*MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. | 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. It will Gentleman has been in Office, and if he not be necessary, however, for hon. was able to say that no deficiency would Members to attend as the Commission be found out by the permanent officials makes the House. As soon as Mr. during the next three weeks which re- Speaker has returned from the House of quired to be remedied, he was more skil- Lords, the Sitting will be suspended until ful than I profess to be. But I will do 3 o'clock. everything I can against the Paper being overloaded, or the House being asked to undertake any work it will not be fair to ask it to discharge. MR. KELLY: I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not undertake at this period of the Session to move the adjournment of the House as soon as the Government Business is disposed of? MR. W. H. SMITH: That course is never adopted, and it would be rather harsh, if the Government got their busi ness over by 12 o'clock, to deprive private Members of the opportunity of proceeding with their measures when they are not objected to. MR. PICTON (Leicester): Does the right hon. Gentleman include the Clergy Discipline Bill among the non-contentious measures? *MR. W. H. SMITH: I made a statement with regard to that Bill a fortnight ago. That is still my position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member Member for Mid Lothian is deeply in-terested in the measure, and I hope he will be able soon to return to the House in order that we may be able to proceed with the Bill. SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton): Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the time has arrived when Public Business might be commenced at a quarter past 3 o'clock ? *(4.48.) MR. W. H. SMITH: 1 rather think that up to the present time Private Business has occupied more time than is usually allotted to it. It was considerably after half-past 3 before the House got to Public Business this evening, and probably it would be for the convenience of the House that on and after Monday next Public Business should begin at a quarter-past 3. also take the opportunity to move that the House do meet to-morrow at 10 o'clock for the purpose of receiving the Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund Loan Bill and other Bills. It is essential the Royal Assent should be signified at I SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE. Resolved, That this House do meet tomorrow at Ten of the clock a.m.-—(Mr. William Henry Smith.) MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. That they have agreed to,-Law Agents and Notaries Public (Scotland) Bill, changed from Law Agents (Scot land) Bill, with Amendments. Μ ΟΤΙ Ο Ν. METALLIFEROUS MINES (ISLE OF MAN). On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to amend "The Metalliferous Mines Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Regulation Act, 1872," in its application to the Secretary Matthews and Mr. Stuart Wortley. Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 400.] ORDERS OF THE DAY. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. Considered in Committee. Clause 1. *(4.50.) MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid): I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name "And provided that in case of School Board schools the school rate does not amount to 18. in the pound on the rateable value of the school district." The effect will be to prevent the new 10s. fee grant being available for School Board schools in districts where the rate is already 1s. and upwards. When the Education Bill of 1870 was before this House the proposal was to limit the School Board rate not to 1s., but to 1d. in the £1. Sir Massey Lopes moved the following proviso: "Provided that the sum so paid shall not exceed in any one rate the amount of a penny in the pound on the rateable value of the area included in the school district." That proposal was most seriously made to the House, and it received the most hearty support of a gentleman who then bore the name of Mr. Vernon Harcourt -I presume the same gentleman as the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt)—who contended that education was an Imperial necessity and ought to be an Imperial charge. Mr. Forster, in his reply, defended the imposition of ld. rate, but said the rate would in no case exceed 3d., although he admitted that the rate he was imposing was not altogether a just one. He said "He did not complain, however, of the hon. Baronet making a strong protest against a mode of taxation which he felt to be not entirely just." his Report are a good reply to those who say that we who oppose the raising of the School Board rate are hindering the progress of education. The hon. Member shows that, notwithstanding the vast increase in the School Board rate in London, so far from education having advanced pari passu, it has gone back. He says "This brief review, then, shows that the continuous growth of expenditure is to be found in every branch of the Board's work without exception. This growth is out of proportion to the increase of schools and scholars. The number of schools and scholars increases slowly, but the expenditure increases faster. The rateable value, which affords a basis to the taxation for defraying this expenditure, If the mode of taxation was not entirely But this ratio is exceeded by the ratio of the increases quinquennially in a certain ratio. just when it was supposed it would growth of the precept taxation during the never exceed 3d. in the £1, I consame period. Meanwhile, the standard of intend that it is very far from just struction, though fairly well sustained, is not now that the rate has in many cases rising, nor is there any countervailing advan risen to 1s. and above 1s. Con- tage in return for the increased cost. I have, then, to submit that we are spending too much sidering that this is the first time any money, and yet are failing to make the educagreat alteration is being made in the tional progress that we ought. But, despite all Education Act, I believe I should be drawbacks and shortcomings, I adhere to what wanting in my duty to my constituents has been said in my previous statements as to if I did not endeavour to induce Her the enlightenment which it has diffused, and the moral good which the Board has effected, Majesty's Government to assent to some the organisation which it has employed for limitation being imposed upon the extra-combatting the social difficulties in such an vagance of the School Board schools. It is area as that of the Metropolis." said if we limit the rate to 1s. the School Boards will conclude that that is the proper rate, and they will all jump up to it at once. I propose, therefore, that if the rate reaches 1s. the School Board shall not have the benefit of this particular grant. In cases where the rate is 11d. or a little over, the School Board will, if my Amendment is adopted, be inclined to keep it at that level, because they would gain nothing by going beyond 1s. unless they went up to 1s. 4d. In my own division the average rate is 5d. In Loughborough, which contains one-third of the voting power of the division, the Board have been very economical, and the rate has been kept down to about 3.5d. In the town of Leicester the rate is already 11.5d., but in the suburbs of Leicester it is in one place, Aylestone, 19-2d.; in another, Belgrave, 14d.; at Hinchley, 13-3d.; in "Then there is a particular item to which I Evington, 18.5d.; in Humberstone, must draw attention financially, namely, this 18-9; and at Seagrave, 12.5. Some very £3,000 for selected schools for upper standards. important evidence has been published This is a new expense of an important chaby the Chairman of the Finance Com-racter, which may grow indefinitely. It mittee of the London School Board (Sir schools, the scholars of the upper standards R. Temple). The concluding/sentences of belonging originally to neighbouring schools, That being so, and the School Board amounts to this: that in certain selected are to be gathered together, and so concentrated as to receive special instruction from teachers devoted to them alone. It is for this special teaching that the extra charge of £8,000 is needed for this the first year of the arrangement. It will recur annually, and, if not checked, will increase, no doubt. These will be, of course, very superior and excellent classes. But the teaching afforded them will be nothing less than secondary or superior education, in the very midst of our elementary system. Undeniably this is grafting secondary instruction on to our Board school system at the charge of the rates. Financially, I submit that this is beyond the intention of the law, but the Board and the ratepayers will judge. I, for one, should welcome the affording of this secondary or superior education, but I submit that it ought to be at the cost of those who benefit thereby and not at the cost of the ratepayers. Now that fees are to be abolished by the new legislation, there can be nothing paid by those benefited, and if this secondary education is to be allowed then the rates must inevitably bear the cost." Although the education given in these schools is very good, it is not of the kind which the public ought to be called upon to pay for. I have here a letter from a working man pointing out the great grievance under which he suffers. He is the owner of a small house in the district of Hammersmith, and it is upon him and persons of his class that the burden of these rates falls so heavily. I believe if we were to put a limit to the extravagance of School Boards we should, to some extent, recoup the Treasury for its generosity in extending the limits of age from 5 and 14 to 3 and 15. I was amongst those who heartily supported that extension. I am always prepared to promote the cause of education, provided religious liberty is not interfered with. In the Report of the Commission on Education it is specially pointed out that the voluntary schools are in danger of being thrust out of existence through the competition of the Board schools with the unlimited resources at their command. In the interests of the elementary denominational schools I also recommend the Amendment to the Committee. The average cost of educating a child in a Christian school of whatever denomination is considerably less than the average cost of educating a nondescript child in a Board school. The cost of educating children in Roman Catholic schools is less by 8s. per head. At present Board schools have tremendous pecuniary advantages, alMr. De Lisle though they are really as denominational or sectarian as any voluntary schools, for I suppose that at Board schools people favour at least theistic conceptions of a kind which Voltaire might have approved. The fact that children are educated at voluntary schools at a less cost than at Board schools constitutes good ground for giving relief to the former. Many of my constituents, I may observe, are bitterly disappointed by the proposals of the Government respecting voluntary schools, and consider that they have been betrayed on this question of education. There are a good many Conservatives in the country who believed that when the education question was reopened that at least the 17s. 6d. limit would have been dealt with and the voluntary schools put upon terms of equality with the Board schools. I daresay, however, there are reasons why that is impossible at present; and as long as Home Rule is in the atmosphere, we must be prepared to put up with a good deal. As to the effect of my Amendment, I do not believe that it will be thought a grievance in any part of the country, while it certainly will afford considerable relief to those who not only pay the school rate but also support voluntary schools. There are, I believe, I believe, 11,900 schools belonging to the Church of England, 551 to the Wesleyans, 946 to the Roman Catholics, and only 4,714 Board schools. The Amendment if carried would only affect the few School Boards whose extravagance has led to the imposition of a 1s. rate. Of course, if the ratepayers do not mind paying a high rate they can still keep these Boards in power, but I think the adoption of this Amendment by the House would constitute a warning to School Boards against extravagant expenditure, and be a reminder that our present educational system was accepted in the belief that the rate would in no instance exceed 3d. If the Amendment does not meet with that amount of support which I hope hon. Members will give to it I will not press it to a Division. Under any circumstances, I hope the Debate upon it will be finished before the dinner hour. Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, at end, to insert "and provided that in case of board schools, the school rate does not amount to one shilling in Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." us the pound on the rateable value of the school | think that the proposal contained in the district."-(Mr. De Lisle.) Bill is a reactionary and retrograde proposal. The principle of the Act of 1870 was that Parliament should make a grant from the Imperial Exchequer for the purpose of public education equal to the amount raised in the localities for the same purpose. That is a thoroughly sound principle, because it brings a stimulus to bear upon persons in the localities to contribute and to do every. thing in their power to make education efficient. But that principle was modified by the Act of 1876, with considerable loss to a large number of the working classes and to the Imperial Exchequer. Under the Act of 1870 Local Authorities, whether School Boards or managers, had undoubtedly to make great exertion to comply with the conditions laid down by the Act. But under the Act of 1876 it was not necessary to meet the Parliamentary grant with local contributions until that grant exceeded 17s. 6d. That provision in the Act of 1876 has had a effect. In 1876 the amount received as local income in voluntary schools was £1 ls. ld.; in average (5.12.) THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE, Kent, Dartford): I certainly hope that this discussion will not last until the dinner hour. My hon. Friend has referred to many matters, and among other things he has told that the Government have more or less offended their friends in the country by bringing in this Bill. We are, as he knows, proposing to give a fee grant of 10s. per head, and it may be interesting to the hon. Member to know that in the county which he represents the attendance fee is 9s. 8d. per child. But the more important matter is whether we as practical men should attempt to engraft upon the Bill now before the Committee such a proposal as that made by my hon. Friend. I am well aware that in many quarters much apprehension has been caused by the gradual increase of the School Board rate. It is true that the rate has grown and grown, but under what circumstances? Under a representative system, and a system of triennial School Board elections. Therefore, if the ratepayers are anywhere aggrieved by the expenditure of a School Board they have the remedy in their own hands. I am often asked why the rate is so high in the Metropolis. The reason may be that there are thousands and thousands of ratepayers in London who will not take the trouble to cross the street in order to record their votes at elections. As long as that apathy continues the public can scarcely complain with justice. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amend ment. Question put, and negatived. (5.15.) MR. T. ELLIS (Merionethshire): I beg to move, after "1876," in line 23, to insert "so much only of." The section as it stands upsets the 17s. 6d. limit in two respects. In the first place, it provides that the money payable under the Bill shall in future be counted as money coming from local sources, and it modifies it in a still larger sense with regard to schools having a fee grant which will exceed the fees accruing to the school in the course of last year. I prejudicial 1889 it had fallen to 19s. 8d. In 1876 the voluntary subscriptions were 9s. 6d. is unfair by a side wind to upset the contributions reduced in any way whatlimit laid down by the Act of 1876. In ever. I think we have done a great a large number of schools there are no deal too much in that way. Another voluntary subscriptions whatever, and important point is, are you justified in in 40 per cent. of them the subscriptions this extraordinary process or arrangeamount only to 2s. 6d. per child in aver- ment, which says that the local resources age attendance. The effect of passing must be brought up to at least 17s. 6d. in this section as it stands will be to reduce order to meet the Parliamentary grant? the amount of subscriptions to a much You are shovelling out a mass of money lower point than they now stand at. I from the Treasury, and you are going to have no special animus against voluntary give the managers of voluntary schools a schools, but I think experience has grant which for present purposes you proved that it is wise to adhere as closely will describe as "local resources." You as possible to the principle of the Acts of are going to plank down a Parliamentary 1870 and 1876. There are two School grant, changing its name to local reBoards in Merionethshire which will make sources, and thus you will enable the Local of this fee grant a very large profit; Authorities to make up the sum of one will receive over £1,000, the other 17s. 6d. I think this proposal to abolish about £600 over and above the fees it indirectly the 17s. 6d. limit is an unfair now receives. What is true of these one. School Boards will be true of several schools all over the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present I would appeal to him as guardian of the Public Purse to make it incumbent upon Board schools and managers of voluntary schools to make some efforts to meet the large and generous grants made to them out of the national Exchequer. With that view I beg to move the Amendment, Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after "1876," to insert the words so much only of." — (Mr. Thomas Ellis.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." (5.30.) MR. A. DYKE ACLAND York, W.R., Rotherham): I think the Vice President and his Department must have had some searchings of heart upon this subject. We have been told that the 17s. 6d. limit would not be disturbed by this clause. You are disturbing it in the most serious way. Prebendary Row, one of the most distinguished authorities on this subject, has said— "One of its great advantages is that indirectly the 17s. 6d. limit will be abolished for rural schools of the class I am interested in." I regard that result as hardly fair, and it certainly would have been more satisfactory had this question been left alone. If you are indirectly abolishing the limit, you are doing an unreasonable thing. I know what is going to be said that you are going to help districts which charge low fees. But in rural districts do not want to see the voluntary Mr. T. Ellis *(5.34.) SIR W. HART DYKE: The hon. Member who introduced this Amendment denounced this proposal in this last sub-section as reactionary and retrograde. Now, my challenge to the hon. Member is, that it is not reactionary if the Education Department does its duty in regard to this extra sum which has been devised. I hope and trust that these proposals will be far more educational in their character than hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to suppose. It will be absolutely impossible for the Department to deal exceptionally with any school; it must secure absolute efficiency in these schools. The principle in which we have proceeded is that there should be some uniform fee grant to be applied to all schools-Board or voluntary, otherwise we would not have been able to get our proposals through the House. It is an incident of our proposal that in certain circumstances the 17s. 6d. imit is varied, but I deny that we are making the alteration by a side wind. Far from its being a retrograde it is a distinctly educational movement. It is urged that it would be an evil thing if certain of the subscribers were to put the balance in their pockets instead of spending it on education. But it is perfectly certain that if managers do that the efficiency of the school would not be maintained, the school would remain in its present position, and the 17s. 6d. limit could not be exceeded. Under all the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government feel bound to maintain this sub-section as it stands, and I |