said that the principle of Mr. Forster was to stimulate, and not to discourage, local effort. His idea was that of the school expenditure, one-third should be contributed by fees, one-third by local subscriptions, and one-third by the Government grant. The Act of 1870 made an advance on that principle, by making it possible that the Imperial grant should rise to one-half of the expenditure. In 1876 the principle of Voluntary Schools was entirely abandoned, and since then fees had come to be reckoned as voluntary subscriptions. The result had been that subscriptions had fallen in proportion to the expenditure to a great extent. In 1870 they amounted to 62 per cent., and now they had fallen to 26 per cent. of the whole expenditure. In 1870 the Government grant was 38 per cent. of the whole expenditure, and it had risen steadily until now it was 74 per cent. This clause would have a two-fold effect. It would lead to a large decrease in the annual contributions, and in all local effort. The present Archbishop of Canterbury had said:—

"If the ratio borne by the grant to subscriptions were increased, a very large amount of money would be immediately absorbed in the shrinking of local subscriptions without any effect on education at all."

Another effect of the Bill would be a large increase in the number of those Voluntary Schools which were entirely carried on by the aid of the Imperial funds. There ought to be a difference between the amount paid by the State, and the amount necessary for carrying on the schools properly. If the school had for its management a popularly elected body, the difference could be properly made up by the rates. But if the management were entirely private, the managers ought to prove that the school was wanted by the parents, and that they were in touch with local feeling. The difference to which he had alluded ought to be made up by local subscriptions, and the Government ought to put in the more definite words to secure this object. One of the evils of a too highly centralised educational system was, in the first place, a very great waste by the local authority. The fact that the local authority were spending State money and not ratepayers' money would gradually but surely lead them into waste. No supervision by the central authority would prevent this. Again, if they had a too highly centralised system, there must be a certain tyranny on the part of the central authority. It naturally tried to frame rules to guard the trust placed in its hands, and while those rules were doubtless good for the mass, they must press hardly on individual schools, and the Department dare not make relaxations to meet such cases. Voluntary Schools were maintained, not on account of any legal obligation whatsoever, because the State was willing to provide, and did provide, a sufficient education. There were two classes who supported the Voluntary Schools. First, there was the parsimonious class—those who were animated, not by religious zeal, but by fear of the expense which a School Board might entail. Secondly, there were those who wanted something which the State did not supply. They wanted denominational teaching, and they also wanted control of the management. Surely Parliament would not be asking too much if it insisted that there should be some modicum of subscriptions to show that the supporters of Voluntary Schools were ready to make some sacrifice for the faith which they professed. For these and other reasons he supported the Amendment.

said he was one of those who was not un-willing to see the voluntary subscriptions dwindle away to a vanishing point, so that the day might be hastened when sectarian schols would be forced into submitting to some measure of public control. But the Committee had passed those clauses which required them to aid the Voluntary Schools, and so he felt bound to endeavour so to frame the Bill as to insure the revenues being maintained, and therefore he supported the Amendment. They had had a singular exhibition on the Treasury Bench of the facility with which sometimes the Government accepted the advice of their clerical advisers and sometimes rejected it altogether. When they were dealing with federated associations, which was the invention of the Clerical Party, they accepted it with avidity, and apparently dared not suggest the slightest modification but when they came to those provisions now under discussion, which the high authorities of the Church of England had not only distinctly recommended but offered to put in as protective clauses, they rejected in toto the advice given by their clerical advisers. They had had no definitions of any clear nature accepted in connection with the phraseology of the Bill. What was the meaning of the slovenly clause which said "due regard" must be had to the voluntary subscriptions? Was it suggested that the Department might give undue regard to certain schools? They were told yesterday that they need be under no fear of voluntary subscriptions falling away, and the right hon. Gentleman said that was not the effect in 1876. But how was that? It was because in 1876 proper provisions were inserted in the Bill, whereas now they wiped away the 17s. 6d. limit; old therefore removed the stimulus arising from that protection. But twilling could be more confusing to managers of schools than this absolute uncertainty as to the principles on which they were to conduct the finance of their schools. How was the manager of a new school that might be started under this Bill to know how to frame his scheme if there was to be this absolute uncertainty as to income? There was a great deal of uncertainty in other ways about these subscriptions. He knew a case in the county of Kent, where, a few years ago, an American, who was supposed to be wealthy, took the house of a Kentish landed proprietor on agreement, and at once set an example to the parishioners by promising a considerable subscription to the parish school. Due regard was paid to the parish school. "Due regard" was paid to him in the parish magazine, and he was held up as a pattern to the neighbouring farmers who subscribed their shillings and noble landowners who subscribed their pounds. But suddenly, and at night, this American subscriber departed for the Far West; the parish saw him no more, and the school never received the subscription. There was no certainty at all in this source of revenue. They were asked the other day why they thought that, from a public point of view, there should be some guarantee that a fair proportion of the school revenue should come from the Church of England. It was for the reason that these schools were used for a variety of parochial; and church purposes outside the provision of education, and it was reasonable to call upon those for support who derived the chief share of the advantages. It seemed to him on this ground only fair to insist on some proper provision in this extremely misty, nebulous Measure for maintaining a proper proportion of voluntary subscriptions.

supported the Amendment, though he did not care for its wording. But if subscriptions to Voluntary Schools were to be maintained at all it would be absolutely essential that some provision of the sort should be inserted. Without some such Amendment in the Bill subscriptions were bound to fall off, and the time would come when they would absolutely disappear. What, then, would be the result? There would be a large number of these so-called Voluntary Schools in the country supported entirely by the taxpayers. That would be well enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite while a Conservative Government was in power; but when there came into office a Government which believed that the taxpayers paying the money ought to have the control, then the grant would be accompanied with local control. But that was not the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were desirous that this should be an Act for the endowment of sectarian education at the expense of the public, and it was very far from their desire to see these schools under public control. Without some such provision it would not be possible to keep up subscriptions, nor would it be fair to expect it. You could not compel subscriptions. You could not decide what proportion of a man's income should be disposed of in charitable donations, and how much of this proportion for educational purposes. Suppose voluntary subscribers turned obdurate, and refused subscriptions? The First Lord of the Treasury drew a picture of two parishes side by side; the one the necessitous school grant would be given, and in the other, where the parishioners were richer and could afford to subscribe, the money would not be given. But suppose the money was not given, what would happen to the schools? The school at once, if the money was not given and the subscriptions were withdrawn, became a necessitous school; and how did it differ from the school in the neighbouring parish? Merely in this, that while in the one case subscribers has been generous in the past, in the other men had been mean and stingy; and it was proposed, because they had been mean and stingy in the past in the one parish and generous in the other, to perpetuate the inequality. There would be School Boards forced on the parishes, which certainly was not the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last night the First Lord of the Treasury said he liked to have concrete instances, and he would give one or two from Ids experience. The first was the instance of a school supported by one subscriber. It was not improbable that, after the passing of this Act, this man would say that, as he was a taxpayer, called upon to contribute to this 5s. aid grant, he did not see why he should continue to subscribe to the Voluntary School; and he would be right. He could not be compelled to subscribe; and, as a result, the school would decay, and the alternative would be between giving the grant or setting up a School Board in the parish. In another instance, an excellent school was supported by a voluntary rate, and after the passing of this Act the subscribers might think it was hard that they should be taxed to keep up other schools for which no such rate was voluntarily paid, and they might refuse to continue their subscriptions. How could the grant be refused to the school which thus would be reduced to a necessitous state? While it was impossible, without this provision, to maintain the subscription list, it was proposed to penalise those who had been generous in the past for the advantage of those who had been niggardly. It had taken at long time for the State to accept its proper position in regard to Voluntary Schools, and voluntary subscribers had in the past spent large sums in and maintaining these schools, mid these were the very men now, when the State at last recognised the duty of helping these schools, whom it was proposed to penalise by adding to their subscriptions taxation for the support of other schools. The Government had directly perpetrated a grave injustice on one large body of subscribers—namely, the Board School ratepayers—under this Bill; they, wider this clause, were proposing a still further injustice on subscribers to the schools to which money was proposed to be given under the Bill. It seemed as though the taxpayers were going to be plundered according to the rule of might, instead of being dealt with according, to the rule of right. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he himself objected to the words in the clause, "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions," but he did so from an altogether different point of view from that suggested by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposition side of the House. In his opinion the words were somewhat vague. In the old days, when the duty of providing education was discharged almost exclusively by the different religious denominations, the only way of obtaining the necessary funds was by means of voluntary subscriptions. The schools so maintained were called "charity schools, "and those of them that were unendowed were kept up entirely by voluntary or charitable subscriptions. But those days had passed away, and we had now recognised the necessity for compulsory education, and that it was our duty to take care that every child should be properly taught. In these altered circumstances he could not see why we should keep up the idea that charitable subscriptions should remain part and parcel of our educational system. He himself thought that the State should pay the whole cost of the secular education of the country. ["Hear, hear!"from the Opposition Benches.]He could only regret that this Bill did not go to that extent, leaving the cost of providing religious teaching, and of other matters not directly connected with secular teaching, to be defrayed by funds derived film voluntary subscriptions. He thought that the present system of relying upon voluntary subscriptions for meeting the cost of secular education in the denominational schools was all evil one. Where Parliament had imposed other duties, such, for instance, as vaccination, upon State Departments, it was not usual for such departments to accept the acid of voluntary subscriptions in performing them. Then why should such subscriptions be accepted in the matter of education? In the next place he wished to point out that the system of voluntary subscriptions acted very hardly upon the denominational schools in the poorer districts where there were no rich people to find the money for maintaining them in a state of efficiency. Let them take the Roman Catholic schools for instance. It was well known that they suffered great hardships in consequence of the small amount of their voluntary subscriptions; and this was also true of the Church schools in many of the poorer districts, and such schools required as just as much as, if not more than the Roman Catholic schools did. In his opinion, therefore, the keeping up I If the system of voluntary subscriptions as a charitable element of education was altogether wrong, and was indeed injurious to the cause of education. He, however could not support the Amendment, which appeared to him to be altogether wrong ill principle. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down objected to the words in the clause, "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions," but for entirely different reasons from those which animated hon. Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House. He said that the State ought not to require any voluntary subscriptions whatever for the purpose of aiding education.

I said not for secular teaching.

said that a large portion of the cost of education was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions. When the hon. Gentleman told them that charity should no longer form part and parcel of our system of secular education, was he willing to give a pledge that voluntary bodies should defray the entire cost of religious teaching?

Yes.

said that in that case the hon. Member was bound to vote for the Amendment before the House.

said that he was afraid that lie must judge for himself how far he ought to go in the matter.

said that the fact was that one-sixth of the cost of education was incurred for religious teaching, and the hon. Member admitted that that cost ought to be defrayed by means of voluntary subscriptions. But surely the hon. Member did not mean that the State was to pay the cost of secular education in denominational schools, without either the ratepayers or the taxpayers or the parents of the children who were compelled to attend them having a voice in the manner in which the money was to be spent, or in the management and control of the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said that this Amendment involved one of the most important questions that could be raised upon the Bill, namely that voluntary subscriptions should be maintained in order to relieve the State grant from the demands that would otherwise be made upon it. He should like to ask the Law Officers of the Crown to give the House some explanation of what was meant by the words "Due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." Was there any force in those words? The House had already voted the sum of £620,000 per annum as an additional grant to the Voluntary Schools, and that was equivalent to a capital sum of £20,000,000. The result would be that next year the Voluntary Schools would be in the receipt of grants amounting; to a total sum of £4,000,000 of money, which was to be placed in the hands of the irresponsible managers of these schools for distribution them, without any kind of representation on the management of the ratepayers, the taxpayers, or the parents. In his view this Amendment was an extremely moderate one. It was of the first importance that voluntary subscriptions should be, paid, and that they should be kept up to their present amount, because without them it was impossible that the Voluntary Schools could be maintained in a state of efficiency. If the subscriptions were to fall off it would be the greatest blow that the Voluntary Schools had ever received. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking on the previous night, had said that the grant would relieve the subscriptions. But in that case what would become of thee subscriptions? It appeared to him that this Bill was a complete reversal of the policy of the Act of 1870. ["No!"from theATTORNEY GENERAL.] He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and deny that that was the ease. In 1870 it was proposed that the income of Voluntary Schools should consist of one-third subscriptions, one-third fees, and one-third grant, and finally a large concession was made to Voluntary Schools, and it was agreed that one-half should be provided by the Government grant and one-half from local sources. These words were used by Mr. Gladstone in the Debates on the Education Bill of 1870:—

"We shall take care that under no circumstances shall public grants be allowed so to operate as entirely to supply, together with school pence, the sum necessary to support those schools, and that there shall always remain a void which must be filled up by free private contributions, and without which, failing other sources of assistance, those schools could no longer deserve the character of voluntary."

This Mr. Gladstone repeated over and over again when the Act of 1876 was under consideration, and Mr. AV. E. Forster, speaking on the seine Act, said:—

"Hon. Members might say why should there be subscriptions? Simply because if they kept up subscriptions additional money would be raised, and the school would be a better school than it would be without them. What the Committee had to consider was, whether they ought to intrust the management of these schools to persons who really gave nothing but their time… The noble Lord's (Lord Sandon) proposition really meant that any diminution of voluntary zeal should be supplied by a, State grant. Now the Government of 1870 never supposed it to be the duty of Parliament to supplement by a State grant any want of voluntary zeal.… If the result of the rate-supported schools were less voluntary zeal, it was no part of the State to supply the deficiency."

For the last 40 years the whole contention of the friends of Voluntary Schools had been that the only claim they had upon the management of their schools was that they supplied a large part of the funds for their maintenance. ["Hear, hear."] He remembered the discussions that took place in 1876, and he could appeal with confidence to men who were in the House at that time. Every Liberal Unionist now in the House, who was in the House at that time, opposed that Bill at every stage, because it increased the grant above the one-half agreed to in 1870. Not only that, there were at least half a dozen Members of the Government who were foremost in their opposition to the Act of 1870, and the present First lord of the Admiralty went so far as to raise a Debate on the Third Reading and declared his intention to divide the House, which lie did, as a protest against any more grants being given to schools not under public control.[Cheers.] Yet out of all these gentlemen there was only one or perhaps two who had been faithful to those pledges. He would like to know how it was that When the Government were anxious to render great service to Voluntary Schools they quoted the views of the elergy, but when they were asked to do anything of this sort, they passed them by. No man had been more consistent on this question than the present Archbishop of Canterbury. ["Hear, hear!"] The Archbishop expressed himself thus on this very point so recently as June 9 of last year:—

"Churchmen often urge that they have to pay school subscriptions besides, and ask why they should bear this extra burden. And the answer is that it is the price of keening the invaluable privilege of appointing the teachers without any interference. In no other way could they have kept this privilege, and in no other way can they permanently keep it."

[Cheers.]In these circumstances he asked why it was that the Government refused to consider this Amendment in any shape or form. There was no other way of maintaining voluntary subscriptions except by fixing some statutory limit. Unless that was done they might be quite sure that these grants instead of going to increase the efficiency of the schools would go to relieve voluntary subscriptions, and the last state of these schools would be worse than the first. ["Hear, hear!"] Voluntary subscriptions had been steadily diminishing from year to year since 1876, and they had been, what was worse, much more fictitious than they were. ["Hear, hear!"] In the present state of the education of the country, of which the Committee had heard very little during these Debates, nothing could be more important than an increase of staff and the improvement of schools. A Return had been published within the last few days, and it showed that in more than half the unions of this country the fourth standard was the standard of total exemption, and that, in many municipal boroughs the same low standard prevailed.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that his remarks were hardly relvant to the Amendment.

Said he was only referring to it in order to show how necessary it was that the subscriptions should be kept up, because if these schools were not efficient and such a low standard continued, they would be giving four millions of money to the continuance of a State of things which was distressful to the country. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that this Bill involved a reversal of policy of the Act of 1870; but he would point out that it provided that the grant should be distributed with a due regard to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no intention to reverse the policy of the Act of 1870, and that the Government were as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman himself could be that the subscriptions should be adequately maintained. In the view of the Government it was essential that the subscriptions should be kept up, and, if possible, in some cases increased. But it was not desirable to lay down on the subject a cast-iron rule such as the Amendment proposed. The more elastic Machinery of the Bill was preferable. The statement that subscriptions to Voluntary Schools were often unreal, supplied an argument against this proposal to adopt as a standard the average of subscriptions for such a period as three years. It was well known that the subscriptions fluctuated very much. A great effort was made in one year and with the amount then raised schools were carried on successfully for the next two or three years, during which the subscriptions were much less. Therefore if the average of the last three years was adopted as the standard, that standard would be sometimes unduly high and sometimes unduly low. [Mr. MUNDELLA: "Take an average of five years then."] Any attempt to set up a cast-iron rule like that proposed must break down. Moreover, such a rule would not meet all the necessities of the case. For example, in a district which was increasing largely in numbers and wealth, it would be perfectly fair to expect that the school subscriptions would increase also, and the Department would be entitled to take that into account.

had hoped that the hon. and learned Member would melee some attempt to define the meaning of the words "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions." But the hon. and learned Member had contented himself with reading out the words. The Committee, however, did not want lessons in reading or pronunciation. [Laughter.]What they did want to hear was the opinion of the. Law Officers of the Crown as to the way in which the Law Courts would interpret these words. The oracles, however, were dumb. [Laughter.]His own view was that the words were absolutely useless, and that if they should ever be quoted in a Court of Law the judges would once more be heard saving that they never elsewhere read such nonsense as they found in Acts of Parliament. What the Opposition were contending for was the maintenance of subscriptions at their present level. That was said by the Government to be the principle of the Bill, but there was nothing in the Measure to insure that that principle would be adhered to. This Amendment, like all its predecessors, had been met by a blank negative. ["Hear, hear!"] He remembered the sufferings of the present Attorney General when a Bill for the reform of Irish municipal government passed through the Grand Committee on taw without amendment. He should never forget his hon. and learned Friend's horror—[laughter]—at this result of what he considered to be a terrible and reckless use of a majority. But the case now before them was a much worse one. He supposed that these Amendments were rejected so that the Government might escape a stage of discussion at a later date. That was not the proper spirit in which to approach Amendments. If the Government objected specially to adopt an average of three years, why should they not suggest some other term?

said it was true that on the Second Reading he had argued that it would be well to proceed by adopting the method of average. But he had since reconsidered the point, and had come to the conclusion that there would be great difficulties in carrying out any such plan as the Amendment proposed. He was not ashamed to say that he had changed his opinion upon the point.[Laughter and cheers.]When they remembered the uncertain and variable financial position of Voluntary Schools, they would see that grievous hardship must be inflicted in some cases if the hard-and-fast proposal of the hon. Member opposite were established as law. In the case of a sudden withdrawal of his contributions by a large landowner, it would surely be very hard if, before the managers had had time to recover their position, the Department should swoop down upon them and say, "Because you have lost this considerable sum of money you are to be mulcted of the grant." The words in the Bill he interpreted to mean that in no possible case ought the Department to hand over the grant without making due inquiry and having due regard to the state of the subscription list, not on a particular day, nor for a particular year, but during, the time that the school had existed. That was no hard task for the Department. They had a return which showed each year, and month by month, what the subscriptions were; and, having that knowledge, the Department could, if it chose, apply the screw on the managers. It might be said that this principle would operate differently under different Governments, that the same pressure would not be put on schools when a Unionist Government was in power as would be the case when their opponents were in power. But he thought it would work evenly as it affected the Department, because it should be remembered that the Department would be dealing with a single lump sum yearly. The effect of pressure on the Department by necessitous schools would be to lead them on all occasions to make the most of this sum, and to induce them to bring pressure to bear in the case of any school where the subscriptions were not adequate. It was constantly being urged that subscriptions were dwindling year by year, and that the actual subscriptions paid per child were not the same to-day as in 1870. But hon. Members should take the gross amount paid. The gross sum paid by subscribers to Voluntary Schools in 1875 was£673,000; in 1895 it was £834,000.[Cheers.]If the Amendment was carried it would in many instances inflict grievous injury on Voluntary Schools.

said that many hon. Members would be disposed to think that the first opinion of the right hon. Gentleman was more satisfactory than his present opinion. Who ever heard that the words of any particular statute should be put under the guidance of any particular Department? [The ATTORNEY GENERAI:"Constantly."]The right hon. Gentleman said that the words "due regard" meant "due regard after due inquiry." That, at any rate, was some news. But they asked the question of the Government, "What do you mean by due regard?" Supposing the subscriptions had gone up or down; if they hail gone up the schools would not need so much money, and if they had gone down they did not deserve as much. The Solicitor General's version of the words was that in certain circumstances they would insist on the subscriptions being raised. If that was the case, then was "maintenance" the right word, where it meant, not maintenance, but the raising of voluntary subscriptions? How could they maintain voluntary subscriptions in schools where there were no subscriptions at all? There were over 1,000 of these schools; what, then, was the construction placed by the Government on those words with reference to those schools, or with reference to schools not yet in existence, but which they were going to assist? They knew what voluntary subscriptions meant. They were the price paid by certain monopolists for teaching their religious creed under the pretence of teaching education. There were 3,797 schools in which the average subscription was under 5s. Some words ought to be introduced providing that where the subscriptions up to now amount to less than 5s., three years should be given to those schools to raise them up to 5s. per head. That was a fair and equitable scheme. There were two classes of subscribers whom the Bill would relieve—the poor clergymen and the Roman Catholics. It would inflict a great hardship on the taxpayers to make them pay taxes in order to relieve either necessitous clergymen or Roman Catholics, or any other necessitous class of people, while Voluntary Schools were under private control and management.

intervenced in the Debate because he did not think the particular point of view from which he regarded the Amendment had been set before the Committee in any of the speeches. He agreed with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, but the case he stated ought, he thought, to be stated very much more strongly. The hon. Member said he wished to see the charity element removed from education. He should say he wished to see blackmailing, removed from education—the element of using the religious convictions of part of the community as a means of extorting money. What, after all, was the voluntary system? He thought if they were not accustomed to it and did not know all its incidents so well, they should be more shocked at it than they were. The State said to a certain number of its members that they were persons belonging to a religious faith, that they attached the greatest possible importance to those beliefs, that they were anxious to extend their benefits to other people and to children who, through no fault of their own, and would be deprived of a religious education such as their parents would desire. "Well," said the State,

"since you are more religious and more unselfish than your neighbours you must pay for your eccentricity. You must pay because you cannot bear that the children of poor people are to be deprived of all you consider most valuable, and, it you do not pay, contemplate with all the tranquillity your conscience will enable you the religious belief of these children left to the chance mercy of a School Board or the accidental beliefs of a particular teacher, and pay inure liberally in aid of our educational system."

That appeared to be a true statement of the effect of the attitude of the State towards voluntary subscribers, and when they had regard to the poverty of many of the subscribers and the immense wealth of the State, it was not merely unjust in itself, but also in the highest degree shameful to the country which carried it out. ["Hear, hear! "] It might be said that if he thought the subscriptions were so unjust he ought to vote against the words relating to them remaining in the Bill, but he proposed not to do so for a very obvious and simple reason. The aid grant in the Bill was so inadequate to the needs of the Voluntary Schools that, even with the whole aid that subscribers now gave, and would, he hoped, continue to give in future, the schools would not be in a perfectly satisfactory position or in one of security. It followed, therefore, that if he voted for the excision of these words as to subscriptions from the Bill he should be aiding in destroying some of the resources on which Voluntary Schools must rely. It had always been the point of view of Churchmen that, great as were the grievances of voluntary subscribers, those grievances were a secondary matter compared with the welfare of the schools. Religious education was indeed being held to the ransom of the State. But it had always been accounted a work of piety to contribute to the ransom of a captive. It was far better that subscribers should go on for a little time longer suffering the injustices they endured than that the schools and the religious education dependent upon them should run any danger whatever, and therefore he proposed to vote against the Amendment. ["Hear, hear! "] He did not share the opinion that the provision in the Bill could be used for the benefit of voluntary subscribers or that it ought to be so used. He did not think it ought to be so used, because that would endanger the interests of the schools, and he did not think it could be so used, because the existing pressure was so great that, with all the help the schools would get they would have more than enough to do. ["Hear, hear! "] The pressure which had already put them in great danger would continue to force them to collect all the money they were able out of voluntary subscriptions. The First Lord of the Treasury thought Voluntary Schools would cease to exist if voluntary subscriptions ceased. That did not appear to him easily reconciled with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier stages of the Bill—namely, that the denominational principle was so strong that the country would never acquiesce in its extinction.

I never said denominational schools would cease to exist; I said Voluntary Schools.

agreed it was true Voluntary Schools would cease to exist if voluntary support were withdrawn, though that was not a matter which any Churchman would regard with any regret whatever. They had more than enough to do with their money without subsidising the State to pay its educational expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] He should rejoice if the voluntary system came to an end at once, so long as the denominational system was preserved.[Opposition cheers.] He was confident they were not very far off that result, and he acquiesced, therefore, all the more cheerfully in the decision the Committee was bound to come to. ["Hear, hear! "]

supported the Amendment, which he said was very much on the same lines as one he had on the Paper, except that he proposed five years as the period to lie taken instead of three. He contended that the definition of the words "due regard" was one which was open to a very large amount of doubt, and he asked the Solicitor General to give them a definition in some legal terms which could be understood. There was apparently no intention on the part of the Government to abolish voluntary subscriptions, and why then should there be any objection to some kind of definition as to the form in which they should continue, so as to insure that voluntary subscriptions should go on? It was quite clear that the feeling in the country was one of alarm as to what would be the consequences if this Act came into operation at once. There would be difficulty when it was found that the amounts to which they were entitled would vary as between different schools, there being no power to control the associations which would have to recommend what the amount should be. Schools having high subscriptions at the present time would compare themselves with other schools in the same neighbourhood having very low subscriptions. The former school would know that the reason they had high subscriptions was because they took an interest in the school, which was well managed, under good control, and, therefore, obtained grants and subscriptions in aid for successful work. But they would now learn that if they allowed the school would know that the reason they had high subscriptions was because they took an interest in the them to obtain contributions from the new grant to Voluntary Schools. If the Education Department was in consequence to give more where the subscriptions fell off and less where the subscriptions rose, it was necessary it should have an average on which to base its opinion. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would consider the suggestions now made for the disposal of the money to be granted under the Bill. To snatch divisions and apply the Closure might assist the supporters of the Bill in a Parliamentary sense, but it was not good government for the country.

stated that he was wishful to bring before the notice of the Leader of the House an illustration which had a very important bearing upon this important Amendment. Nearly every hon. Member in the House who was connected with industrial undertakings was in the position, like himself, of being a considerable subscriber to Voluntary Schools. In his own case he was a supporter of nine Voluntary Schools, and when the time arrived for the appropriation of the money in this Bill, he would be a claimant for the aid grant of 5s. per child, or (in view of the rejection of the Amendment for the exclusion of the word "necessitous" 10s. per child, which was the probable amount per child provided by this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] When he had received this amount of aid—and not till then—he would, like many other subscribers, responding to the ordinary instincts of human nature, be much disposed not to withdraw, but to reduce his voluntary subscription, say, 10 or per cent. It was because this Amendment would have the effect of preventing him and others from having the power to reduce such voluntary subscription, excepting at the risk of losing the aid grant, that he would support the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, was vague and ineffective, and he hoped the Government would see their way to make it clear and definite. ["Hear, hear!"]

reminded the Committee that the average grant to Voluntary Schools was being increased, and the First Lord of the Treasury was in favour of voluntary subscriptions being kept up. Should there not be, as there formerly was,a quid pro quofor the increased grant from the Imperial Exchequer? The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich looked upon the keeping up of voluntary subscriptions as doubtful with reference to its ultimate advantage to denominational schools. He treated voluntary subscriptions not as a charity element in the support of schools, but as a blackmail element, and he considered those who were making, voluntary contributions were treated in a way that was in the highest degree harmful to the country. That was not the view of the bulk of the leaders of the Anglican Church. The Bishop of Salisbury held a totally different view. If five hours' religious instruction were given per week during a master's attendance of 30 hours, the Bishop suggested the extra cost of religious teaching should be regarded as equivalent to one-sixth of the master's salary, and that this extra cost should be borne by the Voluntary Schools. He himself asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether there was not some method by which what all appeared to desire could be carried out without grave injustice? It might be provided that, in all schools where the subscription was at present above 5s. per head, that at least should be maintained, and in all schools where that sum had not been reached the aid grant should be decreased. Everybody seemed to desire that a certain amount of voluntary subscription, apart from money put into buildings and the like, should be a condition of the receipt of the aid grant. There were a good many schools where the subscriptions hardly averaged 1s. per child including all the various sources of contribution. If the Education Department, in a case of that kind, provided that within a reasonable time the subscriptions should come up to 5s., as a condition of receiving the aid grant, he thought it would only be reasonable. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether by some moderate Amendment more might not be done than the vague words in the Bill would accomplish to realise the desire so many had in view.

said he had given a great deal of thought to the question, and he held distinctly that there were cases in which it would, from one reason or another, be impossible to expect an increase or perpetual maintenance of existing subscriptions. In view of this, he did not think the introduction of rigid words would meet the necessities of the case. He thought the words he had chosen were, on the whole, the best suited to meet those necessities, and he hoped the, Committee would adhere to them.

said the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich showed there was a distinct line of cleavage on this subject among the supporters of the Government. Both the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Islington had frankly expressed the opinion that the State should exact nothing from subscribers for the maintenance of Voluntary Schools. He was glad they had been so candid, because their speeches furnished them on the Opposition side of the House with additional reasons why the Amendment should be pressed. On the other hand, the First Lord of the Treasury on Monday, and the Solicitor General to-day, had distinctly declared that they thought it essential that voluntary subscriptions should be maintained, and even increased. If the Government held that view, let this Bill be so framed that the Education Department would be strengthened in the efforts they would have to make to give effect to that principle. Besides the 1,061 schools where there were no subscriptions whatever, there were 674 schools where the average rate of subscription was only 1s. per child per annum. There would be two cardinal difficulties when this Bill became law—the question of the necessitous schools, and that of the amount of their subscriptions. The head of the Education Department would have to face the entire Roman Catholic Church, and those who were represented by the hon. Members for Islington and Greenwich, and probably a larger number of individuals who would be ready to find every excuse for, at any rate, reducing the amount of their subscriptions. He wished to strengthen the hands of the Education Department. They were told that it was absolutely impossible for Parliament to settle these questions; how, then, could the Department settle them? He was in favour of the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions, because they represented interest and influence. If the result of their legislation was that voluntary subscriptions ceased, the result would be that they would have the one-man system of management in an intensified form. In the interests of education and of justice, the principle of this Amendment ought, in some form or other, to be embodied in the Bill.

SURY claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

moved in Sub-section (2) after the word "subscriptions" to insert the words "paid bonâ fide by private individuals. "He said that the Amendment raised a new point—what were the subscriptions to which due regard was to be paid? There was a pious hope in the Committee that the "private" subscriptions would be continued, but whenever voluntary subscriptions had been spoken of, the term was found to include other things besides private subscriptions—some that the Committee would desire to include, and some that it would not desire to include in the contributions to which "due regard" was to be find. There was no desire to cut off these other sources income, but they should not be included in this connection. Endowments, the gifts of public departments and the receipts for letting school rooms ought not rank with private subscriptions, or with a voluntary rate. The Amendment which he moved had been suggested by the managers of the best Voluntary Schools in his own constituency. They desired that in those schools where no subscriptions were collected, a serious effort should be made ill the future. He had the accounts of various schools which he could show to hon. Members. In one case the amount received by the school from various departments of the Government, including the Parliamentary grants, the Science and Art Department's grant, and a gift from the commissioners of Woods and Forests, amounted to £286 a year, and the income from all other sources varied from £13 to £14 1s. a year. Yet that school was able to pay £45 to a capital account in a single year. In another school the Government Departments found over 1422 a year, and all other sources of income amounted to £15 odd a year. There were no subscriptions and no voluntary rate. In another case, the Departments contributed £418 a year, £10 was received from charity, and all other sources of income produced £4 in one year, and in another year nothing at all. If unguarded words about "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions" were put into the Bill, all these extraneous forms of income might be included. He knew a case where the managers of a Voluntary School had informed the friends that in future they hoped not to have to make any further application. He begged to move.

said he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Whether a distinction ought to be drawn between private subscriptions and subscriptions from public bodies or not, it was certainly desirable that both classes of subscriptions should be maintained; and he did not see why a distinction should be drawn. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of a school which received a contribution from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Probably that was because the Commissioners were the principal owners in the district, tuna he should not like to see any words in an Act of Parliament which prevented such contributions. But the right hon. Gentleman's words would go much further, and prevent railway companies and colleges from subscribing to Voluntary Schools, to which a serious injury might thus be done.

said that the difficulty again was one of definition. What did the term "subscription" cover? Would it cover endowments? The public subscriptions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would not be affected by the Amendment.

said that he did not think the word "subscription" could include endowments.

pointed out that the Amendment could not possibly prevent any public body from subscribing. It was only a question of whether regard was to be had to such subscriptions in calculating the grant. When the Education Department were having "due regard" to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions, what were they to have in their mind as the meaning of "voluntary subscriptions?" No provision was made as to the exercise of that "due regard." All that this Amendment asked was that at any rate they should know what they meant by the use of the terms they had, already sanctioned. They were not yet quite clear what "voluntary subscriptions" did mean. For some purposes endowments were now held to be voluntary subscriptions, and he imagined that under this Measure endowments would still be held to be voluntary subscriptions. That was to say, the Education Department would, in looking at the condition of a school, only inquire if it had got sources of revenue outside the Parliamentary funds, and if it had got sources of revenue outside Parliamentary funds in the shape of endowments, the Education Department would not feel incline to allow this Parliamentary grant. That would be a nationalisation of parochial charities, which he thought they were entitled to object to. Unless they had a clear definition of what was the meaning of "voluntary subscriptions "they would never know what it was they were voting for or what it was they were asking the Education Department to undertake. The Amendment thoroughly satisfied that reasonable definition and he should support it.

said that far from simplifying the Bill, this Amendment would introduce another element of doubt and difficulty, because they would have to say what was a "private individual" in this Bill. Why should schools which received subscriptions from colleges or a public body be placed in a different class to schools which received subscriptions from private individuals?

was understood to support the Amendment.

said he could not support the Amendment in its present form. It would not only shut out the subscriptions of public bodies, but what was a private individual? Should they not take a subscription from a public individual, if there was a public individual. Some definition was required. At the end of the Bill they had a definition of a Voluntary School, but there was no definition of what was a voluntary subscription. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite might put a stop to the discussion on the Amendment if he would promise that at the end of the Bill there should be inserted a definition of what a voluntary subscription was. This seemed to him all the more necessary because the associations might make grants in particular cases, and this might make the matter even more complicated than it was at present.

said he could not support the Amendment. He was no friend to Voluntary Schools, but it seemed to hint that, it they had Voluntary Schools at all, they should recognise the help given by various societies and public bodies to those schools just as much as they recognised the help given by individuals.

said there was considerable difficulty about the wording of this Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury asked whether amounts which were sources of income to these Voluntary Schools, and which could not in any degree or sense he classed as voluntary subscriptions, were to be taken into account by the Government in making this grant. So far as he could see, in the tables of the Department, everything was allowed to be classed under the head of voluntary subscriptions except the Government grant. What his right hon. Friend complained of was that the figures which were here set down in these tables as "endowments" and "miscellaneous receipts," should be regarded by the Education Department as voluntary subscriptions, and would be included in this term "voluntary subscriptions" which had to be had regard to acording to the Bill. He confessed he did not like the wording of the Amendment.

said the Amendment did not stand in the form of which he gave notice, and he was quite conscious that it was very difficult to frame an Amendment to carry out the intention which he desired to carry out. He thought perhaps it would be better to introduce it by way of a provision at the end of Sub-section 6, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment (at the present occasion.

moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "subscriptions" to insert the words, "as a, reason for granting such aid." He said that, while many of them were not disposed to go the full length of the suggestion that securities ought to be taken for the maintenance of these voluntary subscriptions, they thought there should at any rate be some general indication in the Bill that the maintenance of subscriptions was to be regarded as the intention of the Bill. There was no such distinct indication in the Measure at present. The words "due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions "might be held either to favour the maintenance of those subscriptions, or they might be justifiably construed by the Education Department as indicating that due regard should be had to the maintenance of those subscriptions as a reason for giving help to the necessitous schools. In other words, if the subscriptions were large, there was no need for the aid grant; if, on the other hand, the voluntary subscriptions failed, then the grant was more greatly needed than before. He thought the latter would be a more reasonable construction, and probably the one which any Department might be advised to take. The phrase in the section was ambiguous. He did not think the duty of Parliament was fulfilled if it allowed a vague clause to be arbitrarily construed by a Department without some clear indication of what the intention of Parliament was. If one effect of the Bill should be to materially decrease the subscriptions, he did not hesitate to say that the Bill would ultimately lead to the deterioration and absorption of the Voluntary Schools.

I do not quite follow how the hon. Member makes his line of remark relevant to the present Amendment. He seems to be discussing the last Amendment. I should like the hon. Member to explain what the meaning of his Amendment is.

said the words of the clause, as they stood, might be construed by the Department in either of two ways; "due regard" might be if the subscriptions were increased, or if they fell off The clause should give a clear, not a vague, indication of the will of Parliament.

If that is so, the hon. Member is seeking to upset the decision to which the Committee has just come.

submitted that, unless some stimulus was contained in the Bill that Parliament intended that one condition should be the maintenance of the subscriptions, then the permanence of the Voluntary Schools, instead of being promoted, would be endangered.

said that, although a school was necessitous, it might be a reason for withholding the grant if the subscriptions were improperly withheld, and that was perfectly well indicated by the words "due regard." The hon. Member's Amendment instead of making the clause clearer made it less clear. The maintenance of voluntary subscriptions was not a reason for giving the aid grant; it was the fact of the school being a necessitous school.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

The second Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Griffith), towards the top of page 19 of the Amendment Paper, is in order, but it ought to come at the end of the clause.

pointed out that he had an Amendment on page 18.

That is the same as the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, winch has been disposed of.

submitted most respectfully that there had been discussion as to the definition of "necessitous."

If the Amendment is intended to be a definition of the word "necessitous" it clearly ought to come in the definition clause. The first and third Amendments of the hon. Member for Anglesey, standing on the top of page 20, are in order, but ought to come at the end of the clause.

May I ask you, Sir, where the second Amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesey is out of order?

I think it is beyond the scope the Bill altogether. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) is in order, but it ought to come up as a new, clause. The next Amendment in order is at the top of page 22, Mr. Lloyd-George.

asked whether the Chairman would give the reason which induced him to rule out of order the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen (Mr. Lloyd Morgan), which provided that no school should receive the aid grant where the education was not free.

The hon. Member will remember that the subject was discussed on Clause 1, page 1, line 5, where an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Lincolnshire moved to insert the words, "in which no charge for school fees is made." He will remember that I several times pointed out it was not the proper place to discuss the Amendment, or, indeed, to move it. What the hon. Member intended was to move it on the Second sub-section, but as he moved it on, the first sub-section and took a division the Committee are precluded from re-opening the question. ["Hear, hear! "]

respectfully pointed out that when he was speaking on the question of fee-paying schools, and how far they were really free or not, the Chairman called him to order, and he desisted at once, because he understood they would be allowed to have an opportunity of discussing whether the new grant ought to be distributed to a school which was a free school or not.

That was not my fault, but the fault of the hon. Member, who chose to move his Amendment in the wrong place.

said that the purpose of the Amendment which stood in his name was, in respect to associations, to suggest the procedure which was adopted in the case of the Act of 1870. He submitted that if he could not move the Amendment until the third sub-section was dealt with he would be precluded from, suggesting an alternative scheme.

If the hon. Member's Amendment is intended to provide an alternative to the scheme of the Government, it is quite clear the Government are entitled to have their scheme placed before the Committee first.

There are several Amendments down in my name before we come to—

Order, order! It is extremely unusual to cross-examine the Chairman in the way that is now being done.[Ministerial cheers.]I think it will not be my duty to reply any further. I may say, however, that I have taken a great deal of trouble—["hear, hear! "]—to understand the Amendments, and I do not think it would conduce to the order of business if I were cross-examined as to my reasons.[Cheers.]

moved to leave out Sub-section (3). He said his Amendment challenged directly the principle of the proposal of the Government as to associations and the machinery connected with them. This was the first time a proposal of this kind had been incorporated in a Government Bill and made compulsory, and the issue raised by the Amendment was not whether they would permit Voluntary Schools to form associations for the purpose of increasing their educational efficiency, but whether they were going to bring pressure to bear on the schools to combine or associate. He maintained that the proposition of the Government was unfair to Voluntary Schools themselves. It was unfair to the better-class Voluntary Schools, to the schools the subscribers to which were doing their duty, because a certain amount of partiality and favouritism was shown to the schools the subscribers to which grossly neglected their duty. Let them take the cases of Liverpool, Manchester, and Preston. In Liverpool there were 48 Church schools, but only 12 of them received the average amount of subscriptions paid throughout the country. This was how the matter stood. According to the scheme of the Bill the poor schools which required support would not get it, and the schools which were well off would get support. It was true that the Government might say that was a matter for the Education Department, but after all, no Government Department could exercise the control that was necessary in this case. And here he came to the point of the Roman Catholic Schools. In Liverpool they represented a much poorer class of the population than in Manchester, and the Roman Catholics subscribed far more liberally to their schools than Churchmen. They were in fact going to penalise those who were doing their work well for the benefit of those who neglected to do their work well. The fact was that Lord Peurhyn was making £1,800 per annum out of his unselfishness, and that was the case of ninny other rich landowners. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in referring to this subject, the other day, said that the question was whether they were going to punish those landowners who had done their duty for the benefit of those landowners who had not done their duty. He could not see how these associations were going to work as between one parish and another, in the cases of necessitous schools. If the income of a school was inadequate to its expenditure was it a necessitous school? For instance, in one parish they might have schools where the subscriptions amounted to 30s. per child, whilst in the next parish there might be a school where the subscriptions only amounted to 2s. per child. Were they going to give 10s. per head of this grant to the poorer school and nothing to the richer school. In such a case the House might depend upon it that the subscriptions would fall off, which would work badly for the Voluntary Schools as a whole, and consequently for the interests of the children who were being educated in them. He should like to know upon what principle the representation of the schools upon the associations was to be based—was it to be based upon the number of children in each school or upon the population of the district. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury should take the House into his confidence upon this subject. In his view, the money ought to be distributed in accordance with the discretion of the Education Department, and, therefore, it was that he begged to move the Amendment that stood upon the Paper in his name.

said that he had not any such rooted objection to the principle of associations as was entertained by certain members of the clerical party whose speeches he had read. He did not see why there should be greater objection to the existence of an irresponsible and non-representative association than there was to irresponsible and non-representative managers. As a matter of fact the associations were to be more responsible than the school managers from whose ranks they were to be formed. Of the principle of association, therefore, he did not complain. Indeed, were the Bill exactly in the form in which the Solicitor General described it as being in his speech on the Second Reading, he would not be able to oppose the formation of associations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said,

"All the Bill had to do was to encourage the formation of associations by saying that the schools forming them should have two privileges."

If that really were the limit he would not object. But there was a very serious objection—namely, the financial objection hinted at by the hon. Member for East Mayo in the course of the speech of the Vice President of the Council on the Second Reading. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked,

"Is there no power in the Bill to discriminate between associations in proportion to the necessities of the schools forming them?"

and the right hon. Gentleman replied,

" No, there is not, and therefore the larger the association the more likely you are to get the average level. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can suggest any improvement by which such a power of discrimination could be exercised, but I do not see any possibility of it."

The framers of the Bill proposed to Bill proposed schools that refrained from joining associations, and the Department had to administer the funds as they thought best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools. With those words before them it was essential that the Education Department should lay down for itself some outline as to what they meant by the word "necessitous." On a communication of that outline to the various associations they could inform the Department of the number of schools they had in their body and which could reasonably be described as necessitous. The Education Department would know at once the amount of money to be allotted to a particular association, and if the allotment was not made by the association on the number of necessitous schools in the association a serious danger might result. When the association was formed there would be a strong inducement to the managers of that association to invite rich schools which otherwise would not receive a grant direct from the Department to join the association merely for the purpose of becoming 5s. grant earners. The inducement to the managers to offer a bribe of some portion of the 5s, to a rich school in order to induce it to join the association would be overwhelming. The Vice President had alluded to the fact that the associations must be limited in their area in order to give personal knowledge of management to the schools under their control. Taking the Diocesan area they found that the wealth or the poverty of the Voluntary Schools varied very considerably in the different areas. In the southern areas they would have in the associations a number of more or less well-to-do schools; in the north they would have almost exclusively poor schools; yet, under the association system, the schools of the north and south, would earn the same amount, with the result that they would be putting unnecessary money into the southern lap, while the north would have to be satisfied with its dole of 5s. per head. Again, the Roman Catholic schools were almost entirely in School Board areas, and in their case it was a question of bonâ fide conscience in every instance, while the same could not be said for the Church of England. [Cries of "Why not?"] The Roman Catholic would not send his child to a Board School at all; the Roman Catholics had made sacrifices out of all proportion to the sacrifices made by the Church of England. But the Church of England parent did not make it a matter of conscience whether or not he should send his child to a Board School or to a Voluntary School. Besides, the Roman Catholic schools were all poor schools without exception, and any association which was created of Roman Catholic schools would in all probability be composed of one body. In that case they would have all these poor Roman Catholic schools in an association, without any rich schools among them, and whose only function would be that of earning a subscription for the association. The result would be that the Roman Catholic schools would never earn anything more than the 5s. He, therefore, supported the Amendment for three reasons. First of all, the Government offered a bribe to association managers to waste their money on the rich schools in order to induce them to come into the associations; second, there was no distinction made between the well-to-do and comparatively poor associations in the amount of money they were to receive; third, in the case of Roman Catholic schools, upon which so much argument had been based, they could not receive anything but the most moderate allowance from the system of associations.