating still goes on, and the parents have no power to obtain the dismissal of the teachers. One letter I have here says that the parents are afraid to complain, lest they lose employment with the gentry.

^* : Order, order! This has no reference to the clause now under discussion. The clause has reference to the tenure of office of the teachers, and not their conduct.

Question put, and negatived.

I understand that hon. Members who were not prepared to support me in the first proposition are ready to support me in the next, and I shall, therefore, formally move the following clause:—

"In a school receiving the fee grant no teacher shall be required, as a condition of holding his appointment, to undertake or abstain from any duties out of the ordinary school hours, as shown by the time table of the school."

Clause (Tenure of office of teacher,)—( Mr. Edmund Robertson, )—brought up, and read the first time.

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

I certainly could not support the 1st clause moved by my hon. Friend; but as regards the 2nd clause, the point which it raises was a good deal discussed on the Second Reading, and it is one which I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting.

There is a very great deal, indeed, to be said for the clause, as I am sure will be admitted by those who have the interests of education at heart, even if they are against the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the Education Department has only to do with the efficiency of schools, and nothing with their management. That is a very amazing admission, after we have been told, in reply to our demand for public control, that we have it already. Now we are told that the Department cares for nothing but the efficiency of the schools. But at what dreadful sacrifice to the teachers is that efficiency secured. Often their health breaks down. Frequently schoolmasters have to perform the duties of organist, choirmaster, secretary to Church Clubs and Societies, in addition to their school duties. Many hon. Members are serious observers of the Sabbath, because they wish every man to have his one day's rest in the week, yet there are hundreds of teachers of elementary schools who never have a day's rest. I do think that the Department should forbid the overworking of teachers, and deny to managers the right to employ them outside their school duties.

This clause is absolutely absurd, because it will deny the right to a teacher, how ever much he desires it, to become choirmaster or organist.

No, no; it is that he shall not be "required."

The clause is so utterly unreasonable that it will not allow the teacher, moreover, to abstain from certain duties. It will not allow him to eke out his salary by playing the organ, nor will it allow him to bind himself not to play that instrument. The whole thing is so intolerable as not to be worthy discussion.

^* : I do not think the hon. Member for Oxford University understands the clause. It is simply this: that a teacher shall not be compelled to undertake any of these duties which are outside of his office of teacher. If a teacher chooses to become organist or choirmaster, this clause will not prevent his doing so. To interfere with him, either by compelling him to undertake, or to prevent from undertaking, any of these duties, would be an interference with his liberty. I have had an immense mass of correspondence, and I have had several instances brought under my notice of teachers who complain that they have been dismissed, or threatened with dismissal, unless they undertook to abstain from certain duties, in themselves perfectly harmless. I hold that there should be no interference with teachers outside their school hours. A schoolmaster, outside his school hours, should be allowed to do what he likes, go where he likes, spend or save his money, just as he chooses, free from interference. I shall certainly support the clause.

If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Talbot) will devote himself to reading the advertisements in newspapers connected with the Church of England, he will find it frequently stated that the person applying for the position of schoolmaster will be required to play the organ, to rub down the clergyman's pony, and various things of that sort. ["No!"] I ask them to read these newspapers as I do, and they will acquire some knowledge of these matters. If these things are required, obviously no one will apply for the place unless he is prepared to undertake them. The clause will prevent such obligations being imposed, and I therefore shall vote in favour of it.

Although I am not so conversant with religious newspapers as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, and perhaps the hon. Member for Oxford University, still they have been obtruded once or twice upon my notice by way of advertisement, and I have seen attached to the acceptance of a teachership the condition that the candidate shall be a communicant of the Church of England. That is a monstrous tyranny, and I shall, therefore, vote for the clause.

I wish to advance one argument in support of this clause. It is that our Civil and other public servants are allowed to do as they choose in connection with co-operative and other movements in their own time, and any attempt by the Public Departments or by large Railway Companies to control the movements of their servants in their own time would be promptly resisted. I venture to say that nothing of the sort would be allowed at the present time. I am certain that elementary teachers, just as are workmen and public servants, should have liberty of action outside their school hours.

It seems to me that the school teacher should be honourably paid, and not compelled to eke out his living in these various ways. I have no doubt the reply will be made that the clause can be so easily evaded that it will become inoperative; but I hold that once it is put in an Act of Parliament that a teacher need not, unless he choose, become a choirmaster or organist, the end we seek will be attained. A Minister on that Bench used wise words the other night when he said that an Act of Parliament was not so much to decide points of law as to serve for a guide to the will of the community. I have no doubt, if this clause were embodied in the Act, it would express public opinion on this point, and these hardships upon teachers would be stopped.

^* : I wish to make an appeal on behalf of the 40,000 school teachers who for the most part entertain a very strong feeling upon this subject. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and that these teachers will carefully scan the Division List. They are a most deserving and hard-working body of public servants, and it is right that they should have the Sunday's rest, and should not be compelled, as actually a condition of their appointment, to enter into these degrading bargains as to duties outside their regular employment and outside the regular six days' work. Any Sunday duties they choose to undertake should be as entirely voluntary as the rest of the community.

I wish to point out that the clause as drawn will not effect the hon. Member's object at all. It deals with teachers already appointed, but not with making it a condition that teachers to be appointed shall combine with their other duties that of choirmaster or organist. The clause would be inoperative so far as concerns the 40,000 teachers, of whom the hon. Member has spoken.

That point could be met by substituting for the words "holding his appointment" the words "being appointed."

(4.52.) The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 181.—(Div. List, No. 331.)

^* : With regard to the new clause which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield, I regret that owing to ill-health he cannot propose it. The discussion on the principle it involves will be taken, however, on the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon.

The clause which I have to propose is of a very simple character, although the object aimed at is an important one, for it seeks to secure that a child shall have a right to claim and receive free education in any school which receives the fee grant. I wish the House to consider, first, the extent of the funds which are being provided from public sources for the relief of education; and, second, the provision which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is an absolute fact that the provision made in this measure for giving a fee grant is almost identical with the amount of fees now received in the schools. I will not weary the House with figures; but, taking the average number of scholars in attendance, and allowing 10s. per head, we find that the sum proposed to be contributed out of the Public Purse—£2,000,000—is in excess of the amount mow paid in fees to the extent of no less than £100,000. I think, therefore, we have a right to claim that every parent who desires to be exempted from paying fees shall be entitled to claim exemption. I want to ask the House to consider what is the effect of this scheme of the Government. The Vice President of the Council on Education has stated that 80 per cent. of the child population of this country who go to school will very shortly receive free education. That means that out of 4,750,000 children attending school 800,000 will not be free. What possible defence can there be for such a state of things as that? We may have in adjacent parishes one child receiving the full benefit of free education, and another not. Take, for instance, the case of two schools in Brighton. The attendance at one is 369, and the fees £478. The fee grant will be less than £190, so that £288 will have to be provided, and, therefore, the children will not receive a free education. In the other school the attendance is 420, the fees £112, the fee grant will be £210, and the whole of the fees will be swept away. Is the state of things with respect to those schools such as any statesman can defend? You are giving to schools which do not want it, money which ought really to go to other schools that require it. I think it only right the House should know what this scheme entails, and that in the first year of its working no fewer than 800,000 children will not have the right to claim free education. Out of these 800,000 children almost half are in national and Church schools, one-fourth in Board schools, and the remainder in British and other schools. I have shown that a state of things will arise under this Act which will be most unsatisfactory, and which cannot be defended by any sound argument. There will be two classes of schools side by side, and in one of them parents will have to pay fees whether they like it or not. The effect will be to deprive many of the free education they desire to obtain, and the contrast will, I fear, be most injurious to the cause of education. It may be said that if this clause is inserted in the Bill parents will be demanding free education for their children in higher grade schools, but I do not think that any difficulty is likely to arise in that direction, neither do I think that the managers of denominational schools will have any trouble in this matter. I beg to move the clause.

New Clause—

(Right to claim free education in any school which takes the fee grant.)

"After the commencement of this Act, where the parent or guardian of a child applies for it, in a school receiving the fee grant, free education shall be given to that child in that school,"—( Sir William Plowden, )

—brought up, and read the first time.

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

^* (5.19.) : I think that if this clause were inserted in the Bill there would be great difficulty in working it, because the clause breaks up the framework of the Bill. The Government have claimed that the Bill preserves the elasticity of our present school system, and I object to the clause because it destroys that elasticity. The hon. Member has referred to the existence at Brighton of schools charging low fees and of higher grade schools charging high fees. If this clause passes it will be possible for any number of parents whose children attend the low-feed school to send them to the higher-grade school, and to demand that free places shall be found for them. This would thwart the object of the Government, which is to assist poor schools while preserving higher-grade schools. The clause would, therefore, injure rather than benefit the scheme of the Bill, and, under these circumstances, I cannot accept it.

(5.22.) The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 206.—(Div. List, No. 332.)

^* (5.37.) : The next clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Stephens), is not in order. It proposes an independent alteration of the existing system of management, and relates to all voluntary schools, whether they receive the fee grant or not. It therefore does not hinge in any way upon the Bill.

The new clause I have the honour to lay before the House will be, I think, an improvement in the economical machinery of the Bill. It is as follows:—

"The managers of two or more schools in the same or neighbouring school districts, not being schools provided by a School Board, may agree together to pay the fee grant, or part thereof, received by each school into a common fund for distribution, as may be arranged by them, between or among such schools. Provided that the fee grant received by each school in the first instance shall alone count as income of such school for the purposes of this Act and of section nineteen of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1876,' and a contribution to a school from any such common fund shall not be reckoned as income of such school from other sources within the said section nineteen."

I have wearied hon. Members, I think, more than once by telling them of the misgivings felt in the North of England with regard to this Bill. One of the principal of those misgivings is that the schools will be prevented, not by express enactment, but by the general feeling engendered during these Debates, from charging any fees in excess of the fee grants. I am not one of those who have ever shared that view. Much as I have sympathised with the difficulties which have been pressed upon us in the North of England, and great as I believe the risk to be which the Government run in passing this Bill, I earnestly hope there may be sufficient patriotism in all parts of England to induce parents to pay something towards the education of their children. The difficulty remains that the schools where fees may be charged may be those which do not require the fees in addition to the fee grant. With the view of meeting that difficulty I propose this clause, which is not compulsory, but voluntary, so that there may be an adjustment between school and school with the object of making the money go as far as possible. I hope that fees will continue to be charged after the passing of this measure, and I know that is the view of the Government. It has been found in both Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is an absolute demand for fee-paying schools on the part of parents who are not desirous of sending their children to the free schools. I want to provide that where a school continues to charge fees it may allocate the fee grant to other schools which may be more in need of it. It may be asked, "Why not leave the schools to make arrangements amongst themselves by assigning part of the voluntary subscriptions from one school to another?" As a matter of fact you cannot order voluntary subscribers about. You cannot say to a man who offers to subscribe to a school, "This particular school does not want your subscription. Will you assign it to a school at the other end of the town which does want it?" If you do make such a request he will probably say, "Well, it you do not want it I will keep it in my pocket." My proposal can be carried out, and it will not only secure approval in many districts where the strain of this Bill will be unduly felt, but will meet many objections that have been urged in this House. As far as it goes this Amendment will be a suggestion to them that they should hand over the fee grants to schools that want it more than themselves. Last of all I recommend the Amendment to the Government because it will, to a large extent, in certain parts of England, smooth over many of the difficulties which may be offered to the working of the Act. I believe the House will find that, as a consequence of this clause, the money which the country is prepared to give for free education will go much further and be much more acceptable, not only to the North of England, but to all parts of the country, because those schools which need it most will enjoy the larger part of it, and those schools which need it the least will enjoy the lesser part of it.

New Clause (Power of Education Department to pay fee grant to group of schools,)—( Viscount Cranborne, )—brought up, and read the first time.

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

^* (5.47.) : Her Majesty's Government are prepared to support the clause which my noble Friend has just moved, as it merely carries out what they have themselves indicated, especially in regard to the schools in the North of England. The clause will give reasonable facilities for combination when a strain is brought to bear upon the schools in regard to this Bill. I think that the clause as drawn will carry out the object of my noble Friend without injuring the working of the Bill in any possible degree. It has one good feature, at all events. It will largely facilitate the providing of free education. Managers of schools will be tempted to take steps at once to meet any possible emergency, and the consequence will be a large increase of free places and free schools which otherwise might not be provided until after the expiration of a long period. Hon. Members will observe that my noble Friend has so safeguarded the clause as to prevent the possibility of rates being paid by a School Board to voluntary schools.

I should like to know whether each of the parts of a school—that which is free and that which is fee-paying—will be considered a school within the meaning of this clause.

^* : The words of the clause will cover the case.

When the clause was originally introduced objection was taken to it on this side of the House because it was believed that it might give rise to an increase of fees in a group of schools. I understand now, however, that that will not be the case. In the circumstances, I think there is really no objection to the proposal, and I agree with the Vice President that it will facilitate the creation of free schools in certain districts.

^* : As the Government have accepted it the clause will certainly pass, and it matters very little whether my hon. Friend supports it or not. Of course, however, the approval of so distinguished an educationalist is a matter of importance. But I must own that I think that hon. Members who have voted on this question pretty often on former occasions should examine what they are doing. This is really the Glasgow system which we have so often discussed. I take it that in towns like Preston, Stalybridge, and Stockport the schools may agree together, and settle that some of them shall become entirely free without any necessity for further subscriptions by the process of accumulating the whole of the fee grant; and, on the other hand, that certain other schools shall maintain their present position without the need of any further subscription by the process of charging the same fees which they charge at present.

^* : They must in the first instance reduce their fees by the amount they receive.

^* : I am glad to have drawn that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, as it removes my strongest objection to the clause. At the same time, I feel bound to make a protest against the clause on the ground that it will give a Parliamentary sanction to a system which has worked very badly in Scotland.

I think it would be convenient if I asked the Vice President a question which he has already answered, but in two different senses; it has reference to the definition of an elementary school contained in the Act of 1870. According to that Act an elementary school means a school, or department of a school, at which elementary education is the principal part of the education given. There are many schools worked in departments, and it has been generally understood that each of the departments is an elementary school. But it seems it is now considered that this definition only applies to such schools as have other departments that are not elementary.

^* : I have already stated that the grant will be paid to a school as a whole, although under the Act a department is considered a school by itself. Since I gave that answer I have consulted the highest authorities, and they assure me that my reply was quite correct.

^* (5.59.) : The clause of the noble Lord has a good many advantages. It will certainly facilitate free education in large towns where there are a great many voluntary schools. It will, however, interfere in a few cases with the Amendment, to which we attach considerable importance, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division. Under the circumstances I do not see any objection to the adoption of the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added.

^* (6.0.) : I rise to move the clause in reference to the use of schoolrooms for public meetings—

^* : I rise to a point of order, and beg to ask you, Sir, if a clause relating to the use of schoolrooms out of school hours is in order on this Education Bill?

^* : I understand this point was reserved in Committee for the Report stage.

This question has been before the House on various occasions; but it has not been discussed in reference to this Bill. I will shortly state the position of the law as it is as to the use of schoolrooms. Under the Ballot Act the Returning Officer only has the power to use the schoolroom for the purpose of a poll free of charge. Then, under the Allotments Act of last Session I remember very well what took place, and the President of the Local Government Board will confirm me. His Department was on the occasion, I think, represented by the Secretary to the Board, and he assented to a clause, which was carried, providing that the schoolroom of any public elementary school might be used for an inquiry under the Allotments Amendment Act or under the Allotments Act of 1887, or for any public meeting to discuss any question arising under those Acts. The clause was agreed to in this House, and in the House of Lords an Amendment was proposed to the effect that the schoolroom should only be so used with the consent of the managers of the school. On this there was a Division, and in Committee the Amendment was negatived by 21 to 12, and the clause was left providing that the consent of the managers should not be required. But on the Report stage Lord Salisbury moved an Amendment to the clause to the effect that the consent of two of the managers should be required for the use of the room for the purpose. Of course the consent of two of the managers in regard to a great number of schools means the consent of double the number of the actual managers existing, therefore the Amendment which was adopted actually wiped out all the good that was done in this House. When the Bill came back to this House, I proposed to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, and I remember very well what the President of the Local Government Board said on that occasion, and I thank him for saying it. He said—what, of course, was very true—that it was very desirable to get the Bill through; that it was the fag-end of the Session, and everyone was anxious to get away; but he added these words, which are important, and which I venture to quote. He said—"But the principle that schoolrooms ought to be granted for the purpose of public meetings is now conceded." Of course that was a very important concession, confirming what the Secretary to the Local Government Board had previously said when the Bill was in Committee. Now, I speak for rural villages rather than for towns, for I have more knowledge of village life as concerned in this matter, and I say it is a great grievance felt that the people who pay to maintain these schools are not allowed to use them for public purposes. We have heard over and over again during the course of these Debates, that there are 10,000 parishes where the school belongs to one denomination—the Church of England—and in very few instances are there any other rooms except these schoolrooms suitable for lectures, addresses, and public meetings. I may ask—Are there not a great number of us who during the elections of 1885 and 1886 were put to great inconvenience in consequence of not being able to get the use of schoolrooms? I can speak from personal experience, and so, I think, can many hon. Members. I remember very well the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division (Mr. Gardner)—I regret he is not here, for this subject he has made his own, and he would have drafted a much better Amendment than I have put on the Paper—he said there were 80 parishes in his Division, and in only five had he been able to obtain the use of the schoolroom for the purpose of addressing meetings of the electors; and that in 24 out of 30 agricultural constituencies there were absolute refusals to allow the schoolrooms to be used for political meetings, the managers refusing being, of course, the incumbents. Very often where use of the rooms has been granted the permission has been coupled with harassing and impossible conditions. I remember on one occasion the incumbent in a village in Warwickshire consented to the schoolroom being used, but on the condition that he and not I should select the gentlemen who were to speak. I need not say I declined the offer of the use of the building. But to show the right hon. Baronet the change that has come over the popular sentiment in this matter I may mention that only three weeks ago I attended a meeting in that very schoolroom, the incumbent having granted the use of the room without any such conditions, and he himself, being present, expressed an opinion that schoolrooms ought to be used for the benefit of the public. I remember also that in 1887 the hon. Member for Sudbury said that in consequence of the refusal to grant the use of the schoolroom he had spent hours in the rain addressing those who afterwards became his constituents, and he said that on more than one occasion the clergyman ordered the lamps to be put out, so that everything might be in darkness. Not only do I ask that schoolrooms should be opened for the use of ratepayers at election time, but at any time, and I venture to quote what the noble Lord the Member for Darwen has said on this subject, and I hope for his support to my proposal. He said—

"Meetings could not be limited to election time, and he looked forward to the time when the Primrose League would be able to demand the use of any public elementary school for holding concerts three times a week for purposes of political education."

May I ask from what report the hon. Member is quoting?

^* : From the report in the Times.

What I said was precisely the reverse. I was pointing out the impossibility of adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Essex, for it must inevitably and logically lead to the use of schools for the purposes I mentioned.

Well, I am quoting fairly from the Times' report, and if the word "not" is omitted I cannot help it. Now, I do not propose this clause as in any way a Party matter; it concerns Members on either side of the House. The grievance is not confined to voluntary schools; we know that the use of Board schools has been refused, because the Boards have been bound by agreement with the former managers of the school. Now, if these refusals have been felt as a grievance, how much more keen will that feeling be after the passing of this Bill, when we know that a very large proportion of the public elementary schools in England will be absolutely and entirely maintained by public money. I am asking for nothing new, I am asking only for an extension of the principle fairly and wisely laid down by the President of the Local Government Board last Session. Why, I should like to know, should the schoolrooms of public elementary schools be used for the purpose only of meetings under the allotments Act and the discussion of allotment questions which are to a large extent of a political and party character ["No, no,"]—at all events it is a political subject. Why should a schoolroom be used for allotment meetings and not for vestry meetings and public meetings generally? I go further, and ask why should the room not be used for purposes of amusement? It would not be just in all cases to grant the use of the room free of charge, and, therefore, I have inserted in the clause the provision—

"Subject to such regulations as may be approved by the Committee of Council on Education."

If any other safeguards can be suggested I am quite willing to adopt them in the clause. I merely wish to raise the question whether the public who pay for the maintenance of the schools are to be allowed to use them subject to proper supervision, the right, in fact, allowed for discussions under the Allotment Act, for the President of the Local Government Board will recognise the form of words which I have adapted from his own words for the Allotments Act. I will not occupy more time, for we are all anxious to get to the end of the Bill. If the Government desire any modifications in the clause I am quite willing to accept them, and if the clause is inserted I am sure it will give great public satisfaction, almost as great satisfaction as parents having their children educated without payment of fees. If the Government refuse to accept it I shall take a division in order that we may see who really are in favour of allowing the public the use of schoolrooms for public purposes.

A clause—

(Schools may be used for public meetings.)

"Any room in a school receiving the fee grant may, except during ordinary school hours, and subject to such regulations as may be approved by the Committee of Council on Education, be used for any vestry or parochial meeting or for any public meeting or other purpose, either for recreation or otherwise, by the inhabitants of the school district, but any damage done to the room, and any expense incurred by the person or persons having control over the room on account of its being so used shall be paid by the persons calling the meeting.

Nothing in this section shall give any right to use any schoolroom (a) unless not less than six days before the user a notice of the intention to use the room, on the day and at the time specified in the notice, signed by the persons requiring such user, being not less than six in number, and being ratepayers in the school district, has been given, if the school is under a school board, to the clerk of the board, and in any other case to one of the managers of the school; nor (b) if the use of the schoolroom on the said day and at the said time has, previously to the receipt of the notice, been granted for some other purpose; but in that case the clerk, or manager, or someone on his behalf, shall forthwith after the receipt of the notice inform in writing one of the persons signing it that the use of the school has been so granted for some other purpose, and name some other day on which the schoolroom can be used.

If the persons so asking for the use of the schoolroom fail to obtain it, they may appeal to the county council of the county in which the school district is situate, who shall forthwith decide the appeal and make such order respecting the use of the rooms as seems just,"—( Mr. Cobb, )

—brought up, and read the first time.

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

^* (6.17.) : Her Majesty's Government must oppose the insertion of this clause. This is no new question, as the hon. Member has said. It has often been raised before, but in a more direct manner on other occasions, not concealed as now it is in many words. At first sight it is a little difficult to detect the real object, but the hon. member, however, has in his speech completely disclosed the object he is in pursuit of in this Bill, which is for the purpose of relieving parents from the payment of fees. It is perfectly obvious that what the hon. Member is in pursuit of is a compulsory power to hand over private property to be used for political purposes. As regards recreation, as everybody acquainted with village life knows, compulsory power is not necessary, and the clause in that respect is unnecessary, while the protection the hon. Member purports to give to the managers is of a very indifferent nature. I assume that a contest is going on in a county between what is familiarly known as a carpet-bagger, who, I believe, is a gentleman who comes from a distance to try and oust some representative locally connected with the district, either a local landowner or somebody of local connection. I have often suffered under the infliction. This compulsory power is brought to bear on the managers of a school during a contested election, and they have to give up the schoolroom for an evening meeting. Supposing there is a very noisy meeting, and the school furniture is seriously injured, and the benches broken up, what is to happen when the school meets next day? These things are continually happening. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite I have often had to bolt from a meeting. It is no new experience to me, and I am obliged, therefore, not only to suggest but to insist upon it as one of the unpleasant features of electioneering. But how is the efficiency of a school to be kept up under such conditions? Compensation is not effectually provided in the enactment that damage done to the room shall be paid for by the persons calling the meeting. It may be very well for allotment meetings, which do not excite political feeling, though the hon. Member takes a different view and uses the Allotment Act for political purposes. But see how the provision as to liability for damage would work. The unfortunate gentleman connected with the locality calls a meeting—[Mr. WINTERBOTHAM The landowner]—call him by any hard name you please. The local gentleman as having called the meeting is to be responsible for damage, but his opponent comes in with a body of roughs and smashes up the whole meeting, and the unfortunate local gentleman not only has his head broken, but has to pay the whole damage caused, not by himself, but by his opponents. Surely this is not a proposition to be entertained. But these school buildings the hon. Member wishes to invade for political purposes are private property, and I insist strongly that the proposal might interfere seriously with the school work, and on that ground more especially I oppose the clause.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has used very practical arguments in opposition to the clause. I share the desire to get through with the Bill, and will therefore only mention the arguments in favour of the clause rapidly. In the first place the use of the schoolroom may be argued on grounds of economy, that the one public institution which is alone available in many English villages ought to be utilised for all public purposes so long as those public purposes are proper in themselves, and will do no damage to the original purpose for which that institution is established. I say that political purposes are the highest of public purposes for which such a room should be used. Politics are now conducted in an intelligent and educated manner. The time has passed—and I avoid saying a word in reference to one side of the House or the other—when politics were carried on in the backyard of a public house by means of piles of sovereigns, the work is now done in the face of day, and candidates seek to become Members by persuading their fellow-citizens, and we ask that all proper opportunity should be afforded for the exercise of persuasion and argument. This proposition involves no interference with education. At the present time the highest of political functions is carried on in our schools—the polling for County Council and Parliamentary Elections. This does interfere with school work, for it is carried on during school hours, but I believe the gain to parents educationally is greater than the loss of the day to the children's education, for they see that the election of a Member of the Legislature is a serious and solemn matter, and is considered by the State an important public purpose. The right hon. Gentleman talks of his personal experience, and we have all had personal experience. There are many landowners and managers, and I have not the slightest doubt, from what I know of him, that the right hon. Gentleman himself is one who would not scruple to lend any schoolroom in which they are pecuniarily interested for any purpose their poorer neighbours are in sufficient numbers anxious to promote. And what harm comes of it? How often are schoolrooms let for concerts, readings, lectures, meetings, with no more interference with the daily work of the school than there is interference with the discussion of a Railway Bill upstairs, by a meeting of Scotch Members being held in the Committee-room the evening before. It is not enough to say these are political partisan purposes. We are not ashamed that we are divided into two parties [An hon. MEMBER: More.]—two or more parties, that it is which in the long run keeps politics free and energetic. Finally, this is a question of justice, because in many cases, in the South of England at any rate, these schools are allowed to be occupied for political purposes by one Party and not by the other. I may be allowed to refer to a correspondence, omitting names of persons and places, a correspondence between the Secretary of a Liberal Association and one of the most amiable and kindly noblemen in the country. I will read only two sentences of his Lordship's reply when asked for the use of a schoolroom, which is the only place available for a meeting in a populous village. He says—

"At the time of the General Election and on ordinary occasions the use of the schoolroom has usually been freely conceded to both political Parties for these meetings."

And then the noble Lord goes on to base his refusal on grounds with which I will not trouble the House, but one of them is that the opinions of the Liberal Party at this moment are specially objectionable. [ Ministerial cheers and laughter. ] I am glad to give Gentlemen opposite the opportunity of indulging in a laugh, and all the more because when they come to examine the statement of the noble Lord they will see it is the strongest possible argument in favour of this Motion. Well, that is a school which receives £75 of public money, and henceforth it will receive £130 a year of public money. There are 600 schools already supported entirely by means of public money, and after this Bill is passed there will be a great many more. And yet you will allow one man—for the poorer the school the more entirely it is in the power of one man—to say whether or not any one of them shall be used for political purposes or purposes of recreation. Wise, just, and kindly managers now allow their neighbours to use the schoolrooms for political and other purposes, and we know that such extreme cases of disorder as the right hon. Gontleman referred to do not occur when such kindness is shown. We ask hon. Members to use that generosity and public spirit in their character as Members of Parliament, which I am sure they would use in their character as managers of public schools.

I do not know whether it is of any good, but I wish to make an appeal to Members who represent rural constituencies on the other side of the House. I know many representing towns and cities know little of the intense feeling this question arouses in country districts, but some on the other side do, and I am not at all without hope that a good many hon. Members sitting opposite will vote for this Amendment, which ought not to be of a Party character. There is another appeal I want to make. I believe two-thirds of the clergy in the county in which I live already give more or less cordially the use of village schoolrooms for these purposes. I believe that the more moderate and broadminded clergy of the Church of England, if they could advise the House on this point, would say, "In the interests of the voluntary schools themselves and of the Church do not flout public opinion and refuse parishioners the use of national schoolrooms." The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education said carpet-baggers and mountebanks would be able to take advantage of this clause, and actually commit the heinous sin of opposing local landowners! He forgot, however, the words put in the forefront of the clause, that the power shall only be exercised subject to such regulations and restrictions as the Education Department shall make. I think the argument about mountebanks was a very unworthy one to use. Speaking as a Churchman, I think the Government have listened far too much in these Debates to those who represent not the bulk of the clergy or laity, but a small and bigotted minority. I do not believe it is the wish of many of the clergy that this non possumus should be so constantly repeated again and again. We are going to take a Division, and those who represent rural constituencies will very soon have to explain to their electors why they have voted for or against giving the use of the national schoolrooms for national purposes; whether the labourers are to be trusted to behave decently and orderly; or whether the Minister of Education's opinion is right, that they are a set of savages who will smash up the furniture! Are these schools, built to a large extent with national money, and which after the passing of this Bill will be supported almost exclusively with public money, private schools or national schools? If they are private property tell the people so, and I venture to prophesy that they will not remain private property long.

^* (6.38.) : I entirely agree with the arguments that have been used by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and I only rise for the purpose of relieving the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President. I was for several years a member of the Sheffield School Board, and we had before us the question of the conditions under which schoolrooms should be used for meetings. We recommended that a moderate charge should be made, according to a scale, for the use of the rooms, and that the person hiring them should obtain a guarantee from responsible persons for any damage that was done. I do not understand on what ground rooms need be refused even to the carpet-bagger, who seems to be so much objected to by the right hon. Gentleman, provided that he and his Friends are able to give a substantial guarantee for the repair of any damage done. The opposition that comes from the other side is prompted by a desire to protect the landowners against other people going into their districts as candidates or as "agitators."

I could very much have wished that the hon. Member who moved the clause had been able to find some words to safeguard those who have the management of schools. I am anxious to see the village schoolrooms open to all political parties where there is no fear that any damage will be done to the schools. Unfortunately that is not safeguarded by the Amendment. I think we should remove the restrictions at present imposed upon many managers, who are altogether precluded from lending their schools for political purposes by the terms of their trust. That is the great difficulty that managers have not been able to cope with.

^* : I am glad that the hon. Member who has just sat down has shown that he has some sympathy with the Amendment. I quite appreciate two objections that have been offered to the clause. The first is that it is hardly cognate to the objects of the Bill, but as you, Sir, have ruled that the clause is in order, it is necessary for us, who are in favour of the principle, to vote for the Second Reading. The second objection is that the terms of the clause are too wide. I should have preferred to see this right confined to meetings of public interest and importance, excluding such general words as "for recreation or otherwise." I should also have preferred to see the clause confined to places where there are no other public buildings available for meetings. But I conceive that if the clause is read a second time it will be quite within the competence of hon. Members to move Amendments so as to frame it in accordance with their views. After all, the general principle is simply that these schoolrooms, which are largely supported out of public money, and which are often the only rooms available for public purposes, should, when necessary, be devoted to those purposes. That is a principle I have expressed approval of on many public occasions in my own constituency, and which I shall now by my vote express approval of in this House. In years gone by, when I was not so favourably regarded by school managers as I am now, I was constantly refused the use of schoolrooms, and driven either into public houses or barns, or even into the open air. I am now sometimes refused the use of them on, as it seems to me, the very unsatisfactory ground—that the use of them has already been refused to my opponents. I always say on such occasions that I wish my opponents had the use of the schoolrooms as I desire to have it myself. I desire that in future these rooms shall be available to all parties, under proper safeguards, for all legitimate public purposes.

^* : I very much regret that this proposal was not discussed in Committee, for then the clause might have been amended.

It can be amended now.

^* : We shall not be able to discuss it—that is to say, a Member will not be able to speak more than once. I shall be obliged to vote against the Amendment, but I should like to explain that I thoroughly sympathise with the grievance felt in many villages that the use of schoolrooms is not allowed for public meetings.

There are two points I wish to put before the House before a Division is taken. This clause was first brought forward in Committee, and it is now brought forward on Report. We are, therefore, discussing it by consent of both sides of the House and by the direction of the Chairman of Committees. We are now on the Second Reading, and after it is passed, Amendments can be moved. Several Amendments have been suggested from different parts of the House. I would call attention to the point raised in the speech of the hon. Member for North Somerset. He said there are cases where the trust-deeds of schools prevent school buildings being used for these purposes. It is desirable that where the managers would like to have them used for political purposes power should be given to enable that to be done. That power will be given under this clause. It may be that one or two words will have to be inserted in the clause to make it clear that the clause is intended to override trust deeds. They could be easily introduced after the clause is read a second time. The other remark I would make is this. I have often discussed this question as regards the use of schoolrooms with various clerical friends. Some of them have told me that they would like to be able to lend the schools to both parties. "But," they say, "we are in a position of great difficulty, for if we were to lend them to the party in a minority, to which very few of our friends and supporters belong, we should be exposed to a good deal of odium." I believe that if this clause were passed, and it were no longer a matter of option with them, a great many clergymen of the Church of England would welcome the change.

^* (6.48.) : I should not have risen if I had not been so pointedly alluded to in connection with several incidents which took place in South Suffolk, before I was elected. I would only say that since that happy time there has been a considerable change. I believe the use of the schoolrooms are now hardly ever denied. But, Sir, I do not think that removes the entire grievance. I think now, as I thought then, that the schoolroom in every village, where there is no other room suitable for the purpose, ought to be open for the political meetings of either party under proper safeguards in regard to enforcement of payment for any damage that might be done. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman who has conducted this Bill through the House with so much good temper and so much tact, has not thought it desirable to make some concession at least in the direction of the Motion before the House. I believe it would be possible to satisfy large numbers of people in the villages and a great many lovers of fair play without running the slightest risk of interrupting the labours of the schools or of damaging the buildings in which they are carried on.

I desire to second the appeal made by the hon. Member for Somersetshire, on the ground that this is by no means a Party question. I can assure the House that there are other managers of public schools besides the clergy of the Church of England who are hampered in this matter because their trust deeds do not allow them to grant the use of their schools for political meetings. There is a dissenting sect in this country whose sympathies, I believe, in the balance rather incline to the Opposition side of the House, who would grant the use of their schools to both political parties impartially, but they are unable to do it on account of the clauses in their trust. I hope the House will accede to the appeal of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, and amend the clause, as the hon. Member for Rugby is ready to do.

^* : With the permission of the House, I beg to say that if the clause is read a second time I shall be willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset and any other reasonable Amendment that may be proposed.

(6.51.) The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 178.—(Div. List, No. 333.)

I now beg to move the new clause which stands in my name—

"The accounts of every school receiving a fee grant shall be audited by the district auditor in accordance with regulations to be made by the Local Government Board, and a certified copy of the accounts shall be sent within 14 days after the conclusion of the audit to the local educational authority, who shall permit inspection thereof, and allow copies thereof to be taken at all reasonable times."

Hon. Members will observe that the clause divides itself into two parts. The first part has reference to the provision for auditing the accounts, and the second part deals with their publication. It seems to mo that the provisions of the law, as far as the accounts of School Board schools are concerned, are already adequate and sufficient. Under the Act of 1870 it was provided that the auditor of the School Board accounts shall be the auditor of the accounts relating to the relief of the poor for the audit district in which the school is situate, and, when the auditor has completed his audit, he is bound by the provisions of the Act to sign the balance sheet. After this the School Board has to cause a statement, showing the receipts and expenditure, to be printed in such from, and with such particulars, as may be from time to time prescribed by the Education Department, and must send within 30 days of the time the balance sheet has been signed by the auditor a copy of the statement to each of the rating authorities, and also to the overseers of every parish in the district, and to the Educational Department. So much in regard to the auditing of the accounts of the School Boards. I think the provisions of the Act are in that case perfectly sufficient and satisfactory, and so also are the provisions of the Act in regard to the publication of the accounts of different School Boards. It is provided that the School Boards may, if they think fit, publish a statement of the accounts, or an abstract thereof, in any local newspaper, or in any newspaper circulating in the district, and that they shall also furnish a copy of such accounts to any ratepayer in the district upon his application, and on the payment of a sum not exceeding 6d. I do not propose to alter the law as far as the School Boards are concerned. What I wish is that the law may be extended to the audit of the accounts of the voluntary schools. I contend that the provisions of the existing law, as far as the voluntary school accounts are concerned, are by no means satisfactory. As I understand the matter, the question of auditing the accounts of the voluntary schools is determined, not by Act of Parliament, but by the provisions of the Code. The provision of the Code dealing with this subject is to be found in Article 18. Under that Article it is said that the Inspectors are empowered to visit schools and examine whether the conditions of annual grants have been fulfilled, and they must report to the Department, but it is not said that the Inspectors must audit the accounts of the voluntary schools, and as a matter of fact, I believe they do not either claim to audit the accounts or carry out the audit in practice. I think I am borne out in my interpretation of the Code by the sentence which follows, and in which it says the Department may, if they think it necessary, employ auditors of accounts to visit these schools and inspect the accounts. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will probably admit that the Education Department have simply the power to send auditors to audit the accounts of voluntary schools, but they are not obliged by law to see that those accounts are properly audited. Now, I hold that abundant evidence was given before the Royal Commission, showing that it is necessary that the accounts of all public elementary schools should be audited. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to the Report of the Minority of the Royal Commission they will see that they practically insist on the necessity of there being an audit of the accounts of the voluntary schools as well as of those of the Board schools, because they say, we "are of opinion that the accounts of all schools receiving public money should be equally thoroughly audited, and that the same rule should apply to their expenditure." The minority go on to refer to the circular which was issued in the North of England, and which proved the necessity for a public and efficient audit of the accounts of the voluntary schools. In that circular the managers of these schools are told of certain devices, which, if they follow them, will enable them to increase the sums of money they can obtain in the shape of a Parlimentary grant. I will quote only one or two of the hints given in this particular circular. It is there said that as much as possible the scholars should be encouraged to purchase their own school requisites, either from their managers or their school teachers. The amount returned from the sale of school materials may be reckoned as income. It is also stated that all accounts as to the purchase of school materials should be paid in full, and that the discounts received should be entered as items of income. Again, it is said that where the managers provide the residences for the teachers the latter should pay the rent for the same, and their salaries should be correspondingly increased. And, lastly, it is said that all necessary work which is performed gratuitously for the schools should be returned as paid for and the amount returned as donations. It seems to me that unless you have an efficient public audit of the accounts of the voluntary schools, you have no security that these schools are really earning the Government grant. So much with regard to the necessity for the audit. I now come to the remaining part of the clause which deals with the publication of accounts. On this subject the majority and the minority of the Royal Commission are at one. They say they think it right that the accounts of all voluntary schools should be open to public inspection in the same way as the accounts of the Board schools. I, therefore, claim that with regard to the latter part of my clause I have the whole of the Commission at my back—the minority as well as the majority. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council may tell me that the new Code provides for the audit of the accounts of the voluntary schools. It does profess to do so, but the terms of the Code in this particular are by no means sufficiently wide and satisfactory. I should like to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken or intends to take to see that the provisions of the Code are vigorously carried out in the future. It seems to me that we ought to deal with the two classes of schools—the Board schools and the voluntary schools—in precisely the same way. The Parliamentary grant is given to both classes of schools on the principle of perfect equality, and both classes of schools ought, therefore, to submit to having their accounts audited and published in precisely the same way. I beg, Sir, to move the clause I have placed on the Paper, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will on consideration see his way to accept it.

Another Clause (Audit of Accounts,)( Mr. Summers, )—brought up, and read the first time.

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

^* (7.15.) : The hon. Member has pleaded that there is no distinction between voluntary and Board schools, but it is perfectly obvious that there must be a great distinction. I will not press that point, however. I have already stated in Committee that ample provision exists with regard to auditing the accounts of voluntary schools. They are submitted to the Inspector, every item is examined. Afterwards they are subjected to severe criticism by the Education Department, and every source of income and its application are known to the Department, and also to the Auditor General. As to a local audit the hon. Member seems to be unaware of the fact that it would involve considerable expenditure, besides creating an additional Imperial charge. No school would obtain an audit under £2, and if the whole army of voluntary schools were to be subjected to this audit it is perfectly obvious that the central staff would have to be increased with consequent increase of the Imperial expenditure. I hope the House will not accept the first part of the clause. With regard to the remaining portion of it, I believe that the provision that all free school accounts shall be exhibited in some public place is ample for the purpose. I need hardly say that if the Code is insufficient in this respect it will be easy to amend it to meet the views of hon. Members. I hope, however, the clause will not be accepted.

^* (7.18.) : I think the House will regret the decision of the Vice President, seeing that the case for strictly auditing the accounts of denominational schools, strong before, has been made more necessary by the changes which the Bill has undergone in Committee, and still further by the adoption of the Motion of the noble Lord (Cranborne). The inspection of those accounts by Her Majesty's Inspectors is insufficient. They should go through the ordeal to which the accounts of Board schools are subjected. The Vice President was encouraged by the cheers of his colleague (Mr. Ritchie), who can hardly have forgotten that when, two years ago, we were discussing the Technical Instruction Act, he himself brought in a clause requiring that all schools receiving public money under that Act were to be submitted to audits by officers of the Local Government Board.

^* : I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in that instance the public rates were involved, that it was not an instance of the expenditure of Imperial money.

^* : I grant the distinction. Still, our contention is that we are dealing with schools supported by public money, and that, therefore, their accounts should be inspected on behalf of the public. I have heard of a case where the grant, instead of being paid to the school, has gone to the clergyman, and when he died, his affairs were in confusion, and the school fund sustained a considerable loss. I know of a case where money intended for the school has been expended in Church services. I know of another case—and I believe all these cases can be authenticated—where money intended for the provision of a recreation ground was spent upon a field for the clergyman, who allowed the school to use it only for their annual fête. I believe these cases could be multiplied indefinitely. At any rate, I think the accounts of these schools ought to be above suspicion, and subjected to the verification of a professional auditor.

When rates are expended, you have some sort of guarantee that they will be spent properly, but in the case of Imperial money sent to the country in large sums, you have no guarantee that it will be spent according to the Act of Parliament or the intention of Parliament. I hold that there should be no distinction between local rates and Imperial money, and that in both instances there should be an audit such as is now demanded.

One reason of great importance in support of this proposal has not been mentioned. It is that by allowing this audit, you would relieve the Inspector of a great deal of detail, and give him more time for his educational work, for which he has little enough time now.

(7.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 145.—(Div. List, No. 334.)

The Amendment which I have to propose has for its object to make it clear that the school managers are free, not only at the present time but hereafter as well, to refuse the fee grant. I do not think any harm could be caused by accepting this Amendment.

Amendment proposed in page 1, line 13, after the word "are," to insert the words "from time to time." —( Mr. Talbot. )

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

I do not quite understand the Amendment. I am afraid it would allow of school managers making their schools free at one time, and fee-paying at another. If this would be the effect, I object to the Amendment.

I hope my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council will not accept the Amendment. We much prefer the clause as it stands.

I think we ought to have some authoritative explanation of the meaning and effect of these words.

^* : I must say I think that the words are unnecessary, because it is clear that the managers have absolute freedom at any time to refuse the fee grant. If any alteration is to be made I shall prefer the words "at any time" to "from time to time."

^* : I think some alteration of the clause is necessary.

^* : Unless we can ascertain the exact meaning of these words, I think it would be very dangerous to accept the Amendment. They might enable managers first to accept the fee grant and make a school a free school and subsequently to re-impose fees.

I think the difficulty which is being raised by hon. Members opposite is purely imaginary.

I have no desire to introduce any new principle into the Bill. As the Amendment is objected to I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move the omission of the words "as to fees" in line 15. The clause provides that the fee grant is to be given if it is desired by the managers, and if the Department are satisfied that the regulations of the school as to fees are in accordance with the conditions of the Act. I think the words "as to fees" are unnecessary and in some respects inconsistent.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "as to fees." —( Mr. Edmund Robertson. )

Question proposed, "That the words as to fees,' stand part of the Bill."

^* : I cannot accept that Amendment. The words were carefully examined in Committee.

^* : I must say that the words as they stand are not quite clear. The new clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to incorporate in the Bill deals with other matters besides fees.

^* : I hope the Vice President will be good enough to reconsider his decision. I do not think the omission of these words can do any harm.

^* : It is impossible to strike out the words.

I cannot see any force in the objections to this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

I now propose the next Amendment standing in my name. I desire to insert words to provide that where the fee grant of 10s. exceeds in a school the amount of fees that have been paid in the year ending 1890, the surplus shall be applied for such educational purposes and in such manner as shall be approved by the Education Department, and for this purpose the manager shall submit to the Department a scheme for the application of the surplus. This is, I think, a matter of considerable importance to denominational schools; if voluntary schools are to be kept up they must justify their existence; the result of incorporating this clause in the Bill will be to secure greater efficiency in these schools. If the clause imposes upon managers the duty of preparing a scheme it will be operative, and in this way means will be taken to secure the application of the surplus to educational purposes, a point wholly unprovided for by the Bill as it stands. A Return recently presented to the House shows that in many of the schools the fees are less than the amount of the fee grant now to be given. There will, therefore, be a surplus in the hands of managers, and I desire that it shall be used to secure greater efficiency of education instead of relieving the friends of voluntary schools of the duty of subscribing to their support. In many schools in Wales there will be a surplus to be disposed of, and I would urge that the money might be used for providing technical instruction which is of especial importance to particular localities. I strongly believe that subscribers to voluntary schools will much prefer that this should be done, because their poorer neighbours will greatly benefit by such an arrangement, and I have no doubt that one result will be the preparation in rural districts of schemes of agricultural education, which would be of immense benefit. Unless something of the kind I suggest is done, very much of the time of Parliament will be occupied, and probably wasted, in fruitless discussion as to the way in which the money has been allocated. Questions will be asked from all sides of the House as to how the money has been applied, and if the answers are not satisfactory, it is very likely there will be endless discussions in Supply. It may be said, in respect to the latter part of my Amendment, that a considerable amount of additional work will be imposed on the Education Department. But surely it may well be provided that each district shall submit their scheme for the utilisation of the surplus to the local Inspectors. The previous submission of the schemes to the Inspectors would considerably lighten the burdens of those gentlemen when they went down to examine the schools, for they would simply be carrying out schemes of which they had approved. The Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne), which has already been accepted, enables schools to be grouped together for certain purposes. That is a very admirable idea, and may well be carried out in the case contemplated by my Amendment. I submit it is very important we should do something in the nature of what I propose, otherwise there will be a blot upon this Act which it will be very difficult to remove.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 16, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Provided that where such fee grant of ten shillings shall exceed in any particular school the aggregate amount of fees paid at such school for the year ending the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and ninety, then, and in such case, the surplus shall, subject to the provision hereinafter contained with regard to the grouping of schools, be applied for such educational purposes, and in such manner as shall be approved by the Education Department, and for this purpose the managers of such school shall from time to time after the commencement of this Act submit to the said Department a scheme for the application of the said surplus."—( Mr. Lloyd-George. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." (8.5.)

^* (8.41.) : I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I do so largely on the ground I have previously stated to the House, namely, that if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is really desirous of giving a great boon to the parents and children of this country he ought to accept some such Amendment as this. One of the charges which is often brought against this Bill by hon. Members on the other side of the House is that it is a mere piece of electioneering tactics, a charge which hon. Members on this side of the House have certainly not brought so frequently against their opponents.

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

I was observing, when interrupted by the counting of the House, that I do not agree with the charge of this Bill as a mere bribe. I have too good an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to make this charge against him. It is a charge which is brought more frequently by his own friends than by his enemies; but unless this Amendment, or something like it, be adopted, the charge that will be made respecting this Bill will be not so much that it is an electioneering Bill as that it is brought forward Partly in relief of the parents and partly in relief of the subscribers. I feel assured that the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious that this Bill should go down to posterity as a subscribers' relief Bill; he would infinitely prefer that it should hereafter be regarded as a real educational measure which not only does away with fees, but which can be used as a great weapon for the improvement of our national education. Now, Sir, I maintain that nothing can be done in the way of improving the education in our elementary schools by means of this surplus except by direct instructions from Parliament, and here I would point out that Acts of Parliament like this are not so valuable as means of deciding questions of law as they are when considered as guides to administrators.. Unless some special provision be made to meet the case of those schools where the fee grant exceeds the present income, the measure cannot possibly be useful as a means of bringing about what my hon. Friend desires to effect by his Amendment. It has been contended by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and especially by the First Lord of the Treasury, that our attempts to earmark the surplus grant is in reality only a penalising of the managers of schools who have been hitherto able to charge low fees. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that this House had, in effect, contracted with School Boards and the managers of voluntary schools that if they could only charge low fees this House would pass a Bill giving them a sort of reward that would enable them to carry out their contracts. So far, however, from this, we know that in every constituency in England and Wales numbers of gentlemen have denounced root and branch any attempt to secure free schools; and, instead of the school managers doing their work under any implied contract with the House, they have done it by their own efforts, and have thus evidenced the futility of the arguments offered by the First Lord of the Treasury. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, who knows what is the condition of elementary education in this country, and ask him whether he can get up and deny that there is great need, especially in the schools to which this surplus will come, for increased efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the other night the figures quoted by a colleague of mine, to the effect that a percentage of boys and girls who attained the Fifth and Sixth and Seventh Standards, is deplorably low, and a former Vice President of the Council, the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Play-fair), has also called attention to this matter. I think it is one of the most deplorable facts in connection with our educational system that, in spite of the millions of money expended every year on elementary education, only a few miserable thousands of boys and girls are receiving education in the higher standards. Is it not natural when we find a sum approaching £250,000 is to be given to these schools as a sort of windfall, which they never expected and have no right or claim to, that we should press the right hon. Gentleman to insert a provision in this Bill that this large sum shall be utilised for increasing the educational efficiency of the schools? During the discussions that have taken place on this Bill I have looked through the Reports issued by the Inspectors for several years past, and, without wishing to weary the House, I will ask leave to read one or two short extracts to show that the Inspectors who come into actual contact with the details of this educational system are quite alive to this fact. The Inspector for the Eastern Division of England (Mr. Smith) says—

"The great problem, it seems to me, is how to secure to our children on leaving school the instruction, admirable as far as it goes, which they have attained. It is lamentable to notice the difference between the boy of 11 or 12 years when ha is turned out of school as a finished article and the lout of 15 or 16 when one meets him very rarely in a night-school. Polish, manners, often, I fear, morals—all gone; he is a complete contrast in his dull, dense, deadened faculties to the bright, sharp lad with eager eye and hand outstretched scarcely to be restrained from answering every question before his turn whom one remembers only a few years ago."

Sir, we have £250,000 of public money which can be earmarked for the special purpose of increasing the efficiency of the schools, but we see that the vast majority of the children, especially in the rural districts, leave the schools at the age of 12 or 13, and have no further educational advantages whatever. The right hon. Gentleman may ask me, how do you expect to confer the benefits of continued education on these children? I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend makes it easy to do this. Take an ordinary country school well started and well conducted with a surplus of £50 or £60. Surely a part of that sum could be devoted to the object of enhancing the work of the school. It might be utilised for the purpose of starting an evening school, or for the teaching of specific subjects. Suppose the case of a number of schools, say five or six, with a surplus of £5 each in a particular district. By organising and grouping those schools you may employ a peripatetic teacher, who would go to each of them imparting the instruction that might be required. I would remind the House that, speaking at a Conference of the Society of Arts on 15th of December, 1890, in the presence of a large number of the ablest educationalists of this country, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council made these very sage and wise remarks—

"To my mind, the only practical way in which to carry on agricultural teaching is to have a central system. You must, I think, group together different villages and different schools, and have peripatetic teachers. If you do this you will find that the extra cost to school managers on the one hand and to the ratepayers on the other would be very small indeed, and yet you will be able to carry out in excellent system of agricultural education."

But I say that, unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, the present Bill, so far from being used for the organisation of schools with a system of peripatetic teaching, will merely operate in the relief of local contributions; whereas, if the Amendment be accepted, instead of shovelling out money to relieve subscribers, he will be starting a system of much-needed education whereby he will be enabled to stimulate local effort. I wish here to make a special point with regard to Wales in reference to the question of evening schools, and, in doing so, will quote one sentence from the Report of Mr. Watts, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors in Wales —the Inspector for the Carnarvon District, who, speaking on the question of evening schools, says—

"I hope, notwithstanding that the day is not far distant when the peculiar facilities which this district physically and otherwise affords for the study of natural science, will suggest the formation of evening classes for instruction in agricultural chemistry, geology, and navigation."

In Wales there is special need for these evening schools. Until lately, the language of the people—the language used by them in their homes and in public worship—was proscribed in all the public schools. It was the right hon. Gentleman who first admitted this, and inserted provisions in the Code which will have the effect of revolutionising that system. But I say that that is not enough; we ought to do something to remedy the injurious effects already produced by that system on the education of Wales. The result of the proscription I have referred to was that, although the teachers were at first able to secure favourable results, yet so artificial, automatic, and unnatural was the method of teaching the children in a language they did not understand that it will belong before its effects will be wiped away. I say, then, that when we are giving so much money under this Bill, we ought to do something to repair this state of things—something to compensate the children for the immense and incalculable loss they have hitherto sustained. But there is another point on which education can be immensely improved by means of this surplus grant. The surplus of the grant will be about £250,000, and Wales will have about £20,000. Now, in answering a question I put to him to-day, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President seemed to cast a doubt on the value of the advanced or high-grade schools in Wales, and suggested that the work would be better done in the secondary schools. Let me call attention to the fallacy, the mistake in the suggestion.

^* : No; I only indicated an alternative. I suggested that the excess of income might be applied to establishing evening schools, or to higher elementary education.

^* : I am glad the right hon. Gentleman admitted the necessity for increasing higher-grade schools, and by adopting this proposal much would be done under this Act. In the towns of North Wales—in such towns as Ruabon, in the coal districts, in Glamorganshire, in Monmouthshire, and other industrial centres—it would be possible to establish higher-grade schools, to which would be drawn the pick of the boys and girls from all the elementary schools in the district. You may say that these boys and girls should go to the secondary schools, but the aim of educationalists in Wales is not to diminish the use of these schools, but to utilise them to prepare children for special and technical education. Where these exist you could give a higher education to the more promising children. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman ought to take an interest in this matter. There is nothing in the official career of the right hon. Gentleman of which he is more justly proud than that he has established technical education and helped to pass the Welsh Intermediate Schools Act. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now to increase the number of scholars by establishing higher-grade schools and evening schools. I will not refer to the question of agricultural schools—my hon. Friend has referred to that part of the subject—but let me say a word on the question of organisation of schools. By a very small amendment in the proposal of my hon. Friend you might draw up a scheme for the grouping of schools in a district for the disposal of the surplus. In this grouping there would be an opportunity for organisation and for using the surplus to the best purpose. I can understand that one objection that will be brought is that in many cases the surplus is so small as to be inappreciable. Then I say that, by a scheme comprised in two lines, the small surplus could go to increasing the efficiency of the present day schools; but if the surplus is appreciable, the school managers ought to be called upon to draw up a scheme to be submitted to the Education Department, which could approve or amend it. Another objection will, no doubt, be urged to this Amendment, that it sets up different tests for different schools, but I think this is a very small objection. I have dealt with the argument that we are under no kind of bar- gain with the schools which will get this money that it is a reward for services in the past, and we may quite fairly ask that it shall be used for educational purposes. There is nothing in the objection that we are applying different tests to different schools. The only value it has, if any, is that it means that we are placing upon a certain set of schools the duty of levelling up. The first duty of a Minister of Education ought to be to raise the level of the best schools, and the next to try to bring the inferior schools to the level of the superior. Here is an opportunity, with this £250,000, to raise the level of half the schools of England and Wales. This Amendment will have no prejudicial effect upon the forward schools, but it will have a stimulating effect upon backward schools. The first, last, and middle argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that all this can be done by the present Code. But the fact is, there must be some special provision if we are to deal with a special class of schools. The Code cannot deal with this surplus. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of education generally, and especially of education in Wales, to make the concession we ask for.

It seems to me the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not quite consistent with the object of the Bill, and, further, the Amendment he proposes is to be carried out at other peoples' expense. The existence of the surplus depends entirely upon the continuance to the voluntary schools of the voluntary subscriptions; if the donors do not agree to continue them there will be no surplus. The only principle upon which the Government fixes upon 10s. as the amount of the fee grant is by going upon the average, and when we go upon the average we must take into account places where fees are low as well as where they are high. I hope, as the Government have taken the principle of average, they will stick to it and resist the Amendment. I do not see the force of the objection urged against relieving the rates or the subscribers whose resources have been taxed in the past. Nor do I see why, when the Government propose to relieve the parents of fees and to make a grant to the locality, those who have borne the heat and the burden of the day in time past should not, to some extent, reap the benefit of the Bill.

^* (9.18.) : The speech we have just heard supplies abundant proof of the necessity for the Amendment. It shows that, in his opinion, the surplus grant beyond the fees would be used for the purpose of reducing rates and subscriptions. This seems to be a view which is largely taken by persons who are connected with the voluntary schools. Before the Vice President rises I wish to add a few words to the forcible speeches of my hon. Friends who have put the Welsh point of view, for I have experience of a rural district where this question is equally important. This is the last opportunity we shall have of doing something in the clauses of this Bill for the promotion of education. As the Bill stands it does nothing for education. The Bill confers an enormous boon upon the parents of children at school, and it will confer great benefit on schools; but the Bill does nothing for securing better education. There will be a surplus of something like £300,000 arising from the substitution of this fee grant for the fees paid hitherto, but we have no security that the efficiency of the schools will be increased. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division said a few nights ago that there was a question affecting Board schools as well as voluntary schools. He spoke of the system of rigid economy pursued by some School Boards in the South of England, and I quite admit that this matter equally concerns voluntary and Board schools. I have within my personal knowledge a case of such rigid economy being practised to the extent that the School Board determined to dismiss their schoolmaster, who had carried the school to an extraordinary pitch of efficiency—bettering his own position at the same time—in order to save £30 a year. Though the Board did yield to the strong public feeling excited, and the petition I was instrumental in getting numerously signed, and did not actually dismiss the schoolmaster, he was so worried and disgusted by the affair that he sent in his resignation, and a new schoolmaster was appointed at a salary less by £30. I find that the effect of this Bill will be to give a grant to this school of exactly £30 a year in excess of its present fees. I have no confidence whatever that this £30 will be spent in increasing the efficiency of the school. It should be made known in the clearest manner to managers, Inspectors, and others that the excess which may accrue to the school should be really used for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the school. I contend that it is greatly in the interest of the voluntary schools that this Amendment should be inserted. If the increased grant which is given to the schools is not used for the purpose of increasing the efficiency, but for the purpose of enabling a reduction of subscriptions to be made, then the number of schools which will be able to get on without any subscriptions at all will be enormously increased; and, therefore, just as in proportion as those schools increase so will the danger to the voluntary system grow.

^* (9.29.) : The wording of the Amendment is ungrammatical, not to say nonsensical, and I do not think that it will accomplish what hon. Gentlemen expect from it. But apart from verbal criticism, I do not see how you can by this means provide that the money shall not be applied to the reduction of subscriptions. But there is something to be said even in favour of that point of view. One result of this Act will be that in future School Board schools will be entirely free. That can only be brought about by a considerable increase of the rates; and in the districts where the voluntary schools and the School Board schools exist side by side, the people who are supporting the voluntary schools will find their pockets taxed far more than they have been in the past in order that the children in School Board schools may get their education free. If, then, the Bill takes money out of one of their pockets, it is but fair that it should put something into the other. The keenness of competition will ensure that the money received by the voluntary schools will be spent in increasing their efficiency. It is a great mistake to impute blame to those schools that maintain a high degree of efficiency with small or with no voluntary subscriptions at all, for it must be remembered that the managers are responsible for all the expenses of the schools; and that if they do not manage them economically, they will have to pay all the additional expenses requisite. If they are able, by economical management, to make their schools efficient, and avoid a deficit, why should we throw stones at them on account of that economical management? It is because they are answerable for extra expenses that the extra expenses are small. Credit is due to them for obtaining good results with economical expenditure, especially when we see around us examples of lavish expenditure without securing good results. The Education Department has it in its power to secure the efficiency of all public elementary schools. The Inspectors will have to go round and see that the schools meet all the requirements of the Education Department; and, if that is so, what reason is there for demanding more? If the schools have not been up to the mark why is it? It is because the Inspectors, finding them in poor neighbourhoods, with very limited resources, have been lenient to them; but this leniency will not be extended to them in the future. Under this Bill they will be in receipt of more money, and the Inspectors will insist on their being made more efficient. I think the House will be well advised to let well alone, and will be unwise to hamper managers in the way proposed by the supporters of the Amendment.

The hon. Member has given rather a dark picture of the present state of efficiency of the voluntary schools, and I suppose he must be taken as having had considerable experience of the working of the Elementary Education Act. He has based his objection to the Second Reading of this clause on what are really only verbal difficulties.

^* : We are not upon the Second Reading of the clause, but upon an Amendment.

At any rate, the objections the hon. Member raises can be removed by Amendments. The main principle we are discussing in the Amendment is that any surplus arising from the fee grant ought to be devoted to the purpose of educational improvement. Now, I should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet the Vice President of the Council or the Government generally deny that there is likely to be a surplus in a considerable number of cases? Undoubtedly there will be a surplus in many cases. Well, what is to be done with that surplus? Something should be done with it. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council hold that it would be right to make use of the surplus in such a way as to reduce the necessity for subscriptions? I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman entertains such an idea. Then to what purpose does he propose that the surplus shall be devoted? Surely there can be no better application of it than in the improvement of educational appliances and results. The hon. Member for Stockport has said: "If you obtain efficiency, what more can you want?" Those who put that question forget that efficiency is a constantly growing quantity. What was regarded as efficiency 10 years ago is not regarded as efficiency now, and what is regarded as efficiency now will not be considered efficiency 10 years hence. We wish in supporting this clause to have an eye to the future, and to secure that we shall have the resources for obtaining that improvement to which we all look forward. But it is possible that, if the surplus is not taken advantage of to reduce subscriptions, it will be used to defray Church expenses, Sunday school expenses, and the cost of Sunday school treats. Expenditure for such objects out of the funds of elementary denominational schools is not unknown at the present day. For example, the accounts of the schools connected with St. Augustine, Kilburn, as published by the Rev. R. C. Kirkpatrick, vicar, in the Parish Magazine, show that a sum of £40 was spent in this way in the year 1889. The voluntary subscriptions towards these schools amount to £102, whilst the expenditure is £1,701. I find in the Parish Magazine, in a statement of accounts, the following items—Sunday school expenses, deficit on treats £26 12s. 9d., and expenses of parish house—whatever that may be—£16 8s. 8d. Well, Sir, here is the whole case. What guarantee is there that the surplus of the fee grants will not be devoted to similar purposes? I think we are justified in asking for some guarantee that this money, coming direct from the Public Exchequer, shall not be spent for purposes of this kind.

^* (9.41.) : So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned this Amendment certainly does not break fresh ground, for a great deal has been said about this subject in Committee. I have very little in the shape of new argument to add to what I have already said. I cannot get over this, that whatever may be the intentions of the framers of the Amendment, yet there is not in any part of it a power to insure the efficiency of schools. This efficiency was, as a matter of fact, provided for under the Code, which lays down that a school must be efficient to secure the grant. The hon. Member for Merioneth expressed a hope that I would not adduce the Code as an argument in answer to the appeal now made. But it is necessary to refer to the Code, as there, and there alone—for they are not in any Act of Parliament—are laid down the penal consequences of inefficiency. I have given assurances again and again, that whenever and wherever there is a surplus over the fee grant, that in the case of an inefficient school, it shall be at once applied to increasing the efficiency of the school, and bringing it up to a proper level. This Amendment is again a direct challenge as to the future action of the Education Department in dealing with this class of schools. The question has been asked again and again in debate, as to whether or not the Department will do their duty in the future and secure the efficiency of the schools; and it has been hinted that the Code is not a sufficient instrument for enabling them to do this. Well, I should like to point out what the instructions to the Inspectors under the Code of 1891 are. The Code says that in the case of the less efficient schools, unless improvement is made, the whole grant may be withheld. Through the Code itself, and through the instructions given to the Inspectors, penal consequences must be incurred by these schools if they are not efficient. It has been said that where the fees are low and there are no subscriptions, or scarcely any subscriptions, it is injurious to the cause of education that the school should continue to exist. In reply to that, I maintain that it is impossible for such schools to exist at the present moment. This Amendment is either mandatory in its character or it is not. If it is merely declaratory it is not worth much, but even if it does command something, what more effect could it have as regards the operations of the Education Department than that which will be produced by the measure as it now stands before the House. The Education Department, and all those who guide its destinies, are pledged, under the Code of 1891, that there shall be efficient schools. It is true that it is impossible that all these schools can be brought up to a standard of efficiency at once, but after the year's notice has expired the provision of the Code will in every case be enforced. The Amendment proposes that the surplus shall be applied for such educational purposes and in such manner as may be approved by the Education Department, and for that purpose the managers of the school shall immediately on this Act coming into operation submit to the Department a scheme for the application of the said surplus. I assert that this is putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me that it is for the Education Department, through its Inspectors, to say by what means the efficiency of a school shall be secured. We have inserted in the Code a special requirement in view of the passing of the Bill. It is thereby provided that after September 1, 1892, every school shall teach a class subject. That provision was placed in the Code with the special object of dealing in the future with the demand made on those weak schools which have not yet come up to the proper standard. The mover and seconder of the Amendment have laid the greatest stress on the subject of agricultural education; but here in the Code there is the very best possible scheme for dealing with this extra or class subject. The surplus can be spent under the supervision of the Department by employing a teacher to go round to various schools and teach agriculture.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that it shall be so spent?

^* : Yes, Sir; the Education Department must insist that it shall be so spent. The Amendment as it is now drafted will bring the managers of these schools, however anxious they may be to carry out a scheme of this kind, into direct conflict and collision with the Education Department, which has here in the Code as complete a scheme for dealing with the question as could possibly be devised. I have been met again and again with the statement that some provision ought to be inserted in the Act of Parliament in order to insure that it will be carried out. I cannot see the necessity for any such provision, as I believe it to be impossible for the Department, looking at all the circumstances of the case, to neglect its duty in regard to these special class subjects. The hon. Member for Merioneth has challenged me to say whether I think there is not a general demand for increased efficiency in our schools in regard to the higher standards. All I can say is that in Standard IV. the scholars have been steadily increasing year by year, ever since I have been at the Education Department. The hon. Member has also asked how far the surplus may be applied, particularly in Wales, to the improvement of evening schools. My reply is that where the elementary day schools in Wales are in a state of efficiency, I see no objection to a portion of the surplus being applied to the improvement of the evening schools. As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned they are unable to accept the Amendment, because they believe that all demands which may fairly be made upon the management of schools in the receipt of this grant will be met to the very utmost extent by the Department, and that the efficiency of these schools will be absolutely secured.

I confess I have failed to gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman one solid argument why this clause should not be accepted. After listening to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I am of opinion that their case is quite unanswerable. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to deal with the principal question at issue. He went round and round the main point, and never attempted to give any solid reason whatever why public money voted for educational purposes from the Imperial Exchequer should not be applied directly and exclusively to such purposes. He said he had power under the Code to deal with the matter, but he did not say he had power under the Code to deal with the main question. Suppose a school which receives a fee grant under this Bill should, instead of utilising any surplus there may be for increasing the efficiency of the teaching, use it to decrease the subscriptions it receives, what can be done under the Code to prevent it? The ingenuous Member (Mr. W. H. Cross) who spoke opposite, really let the cat out of the bag. He seemed to think that those who had borne the burden of the day, as he called it, in educational matters in our rural districts ought to have some relief under this Bill, and I think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give them some relief. In the County of Durham I believe most of the miners would be anxious to see that the surplus is really used for educational purposes. Her Majesty's Government has no right whatever to take the money of the Imperial taxpayer and devote it to the relief of those who are contributing towards the cost of our voluntary schools. I believe there is a strong desire among the mining population to have an opportunity of qualifying themselves for the positions of managers of mines. I know that in many districts there is a strong wish to have higher grade schools. I think that any surplus might be used in support of University extension. The Vice President has expressed his desire that the surplus should go to secure increased efficiency of education; I hope, therefore, that he will reconsider his decision as to this Amendment, for I think it is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to see that any surplus which exists is applied to educational purposes, and is not used simply to relieve the pockets of the friends of denominational schools. The Government have refused to give public control over these schools, but I warn them that when the Liberals get into power pressure will be used to secure that control.

^* (105.) : I do not think there is any reason to fear that the effect of this Act will be to place money in the pockets of the subscribers to voluntary schools. For many years I have taken an active part in the distribution of funds entrusted to the National Society, and I have found that week after week and month after month applications are made to the executive, with a view, not to diminish local subcriptions, but to add to local efficiency. There are many cases where we have been asked to make grants for repairs, and I have no doubt that sums which will be placed in the hands of managers under this measure will be expended most wisely in improving the buildings and their sanitary condition, as well as in the provision of books, the increase of salaries, the widening of the curriculum, and the strengthening of the teaching staff. I object to the Amendment because of the increased power it gives to the Education Department. I am not anxious to increase the power of the Education Department except under the control of Parliament. Again, I hold that this scheme is too rigid. Our system of education advances day by day, and the adoption of such a scheme as this would cause it to lag behind. Therefore, I think it would be far wiser and better to leave the managers of schools to themselves, and allow them greater freedom of action. I believe myself that this Government Bill will do much to advance the cause of education, but if it is to be effective you must not tie the hands of school managers; you must allow them to do what is necessary to supply the requirements of their particular locality.

The speech of my hon. Friend is one of the best that could be made on behalf of the Amendment. He has explained the objects to which the surplus will be applied, and they are the objects we seek to attain. The hon. Member objects to the Department getting in creased power and not being subject to Parliament, and the Amendment asks for Parliamentary authority that all the surplus shall be used for the educational purposes he described. I, therefore, hope that we shall have his support in the Lobby. I maintain that the Opposition are justified in bringing forward this subject on Report, bearing in mind the position in which it was left in Committee. On other points the Government carried their views and their clauses with triumphant majorities of 70 and 80, and in some cases of 100; but when it was pointed out that there was nothing in the Bill to cause the surplus to be used for the increased efficiency of education their majority fell to 24, and even the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who was probably the chief author of this Bill—[ Cries of "No, no!"]—went against them. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has been the chief promoter of free education. Therefore the Government got a strong hint that in this question at least they were not in accord with the general feeling of the House. What are the purposes of the Government in this Bill? They are only two. First, to have free education; and the next to lower the fees in voluntary schools. I believe the Government will repudiate the idea that they have any other motive, but all their supporters do not repudiate that. There is one man who has been very much at the back of the north wind. I refer to Lord Sandford, who for a long time was Secretary to the Education Department, and who is justly consulted by gentlemen opposite upon educational matters. Speaking at a meeting of the National Society on the 16th June, he said that the surplus must be employed to lessen the heavy burden of voluntary contributions. The noble Lord on that occasion told us something which we did not know. He asked—

"What right have the Government to impose an extra burden upon voluntary schools; to insist upon the teachers having first-class certificates, and upon two class subjects being necessarily introduced, as has been proposed."

That shows what was in the mind of the Government at the time this Bill was being framed. Then the noble Lord goes on—

"No. We are not going to allow the Government to do this. The surplus must be applied to lessen the heavy burden of voluntary contributions. The supporters of voluntary schools will have to subscribe quite enough to keep the schools going as it is. They have hitherto been subscribing far too much, and, therefore, I claim for them that they should share the benefit of the 10s. fee grant."

These were the words of one of the greatest educational authorities, and one of the warmest supporters of voluntary schools in this country.

Where was that speech reported?

^* : In the School Guardian of June 20, 1891. This is a distinct announcement that this surplus is to be used, not for the efficiency of education, but for the reduction of voluntary subscriptions. I quite agree that that is not the view of the Government. Their object, no doubt, is to free education when it is possible, and to reduce the fees where the school cannot be made free. I think, however, we have a right to be alarmed when we are told by Lord Sandford that the surplus will be used to prevent the need of voluntary subscriptions. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that by some prophetic instinct the Government, when it drafted the Code of 1890, had this Bill in its mind. But there is nothing whatever in the Code in regard to the subject before us, and we want to provide that this surplus, when granted on September 1, shall be earmarked as being devoted to the increased efficiency of the schools by Act of Parliament. We want to do what Article 92 of the Code says has been done in other cases by special conditions in Acts of Parliament. We wish to lay down this condition—that the surplus over the whole fees shall not be used for improper purposes nor for paying back voluntary subscriptions, but for the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the schools. I may instance the Jewish school. In that school there are 3,300 scholars, some of whom pay a small fee, but the bulk of whom are educated free. That school will, under this Bill, have a surplus of over a £1,000. What is to be done with it? The Jews do not wish to be relieved of their subscrip- tions, for they have always shown greater liberality than any other voluntary contributors. The Jews even subscribe to give the children a meal of bread and milk in the middle of the school course, so that the strength of the child may be kept up while it is being educated. What will they do with the money? No doubt, if the surplus had to be devoted to increased efficiency of education, they would at once frame an admirable scheme of scholarships to higher grade schools. But the Government by this Bill are giving them this money, and suggesting to them to pay back the voluntary subscriptions. It has been said—and truly so—that this Amendment is much more in the interest of voluntary schools than of Board schools. No doubt voluntary schools in rural districts will be greatly assisted, but we must not forget that Mr. W. E. Forster, in 1870, said that voluntary schools could not continue unless they had a considerable amount of voluntary subscriptions. The Royal Commission said the same. But the fact is that 3,000 or 4,000 voluntary schools will in future be worked solely by means of the Government grant and have no voluntary subscriptions. They will thus become State schools supported by State funds. If the House wishes to support voluntary schools, it will pass this Amendment, and will thus secure increased efficiency in the schools. I know of nothing more calculated to do harm to the voluntary system than to allow the surplus to go in reduction of voluntary subscriptions.

I assume that the Government intend that this money shall be applied in the improvement of education, but I am persuaded that they are not taking the proper steps to carry their intention into effect. I fear that before they can interfere to prevent it, evil will be done by the Bill in the shape of a diminution of subscriptions and a reduction of the rates. The Vice President says he will take care, by means of the operation of the Code, that the large sums now being voted by Parliament in aid of education shall go to the purposes of education, but it must be remembered that the people whom you want to prevent taking another or an opposite course will not read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and will know very little about them. It is not places like Birmingham that will require any stimulus in this matter. Well as the voluntary schools in such places have done their work, they will be the very schools which will take advantage of this increased grant to improve the education given by them. Those whom it is necessary to teach are the people in rural districts, who care and think little about education. In rural districts education is most backward, and the subscriptions to the voluntary schools have been raised with very great difficulty, and will be retained with great difficulty by the clergymen of the parishes and the few people concerned in education. A provision such as that suggested is required in those small outlying School Board districts of Merioneth and other counties, where money is not spent in a way to give the greatest advantage, and where the feeling for education is not very strong. When this Bill passes subscribers to voluntary schools in rural districts will find that the schools they have hitherto supported are in receipt of a large excess of funds, and they will say, "Why should we go on subscribing?" I ask hon. Members to recollect that when once they have buttoned up the pockets of the subscribers they will find it very difficult to unbutton them again And also in the case of School Boards, when the rates have been reduced it will be found uncommonly difficult to increase them again. How are you going to meet such a state of things? [ appeal to the supporters of voluntary schools to prevent such a state of things by making it clear that by this Act it is intended there shall be an improvement in the education given.

(10.38.) The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 143.—(Div. List, No. 335.)

I beg to move to add at the end of the clause—

"(4.) Except in schools under the control or management of a School Board, no fee grant shall be paid to any school of which at least one-sixth of the total expenditure is not met by voluntary contribution."

The effect of the Amendment is that where there is no public control no fee grant will be paid unless one-sixth of the total expenditure is subscribed voluntarily. In recent years the tendency has been for the subscriptions towards the support of voluntary schools to diminish, and the grant given by Parliament to increase. Voluntary schools now rely to a very great extent on the grant given by the Education Department. There are 1,176 schools in this country which are called voluntary schools, but which really have no voluntary subscriptions at all, and are supported entirely out of public funds and school fees. I propose that unless one-sixth of the total expenditure is obtained by means of voluntary subscriptions the schools shall not have the fee grant. I regard one-sixth as the minimum sum that ought to be contributed voluntarily if a school is to have this grant from Parliament. The question of control is an important one, and I think this is a fair way of raising it, although perhaps it is a somewhat late stage of the Bill at which to do so. In the case of School Boards you give control to the ratepayers, because they subscribe by means of the rates to the support of the schools, and you give the control of the voluntary schools to the subscribers, because they contribute by their subscriptions towards its support. That is an intelligible position to take up, but when you have divested these schools of every characteristic of a voluntary school, I cannot see why they should remain under the control of those who formerly supported them.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 26, at end of the clause, to add the words, "(4.) Except in schools under the control or management of a School Board, no fee grant shall be paid to any school of which at least one-sixth of the total expenditure is not met by voluntary contribution."—( Mr. Lloyd Morgan. )

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

^* (10.57.) : I am unable to accept the Amendment, because the immediate result of it would be to prevent a large number of free schools from being opened. The hon. Member has referred to the case of a school where the subscriptions are very low, and there are scarcely any subscriptions. He has rather shadowed forth that such a school might exist on the fee grant. I believe that would be absolutely impossible if it was to remain efficient, and, therefore, such a school would have to raise its subscriptions or be struck out as inefficient. My belief is, that immediately the Bill becomes law there will be an automatic increase in the subscriptions of schools, and on that ground I submit that the House ought to rest satisfied with the new state of things which will be inaugurated.

The right hon. Gentleman has made some remarkable admissions in the course of this discussion, but I think none of them has been more remarkable than that contained in the words he has just uttered. He says the effect of adopting this Amendment would be that a considerable number of schools would be prevented from giving free education, so that it is evident that in those schools actually not one-sixth of the money required to support the school would be raised by voluntary contributions. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to define what he means by a voluntary school. We have heard the word "voluntary" ad nauseam during these Debates. Is a voluntary school one for the maintenance of which the whole expense is to be furnished by the public? Why, it reminds me of the story of the ancient knife, still considered a relic though blade and handle had been renewed. All the voluntary subscriptions are to be replaced by public contributions, and still the thing is called a voluntary school. I think Members on this side of the House are to blame for using the phrase "voluntary schools" instead of denominational schools, for they are this and nothing else. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, I hope nobody in future will be guilty of the misnomer of calling these voluntary schools, for, as I have said more than once, the Government are engaged in demolishing the voluntary principle altogether. I cannot understand upon what principle the Government object to this Amendment, unless they have that object in view. I hope the motion will be carried to Division.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the result of adopting this Amendment would be to prevent the opening of a large number of free schools, so that it may be inferred that, in his opinion, there are a large number of parishes where there are not a sufficient number of subscribers to voluntary schools to contribute a sixth of the expenditure.

^* : That was not what I said.

If the result should be that schools do not become free in large numbers, it will be because subscriptions do not amount to a sixth of the expenditure, and then, under this provision, free schools would have to be built; and if free schools have to be established under the procedure of the Act, then the voluntary schools have been a failure. If voluntary schools are to be perpetuated as a system, I urge this Amendment as a strong step towards that perpetuation, for if the result should not be that which the right hon. Gentleman has prophesied, but the reverse, if in the result it should be found that a sixth of the expenditure is provided by voluntary subscriptions (and I have sufficient faith in the sup porters of the system in country districts that rather than see the schools abolished they would subscribe to this extent), then there would be the greatest justification for the continuance of the system. Failing this, the voluntary system must be swept away. I submit, therefore, that the Amendment is in the interest of the voluntary system, for it would stimulate subscriptions to the extent of a sixth of the expenditure.

(11.6.) The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 336.)

rose to move an Amendment to provide that the Education Department should report annually the amount of the fee grant to each school, together with the amount of rates and subscriptions.