Council; but it will be more convenient that the school board should have the power, and in one respect we give to the latter more power than the Town Council at present possesses. Under the existing law none of the local bodies can establish Industrial Schools, unless there is first of all some voluntary initiative in the case. We do not consider it necessary to apply that provision to the school boards, as the action of the ratepayers and the municipality may be considered as the voluntary initiative; and, therefore, we give power to the school boards at once to establish Industrial Schools. I believe myself that the Industrial Schools Act might be considerably amended, and that power might be given to make it available for day scholars, as well as for boarders, so as to enable very poor children to get their dinners, together with their teaching, without the necessity of being also lodged. That is a question, however, to be considered by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department either this or next session.

There is only another provision to which I will allude. There are many small school endowments which were not touched by the Endowed Schools Bill of last year, because they were endowments of schools receiving assistance from Government. We give power to the governing bodies of these endowments to suggest schemes which, if approved by the Government, may come into operation.

I have now described the principal provisions of this Bill. Before I sit down I hope the House will allow me to say one word upon the spirit in which this measure is submitted by the Government to them. In measures of constructive legislation, it seems to me that the purpose, the end aimed at, matters much; and the precise method matters comparatively little. What is our purpose in this Bill? Briefly this, to bring elementary education within the reach of every English home, aye, and within the reach of those children who have no homes. This is what we aim at in this Bill; and this is what I believe this Bill will do. I believe it will do it eventually, and not only eventually, but speedily. To do it will require enormous labour on the part of the Government; but if the House passes this Bill with the approbation of the country, no Government will be able to refuse that labour. Now this purpose we cannot allow, with our assent, to be frustrated; unless this Bill provides a complete national system of education, our efforts in framing it, your

time in considering it, will have been wasted. Again, there are many points which have to be taken into consideration. There are rights of parents; rights of minorities; rights of conscience, which must be respected; but, within these limits, the attainment of our purpose, the due regard to individuals, I hardly need say that in a measure of this kind the Government will receive with the greatest possible attention every suggestion from either side of the House. The Bill will be in the hands of members, I hope, to-morrow; certainly on Saturday. They will find that the clauses have been prepared with care, and I think that they are consistent one with another; but we shall be ready to consider every amendment with the most careful attention.

But I confess I am sanguine, hon. members may think me too sanguine, that in its main provisions the Bill will become law. And I will very shortly give the reason why I am thus sanguine. We think that it will be supported by both those who wish to protect the present system of education and those who wish to change it. On the one hand, we acknowledge and make the utmost possible use of present educationai efforts, of the efforts of the members and of those who sympathise with the views of the Educational Union; on the other hand, we assert in the strongest language that it is the duty of Government to take care that in every locality throughout the kingdom elementary education is provided by help of local agency, and that is the principle of the Educational League. I know there are many hon. members, men who are as zealous in the cause of education as I am myself, who object to a rate because they dislike the interference of the ratepayers with their schools. To such men I say "Do the work without a rate, and we will not interfere, but if you do not do the work the education of the children must not be neglected because you dislike a rate." Again, what is the principle relied upon by the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and the hon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), to whom so much credit is due for stimulating educational zeal in the country? It is the education of the people's children by the people's officers, chosen in their local assemblies, controlled by the people's representatives in Parliament. That is the principle on which our Bill is based; it is the ultimate force which rests behind every clause.

But I am not going to repeat my argu

long, and have only one further remark to make before I sit down. I have said that this is a very serious question; I would further say that whatever we do in the matter should be done quickly. We must not delay. Upon the speedy provision of elementary education depends our industrial prosperity. It is of no use trying to give technical teaching to our artizans without elementary education; uneducated labourers -and many of our labourers are utterly uneducated-are, for the most part, unskilled labourers, and if we leave our work-folk any longer unskilled, notwithstanding their strong sinews and determined energy, they will become over-matched in the competition of the world. Upon this speedy provision depends also, I fully believe, the good, the safe working of our constitutional system. To its honour, Parliament has lately decided that England shall in future be governed by popular government. I am one of those who would not wait until the people were educated before I would trust them with political power. If we had thus waited we might have waited long for education; but now that we have given them political power we must not wait any longer to give them education. There are questions demanding answers, problems which must be solved, which ignorant constituencies are ill-fitted to solve. Upon this speedy provision of education depends also our national power. Civilised communities throughout the world are massing themselves together, each mass being measured by its force; and if we are to hold our position among men of our own race or among the nations of the world we must make up the smallness of our numbers by increasing the intellectual force of the individual.

But there are many men, I doubt not many members of this House-and these not the least earnest to do their duty or the least able to help their fellows-who are swayed not so much by these general considerations as by the condition of the individuals around them. Well, then, to these gentlemen let me say one word-I am not a fanatic in this matter of education, I know well that knowledge is not virtue-that no education, much less elementary education, gives power to resist temptation-is a safeguard against calamity; but we all know that want of education-that ignorance is weakness, and that weakness in this hard struggling world generally brings misfortune-often leads to vice. Let us then each of us think of our own homes, of the villages

which it is our lot to be busy; and do we not know child after child-boys or girlsgrowing up to probable crime, to still more probable misery, because badly taught or utterly untaught? Dare we then take on ourselves the responsibility of allowing this ignorance and this weakness to continue one year longer than we can help? Not doubting that these considerations will weigh with the House as they have with the Government, I venture to submit this measure to the House, and therefore, sir, I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for public Elementary Education in England and Wales.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, it was impossible at that time to criticise in detail such a complicated measure, introduced with a fairness and ability which all must admit. He rose to ask for explanations on certain points, and to make a few remarks on certain provisions which he did not think would be acceptable to the country. In the first place, the Vice-President had said there was to be no more denominational inspection. He did not feel sure what he meant by that. Did he merely mean that the inspectors were no longer to examine in religion? It was at present the rule that they should not examine in religion for the Government. It was true that they examined for the Archbishop, and sent their reports to him; but there was no examina-tion in religion on behalf of the Government. This had been fully explained to the House by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the debates on the Revised Code. What then was the meaning of "denominational inspection ?" In what did it consist? What was the essence of denominational inspection? It was the power of veto which every religious body had on the appointments of the inspectors which were to inspect the schools connected severally with those religious bodies. This was the result of the great Management Clauses controversy which termiuated in 1851. Each of the religious bodies, the Church of England, the Wesleyans, the Roman Catholics, the Jewish, and the British and Foreign Society, had their own fight with the Government; and after they had carried it on many years, there was a treaty of peace with each religious body, and forms of trust deeds were agreed upon, which gave the religious bodies the right of veto which they now possessed. There was in each case a solemn concordat; a formal treaty of peace was entered into and signed

bad schools, and were confined to parishes in which there could be no other schools. If these schools were to be admitted, as he supposed they would be if the education they gave was reasonably good, there would be very few places in which the present Bill would be operative. As the right hon. gentleman had alluded, rather disparagingly, to some statistics which he had adduced last year, and which had not been controverted, he trusted he might be permitted to allude briefly to the statistics given by the Vice-President. The right hon. gentleman alluded to the case of Liverpool, where he said there were 80,000 children between the ages of five and thirteen. Of these he said that 20,000 were in no school; and 20,000 more went to inferior schools. The Commissioners thought that for the children of the working classes, six years of schooling would be sufficient. Now, as there are eight years between five and thirteen, if every one of those children were to attend school for six years, three-fourths of the number ought to be at school in each year; and according to the showing of the right hon. gentleman, there were three-fourths at school. In Liverpool precisely threefourths of the children between the ages of five and thirteen were at school; so that according to the right hon. gentleman's own showing the number that ought to be at school were at school; and the only fault to be found was that 20,000 were at bad schools.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I stated was that out of 80,000 children at Liverpool 20,000 were at no school at all, and 20,000 more were at schools where they were receiving no education worth having.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that that was precisely what he had said; every child which should be at school was at school, but one-quarter were at bad schools, which perhaps might be improved. With regard to Manchester the same might be said; for the Vice-President had shown, that of 65,000 children between the ages of five and thirteen, only 16,000 were not at school in each year. He thought therefore that the right hon. gentleman had failed to convince the House that there was any educational destitution either at Liverpool or at Manchester. He alluded also to certain statistics that he (Lord Robert Montagu) had produced last year; those figures were furnished by the office of the right hon. gentleman, and there was no doubt in his own mind of their accuracy. He believed, moreover, that the Vice-President had care

fully considered them, and was not prepared to dispute them. He (Lord Robert Montagu) was anxious to show that he had not deceived or misled the House by inaccurate statistics; he might therefore mention that he had that day made calculations upon another basis, and that they showed nearly the same results. These figures were calculated for the year 1868. In order that every child should be at school for six years, there should be at school in each year 3,424,564; the scholars actually in aided schools were 1,527,665, which left to be accounted for 1,896,899. By the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, it appeared that there were of boys alone requiring secondary education 1.25 per cent. of the population, or 255,000, which left 1,641,899, including girls of the upper and middle classes. From this should be deducted for children in reformatories, factories, workhouses, Birkbeck schools, &c., say 100,000. There remained 1,541,899, including the aforesaid girls. Now, in 1858, there were in unaided public schools 654,393. Had this number increased since 1858? If so, it was because there was vastly more education than at that time; for the aided public schools had also increased very rapidly. But if education had increased so much both in aided and unaided schools, what had become of the small deficiency reported in 1861? At all events, there were now in unaided Church schools alone, of a good stamp, 571,890 (leaving only 116,503 for other public unaided schools). Private schools for the poor in 1858, contained 33 per cent. of the population; but the number, according to the Commissioners, decreased 1.2 per annum. Even if the number in private schools were supposed to have remained the same, the result of these figures was, that it left for children not at school, 313,970; but from this there must be subtracted something on account of the girls of the upper and middle classes. This bore out the result supplied by the figures furnished to him while in the Privy Council Office. The right hon. gentleman said that the fault of the present system was that it only helped those who helped themselves. Well, that was the very essence of the present system, and was the object which the statesman who originated it had in view. They had said that they would not resort to a forcing system, but would give assistance in proportion as education was appreciated and desired, while they at the same time applied a stimulus and a spur to the local desire for

education. To this conclusion those great statesmen of former days, who were opposed to what is called "the paternal theory of Government," had necessarily arrived. He did not know whether the right hon. gentleman had read the speech of Sir Robert Peel in 1839, in which he said that the object of the new system, as it was then, was not to cram education down the throats of the people, but to stimulate and help forward education. This system existed in full force until it received a check from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought in his Revised Code. He knew that the Revised Code had done a great deal of good in its way, but it certainly gave a check to the growth of schools, and to the increase in the number of scholars. The present Home Secretary had stated in that House in 1867 that

"The Revised Code had aggravated one of the evils most strongly urged against our system- namely, that it gave aid where it was least wanted, and withheld it where the need was sorest."-[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1158.]

The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Forster) ought, therefore, to complain of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government of Lord Palmerston, but for whom the number of schools would have increased more rapidly, and but for whom there would now have been no educational destitution. If the old system had been remedied with a less ruthless hand, and if the right hon. gentleman opposite had not given way to the desire to decrease expenditure, there would not now have been any educational destitution. It was true that the grants for education were then very large, reaching to nearly £1,000,000 sterling a-year. But that was partly because education was spreading so rapidly. The object of the Revised Code was to decrease these enormous grants for education. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time himself stated that his object was to decrease that expenditure, and a decrease of expenditure meant a decrease in the means of supplying education. The right hon. gentleman in 1867, enamoured of the system to which he had given birth, had said

"You are not contented, although the work is done better and cheaper (under the Revised Code). You are not satisfied, but you must all begin tinkering and pulling to pieces the system which has produced such results."— [Ibid. 1162.]

Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now given his assent to a Bill which tinkered the present system, and pulled

B

it to pieces more than any other Government had pretended to do. There was another point. The Government proposed that in the country the Vestry or Select Vestry was to elect the managers of the schools, and in some cases were to be the managers themselves. These new managers were to impose a rate for the maintenance of the schools. In towns, however, the Town Council was to elect the managers. Now, were persons in the country so much more intelligent than those who lived in towns that there a Vestry should be competent to do that which required in towns a Town Council for its due performance? He should have thought that in the rural districts electors would have been fixed upon who were of the same class in life as those who were taken in the towns. Again, such a system was like the letting in of water. It was impossible to say where it would stop. If they placed the schools in the hands of the vestries it would be found that there would be but one object pursued, that of grinding down the expense. Wherever the governing and taxing body was selected from a small area, the effect was a great restriction on the expenditure. Where the area was larger, local jealousies were neutralised, and larger views obtained. It was the case in regard to the poor, as the lamentable facts relating to the St. Pancras Guardians exemplified; and as to education the same result would follow. They would soon see the same result in England as had been brought about in Canada and in America; the system would be administered as cheaply as possible, and education would be greatly deteriorated. He must remind the right hon. gentleman that if he once allowed a resort to a system of rates numbers of persons would seek to evade the duty, which they now considered to be binding upon them, that of supporting schools. There was at present great voluntary support to schools; it was a matter of charity; and the burden was very unequal, because it varied according to the charitable feeling of individuals. Even these persons, at times, were conscious of the burden and of its inequality; so that under this Bill many would resort to rates to save their subscriptions. As the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government remarked in the great education debates of April 11, 1856, such a system would put an end not only to voluntary subscriptions but also, as a consequence, to that interest in education which ought to be felt throughout the whole community. He now came