yj? 
 
 
 \ "it 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :ri vrC(0«; 
 
 '•^^ 
 
 j^a 
 
 ^^:--^ 
 
 •■■M^''^
 
 LI E) RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVE.R51TY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS
 
 / 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 A. J. MUNDELLA, M.P. 
 
 {Vice-President of theCommitte/' of Couiuii on Education)^ 
 
 LONDON SCHOOL BOARD 
 EXPENDITURE. 
 
 REPLY TO DEPUTATI<])N, MARCH 7TH, 1884. 
 
 SPEECH AT OPENING OF CARLTON ROAD 
 SCHOOL, I 6th FEBR'UAcRY, 1884. 
 
 London: 
 OaANT Sc Co., .72 TO 75, TuRNMiLL Stkef.t, E.G. 
 
 1884.
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 A. J. MUNDELLA, M. P. 
 
 { Vice President of the Committee of Cotincil on Education), 
 
 ox 
 
 LONDON BOARD SCHOOL EXPENDITURE 
 
 On the afternoon of Friday, ^larch 7th, a large deputation from the 
 newly constituted ]\Ietropolitan Association for Limiting the Expendi- 
 ture of the London School Board waited upon the Right Hon. A. J. 
 Mundella, at the Privy Council Office, for the purpose of presenting 
 the memorial determined upon at the inaugural meeting of the 
 Association on February 8th. The memoriafl was as follows : — 
 
 To the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education. 
 
 K\J^t (jlJlttttnriSl of The MetropoHtan Association*for 
 Limiting the Expenditure of the School Board for London, 
 
 That your Memorialists have combined together, from all 
 parts of the Metropolis, for the purpose of proving that the Large 
 Rate levied for Education is unnecessary, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. At jSIidsummer last, the accommodation in the Board Schools 
 was 40,000 in excess of the average attendance, and in. 
 "Voluntary Schools 86,000, and yet the School Board are now 
 projecting Schools for over 100,000 more children. 
 
 2. The Voluntary Schools in 1874 had 271,761 average on roll^ 
 but at Midsummer last only 219,002, and your Memorialists 
 do not desire, as Ratepayers, to encourage or provide for the 
 continuous transfer of these children to rate-aided schools. 
 
 3. On inquiry into the root of the evil, it is found that a wrong 
 
 principle of calculation is made by the Statistical Committee 
 of the School Board and sanctioned by the Education. 
 Department. 
 
 a. By assuming the necessity of providing schools for air 
 children between three and five years of age (who are ■ 
 not under compulsion to attend), namely, for 160,762 
 children between three and five, when only 66,131 attend. 
 This mistake of nearly 100,000 places leads to great 
 expense. The \2\ per cent, on schedules, equal to- 
 87,611, deducted for all causes of absence, is covered^
 
 one and a half times \vithout .reference to these children 
 between three and five, viz. : — 
 
 Permanently disabled - - 3)^38 
 
 Efficiently instructed at home - 2,281 
 
 Exempt under Bye-law 5 - 2,317 
 
 ]Midsummer school roll 557,595 
 
 In average attendance 431,467 
 
 ■ 126,128 
 
 134.364 
 h. Another error is caused by reckoning schools as though 
 they enrolled only up to their accommodation, when, 
 in fact, they can and do enrol fifteen per cent, above, for 
 girls and boys, and twenty per cent, for infants. Thus a 
 school for i>200 enrols 1,404, and still the average attend- 
 ance is not equal in most cases to the accommodation ; 
 yet, if a district has 7,000 children and only five schools 
 at 1,200 each, equal to 6,000 accommodation, it is said 
 there is another school required for a 1,000 children mi- 
 provided for ; yet, in fact, these five schools have on roll 
 1,400 each, equal to 7,000, and there is no deficiency at 
 all. The formula showing school deficiency should be 
 altered as follows : — 
 
 Children for whom accomodation required 
 Less limit of enrolment in existing schools 
 
 Deficiency including children between 
 three and five not attending any school 
 
 4. Your memorialists believe that these errors being corrected 
 
 will afford an immediate stoppage to the increase of the rate, 
 without the slightest injury to the cause of education ; but if 
 not, as relief is absolutely necessary, the local burden (levied 
 on one kind of property only) may be lightened in some or all 
 of the following ways : — 
 
 1. By allowing the eight square feet basis to all Board 
 schools. 
 
 2. Not sanctioning such low fees (the schools are used by a 
 class far above those intended to be educated out of rates, 
 and liberal remissions, whatever the fees, will meet all 
 real cases of distress). 
 
 3. Increasing the number of pupil-teachers. 
 
 4. Compulsorily filling the 86,000 vacancies in voluntary 
 schools. 
 
 5. Limiting the School Board rate to 6d., on the principle ol 
 the Public Libraries Act. 
 
 6. Increasing the Government grant. 
 
 5. Your ^Memorialists respectfully request an inten'iew, and to 
 further explain, enclose a statement (prepared by Mr. Edwin 
 Hughes, one of the members of the School Board) with 
 which your Memorialists entirely concur. 
 
 6. And your Memorialists pray that over-building by the London 
 School Board may no longer receive the sanction of the 
 Education Department. 
 
 And 5'our Memorialists will ever pray, &c. 
 
 EDWIN HUGHES, Chairman, 
 2, Gresham Buildings, Basinghall Street, E.C, 
 
 Oi
 
 The deputation was lieaded by IMr. Edwin IIuj^lics, Chairman of 
 tlic Association and member of the London School Board, and 
 amongst its members were Lord Algernon Percy, !M.P., the Hon. W. 
 Lowther, iM.F., Baron dc AVorms, M.P., Mr. James Round, M.P., 
 :\Ir. W. E. M. Tomhnson, M.P., :Mr. T. W. Boord, M.P., and 
 Messrs. John Lobb and James Ross, of the London School Board. 
 The Right Hon. J. G. Hubbard, M.P., introduced the deputation. 
 Mr. Edwin Hughes, addressing Mr. INIundella on behalf of the 
 deputation, said this Association had been formed in consequence of the 
 fact that the continuous increase of the rates naturally caused the 
 ratepayers to inquire whether the additional expense was really neces- 
 sary'. {Hear, hear.) He might say at once that they all recognised 
 in him (Mr. !Mundella) a real and thorough friend of education. 
 (Hear, hear.) They rejoiced in the great work that had been effected 
 by the Board school system and they regarded the question of expense 
 as a matter of secondary importance. Still it should certainly not be 
 kft out of consideration. And if they could point out to him how, 
 v/ithout doing any harm to education, th^re were means of lessening 
 the burden upon the ratepayers, they had no doubt that he would 
 listen to that side of the case also and give it the most careful atten- 
 tion. (Hear, hear.) The point which was of the greatest possible 
 consequence and which had not been brought so prominently into 
 view was whether more school accommodation was being provided by 
 tlie London School Board than was necessary. (Hear, hear.) The 
 initiative of course lay with the School Board, but the sanction lay 
 with the Education Department, over which jSIr. Mundella so ably 
 pjresided. (Hear, hear.) They therefore trusted that in regard to new 
 Uuilding-s the Department would 'Continue to exercise vigilance in the 
 careful investigation of the real requirement-s. (Hear, hear.) Of course 
 in doing this they must be guided very much by the statistics which the 
 School Board themselves collected. These statistics included all the 
 children between three and thirteen years of age. The Act of 1870 
 only referred to children between five and thirteen, and the Act of 
 187C to children between five and fourteen. There was nothing in 
 the Act of Parliament which said anything about children below five 
 (hear, hear), and as the School Board reckoned, and the Department 
 sanctioned, accommodation for the \\hole of the 160,000 children below 
 five years of age in the metropolis, this large number appeared to the 
 ratepayers to be something grafted on to the Act of Parliament. 
 (Hear, hear.) They would not desire to exclude children between 
 three and five, but the question was — was it of any use to build 
 schools for more of that age than actually attended ? The School 
 Board here estimated 100,000 school places for children who did not 
 attend. That was a consideration which no responsible person could 
 neglect. This alone more than covered the I2i per cent, deduction 
 from the scheduled numbers for all causes of absence. Then the
 
 average attendance was less than 80 per cent, of the numbers on the 
 school rolls. Of course the 12J per cent, was to mclude that 20 per 
 cent, of absentees. The London School Board were originally 
 allowed to deduct 23 per cent. In a correspondence between the 
 Board and the Department in 188 1 in reference to that question, it 
 was urged that the schedules were so much short of the actual numbers 
 that 10 per cent, should be added before the 23 per cent, was taken 
 off. No doubt the original schedules were somewhat deficient. But 
 of late years the Board had employed an army of visitors who had 
 gone round from house to house every year, and they now showed 
 over 700,000 children of the elementary school class. These numbers 
 should now be taken as correct. They did not require any addition of 
 10 per cent. Then the 12J per cent, deduction was further shown 
 to be inadequate by the fact that there was a difference of 48,000 
 absentees between the school roll and the average attendance. Con- 
 sidering all the children who did not go to school and who could not 
 be made to go to school, the I2| per cent, was not more than half the 
 proportion that ought to be deducted. It was said that it was oi 
 no use to take the figures for the whole metropolis, that every district 
 must be taken separately. But there were children of those classes in 
 every district. The only places in which the Board could not make a 
 mistake in building schools were in the suburbs. To these the people 
 were flowing from the interior districts, which were becoming depopu- 
 lated. (Hear, hear, and "No, no.") If a school were built in the 
 nterior, and the children afterwards migrated to the suburbs, the 
 aiCGommodation would have to be provided afresh. In a letter 
 from the School Board, dated 8th March, i88r, they asked to 
 be allowed in future to deduct 20 per cent, from the schedule, 
 and the Department answered on the 9th of April following that the 
 School Board might deduct 12^ per cent., because that was the rule 
 throughout the country. The School Board said that they could not 
 help themselves, and the deputation therefore had come to him (jMr. 
 Mimdella). The effect of any mistake in the figures was not only the 
 unnecessary cost of the building and maintenance of the schools, but 
 a lamentable injury to the neighbouring voluntary schools. (Hear, 
 hear.) If, by any mistake of overbuilding, fifty or 100 children were 
 talcen from a voluntary school, it was often just those children who 
 had enabled the voluntary school to live. He (Mr. Hughes) noticed 
 with regret that for the voluntary schools the grant was limited to 
 i/s. 6d. a head, unless they were able to make their school fees and 
 other sources of income equal to the grant. That was a restriction 
 which the Department did not put upon Board Schools. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA ; That is an Act of Parliament, and applies to all 
 schools. It is Lord Sandon's Act of 1876, 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I still think it hard, although it is in^the Act of 
 Parliament,
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : Thut may be so, but there is no differential: 
 treatment. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : In the School Board they ha\'e the assistance of the 
 rates. The income is not jeopardised by the grant. I think it is a^ 
 little hard upon the voluntary schools, who are no expense to the 
 rates, that they should be put, in regard to their grant-earning 
 conditions, on a less favoural)le footing than the School Boards. And if 
 it is the fault of the Act of Parliament — it may be that there are 
 faults in Acts of Parliament — the legislators here finding that fault 
 might give attention to it. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : It was not considered a fault at the time by the 
 riends of voluntary schools. It was put in by Lord Sandon to helj? 
 voluntary schools, and was accepted by the friends of voluntary schools 
 as a distinct help. That particular restriction was inserted in 1876. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : Yes, as an amendment to a clause in the Act of 1870. 
 
 Mr.MuNDELLA: No, not as an amendment at all; as a distinct addition. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I was reading it this morning. Continuing, Mr, 
 Hughes said he hoped he had made himself clear in regard to these 
 babies — for he could not call them anything but babies — of between 
 three and five years old who did not go to school. He hoped that 
 Mr. Mundella would add them to the 12 j per cent, deduction. If 
 schools were built for the 94,000 of these children who were 
 not attending, the School Board would be allowed to expend over a . 
 million of money which would be utterly unnecessary. The friends of 
 Board schools had often said that voluntary schools had as many 
 children as in 1870. They forgot a very important fact, namely, tht^in 
 consequence of the impetus given to them by the grant the voluntary 
 schools increased up to 1874 '> ^^^ ^^'^^' since 1874 they had been going, 
 down, until they now stood at 76,000 less than at that time. 
 
 Mr. Mundella : What is the number of school places transferrec?< 
 to the London School Board ? 
 
 Mr. Hughes : There are some, no doubt ; but I don't want to see 
 them transfeiTcd. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. Mundella : But I want to know what amount of accommodation 1 
 in British and other schools has been transferred to the School Board. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I don't know the number of schools without looking, 
 at the books. 
 
 Mr. Mundella : Well, I can tell you. The transferred accommo- 
 dation is more than 30,000. And yet, in spite of that, the average 
 attendance to-day is quite as much as in 1870, when the Act was passed. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : In comparing with 1870 you are comparing with the 
 year before compulsion came into operation. But when compulsion. 
 came into operation the voluntaiy schooL' attendance rose. 
 
 Mr. Mundixla : Of course if the schools arc transferred it must go down 
 
 Mr. Hughes : Why are they transferred ? Because th y cannot 
 exist. (Applause.) Continuing, Mr. Hughes said the process of.
 
 disintegration of the voluntary schools could 1)C traced over the whole 
 of tlie metropolis. It was not entirely the fault of the Education 
 Department. It was the fault very often of the practice of tlie School 
 Board. It was of course of no use to come there to complain oi 
 another body which had been elected by the ratepayers. They did 
 not, therefore, come to appeal against the London School Board, but 
 only to speak of matters relating to the Education Department*. The 
 memorial showed with perfect clearness that so long as this School 
 Board rate and other rates were levied upon one kind of property only 
 ■ — upon occupiers — so long must it be expected that occupiers would look 
 very closely into the incidence of this taxation, and comi)lain that they 
 alone are called upon to bear this burden, to the exclusion of the 
 shipping and the funded interests and all other kinds of property. 
 (Hear, hear.) If the 200,000 children now in the voluntary schools 
 were by the present processes to be all put into the Board schools, it 
 WIS clear that the eightpenny rate would come to be is. 4d. by 
 doubling the numbers of the children, and the ratepayers would be glad 
 of the promised aid in the alleviation of local taxation to enable them 
 more easily to bear the burden. (Hear, liear.) As regarded the ques- 
 tion of fees, he noticed that the Education Department veiy often 
 asked the Board to put a higher fee than the Board were inclined to 
 do. The low fees in Board schools were another help towards getting 
 rid of the voluntary schools. Let it be remembered that the 
 School Board system w^as never intended to supersede ; only to supple- 
 ment. The Department had the right to sanction or to refuse to 
 sanction, and the principle which should guide everyone was that the 
 fees should be in accordance with the condition of the majority of the 
 people near the school. The School Board had such powers of 
 remission that tliere need be no injustice done. A\''ith regard to the 
 pupil- teachers, they were required by the Board to go to college, 
 which was not stipulated by the Department, and the Board imposed 
 conditions which made an unnecessarily highly-paid staff. With regard 
 to the 86,000 vacancies in London voluntary schools. Could not some 
 arrangement be made to fill those places ? The magistrate had the 
 power of issuing attendance orders for children not attending school, 
 and he could make an order to attend a particular school. Of course, 
 the parent had a right of choice, but that \vas a right of choice of a 
 school where there were vacant places. If in the neighbourhood — as very 
 frequently happened— the Board schools were full and the voluntary 
 schools half empty, the magistrate could very well make an order to fill 
 up some of those 86,000 vacant places. In conclusion, ]Mr. Hughes 
 tendered his thanks for the courtesy and attention with which his 
 remarks had been received, and expressed liis appreciation of JNIr. 
 Mundella's devotion to the cause of education, and the hope that he 
 nn'ght long live to carry on that noble work. (Applause.) 
 
 INIr. MuNDELLA, rising to reply, said : ]\Ir. Hubbard, Mr. Hughes,
 
 and gentlemen,— I must thank Mr. llu^^hes, in tlie first place, for 
 his condensed statement and for the moderation which characterised 
 that statement. I am obliged to traverse some of his figures and I 
 cannot agree with many of his conclusions. But at any rate this is a 
 matter which is very fairly and reasonably open for discussion, and it 
 is a question upon which every fair and open-minded man ought to 
 leave himself unbiassed and impartial, in order that he may arrive at a 
 right conclusion. (Hear, hear.) With respect to any facts or figures 
 which Mr. Hughes desires to send to this Department, let me say to 
 him that we never decline to receive communications from any source 
 whatsoever. Thereisnothingthat comes under our notice that is notfairly 
 considered with reference to the csj^ecialcase or the especial locality with 
 wliich it purports to deal. Let me thank Mr. Hughes, not only for his 
 personal good wislies — he has spoken very kindly indeed of me and of my 
 work — but also for what he has said as to his delight in and appreciation 
 of the advances which have been made in the work of the School 
 Boards. (Hear, hear.) He also said that he hoped they would accom- 
 plish all that we wished them to do, and that your sole object 
 in coming here to-day was to lessen if possible the burden 
 upon tlic ratepayers. (Hear, hear.) AVe are agreed then 
 as to your object and our own. There are one or two points upon 
 which I must correct Mr. Hughes. One is that Mr. Hughes thinks 
 we are very much guided and influenced in our action by School 
 Board statistics. Gentlemen, we are guided by no statistics but our 
 own. We receive representations from School Boards, from Local 
 Boards, Town Councils, and Local Authorities, and from the opponents 
 of School Boards. But we never trust any figures but those resulting 
 from our own careful investigations. We have had now in this De- 
 partment a long experience of the working of the Education Acts. 
 There has been a succession of Vice-presidents ; but there has been a 
 perfect continuity of principle and practice in the administration of 
 the Department. Now, let me turn to the memorial which Mr. 
 Hughes has prepared, and A\hich you gentlemen have come here 
 to-day to support. Mr. Plughes has been good enough to send me the 
 figures on which that memorial is based. The memorial begins by 
 saying that the root of the evil is a wrong principle of calculation 
 in the l£ducation Department. Let me say to you at the outset 
 that this is Mr. Hughes's fundamental error. There is no wrong 
 calculation in the Education Department. The principles which we 
 apply to London have been applied to the whole country ; as the 
 result of tlie application of these principles of calculation we find that, 
 not onl)' have we never been in excess of the real requirements, but 
 very often we have been considerably under the real requirements. I 
 can point Mr. Hughes to manufacturing towns where there is a consider- 
 able residential population, and in some of those towns there are 19 per 
 cent, of the entire population on the rolls of the schools at this moment. 
 
 \\r
 
 lO 
 
 "We hcve not asked you to supply anything like that. But there is the 
 census ; there is the schedule ; there are the returns of the actual number 
 of children ; here are the children in the schools ; there are the children 
 ■outside of the schools. We are bound in that case to allow the Boards 
 vto provide for their accommodation. We have never asked you for any- 
 thing like that in London. If you wish for an illustration I will give 
 you Huddersfield for one. London can never be treated as a whole for 
 [purposes of supply. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I quite agree with that. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : You agree with that ? Well, gentlemen, in some 
 fjparts of London there is an excess of accommodation. Mr. Hughes has 
 ■ said that depletion is going on. I agree. The City and its environs are 
 Poecoming less and less populated every year, and the population is forced 
 
 • outside. But it does not pass altogether outside. I wish it did, because 
 4here are some neighbourhoods where thepeople, instead of gomg outside, 
 
 simply thicken in the miserable districts in which they are situated, and 
 they grow and increase, inhabiting room after room with whole 
 families. And you, gentlemen, who are, no doubt, well acquainted 
 with those fearful statistics which Mr. Marchant Williams has put 
 before us, will know how, in the congested districts of London, houses 
 'which were formerly inhabited by a single family ai'e now occupied by 
 .numerous families, sometimes of as many as nine persons in every room ; 
 and in every division of London there are large masses of population in 
 this most wretched condition. I am astonished to find how very general 
 is this terrible state of things, and how largely it prevails in divisions 
 ^where one would hardly expect to find it. (Hear, hear.) Well now, 
 in the first place Mr. Hughes puts upon the face of his memorial that 
 (here are 86,000 places in voluntary schools in excess of the average 
 
 .attendance. Now, gentlemen, if you could treat children as you treat 
 pawns on a chess-board, if you could take them from one place and 
 put them in another, you might perhaps, if there were no other con- 
 siderations, force them into these schools. But it is utterly impossible 
 that you can do so. There is an excess of accommodation in the City 
 alone of from 2,000 to 3,000 places. But can you force into those 
 
 ;places children from other divisions ? And are you prepared to force 
 Protestant children into Roman Catholic schools or Roman Catholic 
 
 '.children into Church of En'gland schools ? {" No.") Well, then, you 
 
 i3nust leave unoccupied all those places which are in this way rendered 
 
 • unsuitable. And then, as Mr. Hughes knows well, many of the best 
 •schools in London are high-fee schools. The clergy have wisely in 
 imany instances raised their fees to gd. a-week in order to grade their 
 ■schools, because there are grades in the working class as in other 
 .classes — (hear, hear) — and the respectable working man does not like 
 ;his child to sit side by side with the child who is perhaps covered with 
 ■disease and vermin. Hence the voluntary school managers have wisely 
 ig^raded their schools. Clergymen have said to me, " Put a penny school
 
 II 
 
 by tlic siJc of mine and I will thank you for it. We want a diffcrenl 
 class of children." Only so recently as last week a clerical friend of 
 mine in tire East of London, when the great masses of poor children 
 were pointed out to him, said, " Oh, we do not deal with them in 
 London. We do not want them in our schools. We leave them tf) 
 be provided for by the School Board." 
 
 Mr. Hughes : That is right. That is quite true. 
 
 'My. jNIundella (continuing) : Having regard to every district ot 
 London, it is first divided into electoral divisions, and then into blocks, 
 and every block has to be properly supplied, and we have taken as 
 much care of the voluntary schools in every block as the voluntary 
 school managers themselves could desire. I have repeatedly refused to 
 allow Board schools to be erected where I have thought there 
 was efficient, available, and suitable accommodation in voluntary 
 schools. You may have accommodation that is sufficient but not 
 suitable. You do not want to force Protestant children into Roman 
 Catholic schools or vice versa ; you cannot thrust children hither and 
 thither just as if they were so much raw material or so many blocks of 
 wood. The school must be suitable, and in the neighbourhood of the 
 homes of the children, and within the means of the parent as regards 
 the fees. Well now, I find, so far from \2\ per cent, deduction, whicli 
 is the rule throughout the country, leading to an excessive supply, 
 that in several districts of London there are 95 per cent, of the children 
 between five and thirteen already on the rolls. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I know there are a few. Sir. 
 
 ]\Ir. MuNDELLA : Ninety-five per cent, of the whole number. We 
 deduct the 12\ per cent, from the total number of children between 
 three and thirteen, and Mr. Hughes must be aware that if you are to 
 enforce compulsion you must make provision for the infant children. 
 I am sure that the clergymen present know that you cannot get 
 the older children into school if you are to leave the younger 
 children at home. It is the greatest possible convenience to poor 
 parents that the younger children can be left in the infant schools in 
 safe keeping and under beneficial influences while the older children 
 are at school and the parents at work. And that is nothing 
 new. Ever since the Education Department has been an 
 Education Department it has provided for children under five 
 years of age. How many do you think of these children there 
 are on the rolls of public elementary schools in England and 
 Wales } There are more than 400,000 ; and I think 260,000 of 
 these are in voluntary schools, mainly in Church of England schools. 
 It would be the greatest possible blow to the poorer class of parents to say 
 ''we will not provide infant schools for your children." And I say that 
 when you provide the infant schools you know they fill. It is all very 
 well to talk about average attendance, but they would not be providing 
 sufficient accommodation by simply providing for average attendance.
 
 12 
 
 In a school providing, for instance, for 1,500 children on the rolls, tile- 
 average attendance may be, say 1,250, and that means the mean between- 
 the two extremes ; because on one day you will have 1,000 and another 
 day 1,500. If you only provide for the average attendance, what is to 
 become of the children on the fine days when the great mass attend 
 school ? Everyone who has had to do with the management of schools 
 knows that your school supply must be in excess of average attendance. 
 I have told you that this Department has always calculated upon one 
 principle. Here is the report of the Committee of Council for the 
 year 1882-3, which according to the census of the rest of the countcy 
 would show a deficiency. These are Sir Francis Sandford's own 
 words: — "As the upper and middle classes in London at the time 
 of the census were probably somewhat in excess of the ordinary 
 proportion throughout the countiy, this deficiency (132,051 places) 
 cannot fairly be taken as the exact measure of the supply still requued 
 for the district.'' So I have always said, speaking roughly, that 
 100,000 places would be the number still requiied to supply tlie 
 deficiency of London. 'Mr. Hughes in a recent speech has saiid 
 that I have told only 45 per cent, of the truth. That is rather a 
 strong assertion to make. Now, I find that reckoning every 
 place in London as available, there are 45,000 places deficient, and 
 there are 16,000 children in temporary schools ; that makes a 
 deficiency of 61,000. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : That is School Board computation. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : Well, the School Board proposes to provide 
 for 100,000 at this moment with the consent of the Department. 
 I say that there are 45,000 places deficient, supposing tha>t 
 you reckon up every place in every school all over London. And 
 with the 16,000 in temporary schools you come to 61,000 for whom 
 school accommodation is required. And seeing that in so many of 
 the existing schools you have all those difficulties which I have pointed 
 out, you may be sure that 100,000 is not in excess of the real wants of 
 London at the present time. All, gentlemen, you shake your heads- 
 The schools will be built, they will be filled, and you will have to 
 admit yourselves in error. There was a great deal said a short time 
 ago about schools which we sanctioned. But they were no 
 sooner opened than they were filled, and further provision found 
 to be necessary, I think in the Tower Hamlets. That is what 
 has been done before. We have been told over and over again 
 when we have sanctioned the building of fresh schools that we 
 were providing too many places. Gentlemen, all those places are 
 filled, and there is still pressure for more. Sir Francis Sandford pat 
 into my hand figures showing his calculation of what was the real 
 deficiency of accommodation in London. You are no doubt astonished 
 to hear that he makes it 131,000 places requiring to be provided. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : In the vear ?.
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : I shall ask for nothing ol the kind, because T 
 know that London was so shamefully in arrear, the provision was so 
 miserable, there was so much educational destitution, that it will only 
 be gradually that we shall overtake that deficiency and remedy that 
 miserable state of things. 
 
 A Member of the Deputation: With reference to the school 
 which you have just mentioned. Sir, are the voluntary schools in that 
 particular neighbourhood full .'' 
 
 Another Member : No, they are not full. 
 
 Mr. Muxdella : I cannot answer that question off-hand. But T 
 will engage that there are more children in the voluntary schools there 
 to-day than there were in 1870. And you cannot, having regard for 
 the conditions of the children and the conditions of the schools, force 
 every parent to send his children to just such schools as jou may 
 suppose should receive them. You cannot treat children as somethinj^ 
 to be warehoused. There is another point, and that is with reference 
 to the provision in advance, which you are bound to make. 
 
 Mr. Hl'GHES : I agree. 
 
 Mr. ^Mundella : You agree to that, Mr. Hughes } 
 
 ;Mr. Hughes : Yes, in the suburbs. A school a month. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : That is a rather strong admission. For how 
 many children } 
 
 Mr. Hughes: For 1,200. 
 
 Mr. ^Muxdella : Well, that means schools for about 14,000 children 
 a year, if Mr. Hughes is not wrong in his calculation, and that merely 
 to keep pace with the increase of population. And supposing you have 
 to simply make this provision, to build one school a month, )0u must 
 calculate two years in advance. Am I right .-' " 
 
 Mr. Hughes: Something in advance. 
 
 Mr. Muxdella: Well, two years; because a great deal of time is 
 required, firstly in obtaining the sites, especially if they have to be 
 compulsorily purchased ; next in ol)taining the sanction of Parliament ; 
 and then there is the building after tliat. So that you have to make 
 provision quite two years in advance. Well, there are 28,000 cliiklrcn 
 to be provided for to-day in addition to the deficiency. 
 
 Mr. Hughes: Yes, you have to provide for two years in advance, of 
 course. 
 
 Mr. Muxdella: AVell, gentlemen, lam afraid that we are quarrelling 
 about a mere shadow. (" No, no.") Yes. I will tell you why. I have 
 heard you patiently and you must hear me. (Hear, hear.) Remember, all 
 my interests are those of economy. Do you think I want you, gentle- 
 men, to come here to me and grumble about the School Board rates : 
 If the work can be done foi' half the money, no one will be so glad as 
 I. 1 do not want to run the risk of any reaction against education. 
 (Hear, hear.) I do not want that the enemies of education should take 
 hold of the discontent of the ratepayers with the cost of the system..
 
 14 
 
 Like you, I have no children for the School Board to educate (laughter), 
 and I pay the rates all the same. (Hear, hear). We all want to keep down 
 the rates. Everyone who knows the relations between the London 
 School Board and this oflfice knows how this office has tried to keep 
 expenditure down. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : That is right. 
 
 Mr. ISIUNDELLA : Well, I will go further. Mr, Hughes cannot com- 
 plain that this office has been remiss in keeping up fees. We have been 
 considered rather an impediment to the work of the London School 
 Board in this respect. Take the Monnow-road School, where you 
 know the fees have been raised from 4d. to 6d. Deputations of working 
 men have waited upon me, but I have stood firm, because I think there 
 is a class of children in that district which will admit of the 6d. fee. 
 But, gentlemen, there are many districts where there should be no fees 
 at all. You know that there is not a free school mider the London 
 School Board, and I wonder that they have not had the courage to 
 come and ask for some. With respect to the relative positions of the 
 Board and the voluntary schools, there is accommodation at present 
 in the Board schools for 307,000 children. Well, there are 337,000 on 
 the books. That is 10 per cent, in excess of the accommodation. I 
 think, gentlemen, that is a pretty good proof that London is not yet 
 overbuilt. You have 337,000 on the books and 266,000 in average 
 attendance, and I think you must see that the numbers in attendance 
 must often run up very closely to the number upon the rolls of the 
 schools. Now, there is another point in the memorial, and that is that 
 we ought to reckon all the Board schools at the minimum, by allowing 
 the eight square feet basis of accommodation. (Hear, hear.) Some- 
 body says " Hear, hear." Well, I will tell you what it is. The 
 voluntary school managers would not like to have their schools filled 
 up to eight square feet. jSTo good school would stand it. It is 
 impracticable, it is i-uinous to health, and would have the effect of 
 breaking down the Board school system. Go to the best voluntary 
 schools to-day, where they can have as many children as they want. 
 They will not receive them beyond the ten square feet limit. It would 
 be the same, gentlemen, as if you had to spend your whole day at work 
 teaching eighty children in this room. That is so. I have had the 
 room measured. How would you like it ? I say it is ruinous alike 
 to health and education. It is an impossibility to conduct schools 
 properly on the eight square feet basis. What is it ? It is the minimum 
 for a grant. If you get in the least degree below it the grant is at 
 once refused ; the whole grant. And so, what is asked is that we 
 should take the minimum for the maximum, and force children into the 
 schools up to eight square feet. I say that it cannot be done, having 
 regard to the health and the education of the children. Well, as to 
 the next point. Mr. Hughes thinks we ought to take off 23 per cent, 
 from the number of children upon the schedules of the visitors. I have
 
 15 
 
 gone into his 23 per cent, calculations. AVould you do that for 
 Greenwich ? 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I would. 
 
 Mr. MUNDELLA : Yoa yourself have recently applied for increased 
 accommodation in that division, and the London School Board has 
 declined it. If we were to adopt Mr. Hughes's calculations as to the 
 state of the accommodation in the metropolis, we should be obliged not 
 only to refuse Mr. Hughes the accommodation which he has demanded 
 for Greenwich, but we should be obliged to shut up schools for 8,000 
 children in Greenwich alone. If you like to go into that with some of 
 the gentlemen in our department they will be heartily at your service, 
 and they will show you how it is proved. Therefore, gentlemen, with 
 regard to the 100,000 places talked of and projected, remembering the 
 time it Avill take to provide for the immense existing deficiency, increas- 
 ing population, and substitution for temporary schools, my belief is, as 
 I said before, that we are fighting shadows. Before that number is 
 supplied London will want a great many more places, and there will be 
 a great outcry for them. We are going on very slowly. 
 
 A Member of the Deputation : How about the voluntary schools 
 and the rates ? 
 
 Mr. Mundella : I will tell you about them by-and-by. (Laughter.) 
 That is what I want you to understand, for I don't think you do quite 
 miderstand it, gentlemen. (Laughter.) I have spoken to you about 
 the eight square feet basis. I say it is unhealthy and injurious, 
 and I may say further than that. I may tell my right honour- 
 able friend here that, ever since I have been in the Depart- 
 ment, the officials of the Department have urged me to declare 
 that ten square feet shall be the minimum instead of eight, and'I have 
 refused, because there are many poor districts in the country where it 
 would screw them up so that they would have to provide more accom- 
 modation, and the strain would have the effect of shutting up many 
 voluntary schools. I am satisfied that the right thing to do, if we were 
 to begin afresh, would be to establish the ten feet basis. I would say, 
 ^'Let the old eight square feet schools die out." But I would never 
 sanction any new school on the eight feet principle. I am sure that 
 what I am saying has the approval of my right honourable friend. 
 Then you have said, gentlemen, that we are at fault in sanctioning such 
 low fees. But is it not a fact that there is a great difficulty in obtaining 
 fees at present, and that there are thousands and thousands of poor 
 children in arrear ? (" Yes.") Remember the class that you have been 
 trying to get into the Board schools in London. It is a work of great 
 difficulty, and few people are thoroughly acquainted with it. Then I 
 have been asked to recommend an increase of pupil-teachers. (Mr. 
 Ross : Hear, hear.) My friend Mr. Ross "hear, hear's " that. Well, 
 of all the penny wise and pound foolish suggestions that have ever been 
 made to me that is the worst. What you would save in salaries you
 
 i6 
 
 would lose directly in the grants, and, what is more, you would be 
 wasting the precious and too short school life of the children by setting 
 children to teach children. 
 
 Mr. Ross : Ex-pupil-teachers I mean. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : That, m the memorial, means ex-pupil-teachers. 
 
 ;Mr. MuNDELLA : It distinctly says pupil-teachers. Well, 
 what difference would that make ? If you have ex-pupil-teachers 
 you must first have pupil-teachers. We are already training 
 a greatly increased number of pupil-teachers, and you would have 
 us further increase them. And you must remember that they 
 will not always remain young men and women. They will grow 
 older and require increased payment. The weakest point in our 
 educational plan— I confess it to you — is the pupil-teacher system. It 
 is the cause of most of the over-pressure and a great deal of bad 
 teaching. It is the cause of the breaking down of the health of many 
 poor girls who have to perform the double duty of teaching the 
 children and studying for their own examinations. It is the real 
 source of over-pressure in our educational system. It was begun 
 because it was cheap, and it was originally the best means of providing 
 teachers. But to talk about increasing it, gentlemen, depend upon it, 
 it would be the worst thing you could do. (Hear, hear.) I am told 
 by those of H.M. inspectors who are not too fond of Board 
 schools — for we have clergymen amongst our inspectors — that 
 the schools are not over-staffed. Mr. Stokes says that the schools 
 are not sufficiently staffed. That is the testimony of oui- 
 senior inspector for the Southwark division. I believe that for 
 the poor schools— I mean by that those schools which receive the 
 poorest and most neglected children — you want the best staff'. 
 That is the case where there is the greatest difficulty to the teacher, 
 and where the children want the greatest superintendence and control. 
 Your memorial proposes a limit to the School Board rate. Well now, 
 gentlemen, is that consistent with compulsory education ? How can 
 you limit the School Board rate as you do the Free Libraries rate ? You 
 can say in the case of the Free Libraries that you have only so much 
 money to spend, and you can only have so many books. But 
 the Education Act says you must provide a place for every child 
 and put every child into its place. That is surely the only ^vay in 
 which you can carry out the Education Act. You cannot limit the 
 rate until you have educated the whole of the children. The idea of 
 fixing a 6d. rate and saying that shall be the rate ! In some towns of 
 England it would have the effect of emptying half the schools. 
 
 Mr, Hughes : The grant can makeup the difference. Increase the 
 grant. 
 
 Mr. MuxDELLA : That is another thing altogether. You yourselves 
 say that is a Parliamentary question. It requires that you should 
 repeal Lord Sandon's Act, that you should go to the Treasury and get 
 increased grants. I am simply speaking of administering the Education
 
 Acts as I find them, and I have endeavoured to do that with fair- 
 ness and justice. "What I want to ask is this : How is it that, with 
 the largely increased expenditure of all kinds, it is only the educational 
 -expenditure that is challenged day by day? ("No, no.") Then you 
 •challenge all the rest ? 
 
 A Member of the DEPUTA'rroN : A great deal of it. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : I am very glad to hear that, because what I think 
 is this — that the inhabitants of London hear a great deal of the 
 London School Board because it is a popularly elected body, the only 
 one in the metropolis. ("Oh, oh.") It puts forward a plain budget, 
 which is as national almost as the Budget of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer 
 
 A Member of the DEPUTATrox : The Board of Guardians. 
 
 Mr. ]Mundella : That is not a popularly elected body. It is 
 elected by a very different class. (" No, no.") You must allow 
 mc, please. I am a resident in London myself, and know the 
 districts, I believe, as well as most of you. Then I must again 
 point out to you that if there is any dissatisfaction with the 
 London School Board the matter is in the hands of the ratepayers. 
 But whatever School Board is elected, they are bound to carry out the 
 Education Acts, and this Department has no choice but to see that 
 those Acts are cairied out in the sj)irit as well as in the letter. I have 
 been looking very carefully into the growth of London expenditure. 
 There is nothing about which London people know so little as the 
 management of their own affairs. We have no system that is worth 
 caUing a system. I am a resident in London, and Iknowtl»tifI 
 want to see how my own district is governed and controlled I can 
 hardly lay my hands on the means of finding the men who do it. 
 ("No, no.") 
 
 A ^Ikmber of the Deputation: There are the vestries, Mr. 
 ]Mundella. 
 
 ISIr. MuNDELLA : Well, there are the vestries. I know that the 
 vestry of one of the largest districts in London, with a rating power as 
 large as that of Birmingham, was elected by twenty persons the other 
 day. I hold in my hand a statement, moved for in the House of 
 Commons by Mr, W. H. Smith, of the whole expenditure of the 
 metropolis. It is right that the pul:)lic should know the relation of one 
 expenditure to another. The increase of taxation in the metropolis 
 from 1875 ^o 1882 was about two millions. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : The School Board rate has gone up since 1882. 
 
 ]Mr. MuNDELLA : Well, the School Board rate has gone up since 
 1882, and so have the other rates. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : Not the Metropolitan Board. 
 
 ]Mr. MuNUELLA : I beg your pardon. The Metropolitan Boai-d ex- 
 penditure in 1874 was 218,000/. ; in 1882 it was 640,000/., an increase 
 of 420,000^. The whole expenditure had increased two millions 
 between 1875 and 1S82, and the London School Board was responsible
 
 i8 
 
 for half a million of the increase. I asked Mr. Owen, of the Local 
 Government Board, to tell me what proportion the education rate bears 
 to the other rates, and I must say I was a little astonished to get his- 
 report. He says the proportion which the School Board rate bears to 
 the total of the rates in the metropolis was out of every shilling raised 
 rather more than i|d. — i*37d. Taking the population of the metropolis 
 in 1881, the average charge upon each person for rates, tolls, dues, 
 house duties, etc., in the year referred to was i/. 15s. 5d. ; from rates 
 only the charge per head was il. los. 2|d. For the School Board rate 
 the charge was 3s. 5|d., being one-ninth of the total rate. So you see, 
 gentlemen, you are willing to pay the old rates without grumbling. 
 ("No, no," and laughter.) Well, I don't hear of your going 
 to your vestries about these matters. The vestries come to me, but 
 I do not hear of those bodies, that are not elected and are not as 
 directly responsible to the ratepayers, receiving the same deputations 
 as the School Board and the Education Department receive. I want 
 to point out to you another thing. I have a return of the rating ot 
 the metropolis moved for by Mr. Sydney Buxton. I think he will get 
 it to-morrow morning ; I sent for it and it was given to me. I asked 
 that I might see how much each parish and every district in London 
 was rated at. The figures are startling. Eightpence is the School Board 
 rate for this year. I am only asking you to bear in mind the proportion 
 which this bears to the other rates. In Bermondsey the rates are 
 5s. lod. ; in Mile End, 5s. 5d. ; St. George-in-the-East, 5s. iid, ; St. 
 George the Martyr, 5s. 9d. ; St. Luke's, Middlesex, 6s, ; St. Mary, 
 Newington, 6s. ; Bethnal Green, 6s. 6d. ; and they go up in one dis- 
 trict to as high as 7s. 4d. Now I ask you, gentlemen, whether that 
 8d. which is paid out of their 6s. 6d. by the poor people of Bethnal 
 Green, whether that 8d. spent on education does not give them more 
 solid value for their money than anything else out of the other 5s. lod. ? 
 (Hear, hear.) I believe on my conscience it does. If you were to 
 know as I do — ^and I have capital opportunities for knowing, such as 
 you have not, for I hear in every part of London from H.M. In- 
 spectors, sub-inspectors, and assistants — if you knew what work was 
 being done under the School Board, if the ratepayers of the metropolis 
 knew, I do not believe there would be this outcry about the rates 
 spent upon it. I admit that they are large and heavy. I will join 
 with you to get them down if it is possible. (Hear, hear.) But I do 
 not believe that the ratepayers know the work that is being done 
 for the 8d., as compared with the expenditure on other objects. 
 I liave in my hand, dated the 26th February, the report of one of our 
 sub-inspectors. This Department has its inspectoi's and sub-inspectors 
 in every district of London, and when they come here to me I ask 
 them how things are progressing, what are we doing to mitigate what 
 I may call the barbarism of many parts of London ? Are we doing any- 
 thing to increase the morality and the happiness of the people, or not .'' 
 And if the ratepayers knew what their answers were, they would not
 
 19 
 
 grumble at the cost of tlie work. 
 
 Mr. Hughes : I admit all that. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA (continuing) : One of the sub-inspectors, Mr^ 
 Martin — and there is not a fairer man in the service of the Department— 
 when I asked him to let me know what improvements had been effected 
 in his district, said, " I will send you a rej)ort of what is going on in my 
 schools." I cannot receive such accounts without being interested in 
 them. It is the solution of one of the great social questions of the day, 
 how you are to get rid of the awful barbarism that exists amongst the 
 lowest classes of the people in our great cities. He says — 
 
 Things as they were. 
 
 For illustration, I will take two Board schools in one of the most neglected and 
 depraved neighbourhoods of Marylebone. It is now some eight or nine 3'ears 
 since the Board opened temporary premises in Charles-street, Lisson-grove. 
 The building was an old chapel and the material for working on the poorest and 
 most destitute and wretched. One may judge of the children and their homes- 
 when the district immediately surrounding was popularly known as " Little Hell." 
 The people, old and young, were bad in the extreme. The children were- 
 ragged, dirty, infested with vermin of more kinds than one, undisciplined, and 
 altogether it was a sphere for work calculated to depress even the most 
 sanguine teacher. The parents considered the teachers as their natural 
 enemies, and the epithets often applied to them and to the managers 
 were certainly not of a refined character. I remember when the new 
 buildings were opened, and the first inspection in them took place. 
 Some time necessarily had elapsed, but well do I recollect in the 
 girls' school seeing children laying down their pens on the desks in order to' 
 scratch their heads with botJt hands, one not being sufficient for the purpose. 
 The mistress told me that the heads of the children were in such a loathsome 
 condition (and it was patent to everyone with eyes), that she had to dredge them 
 with precipitate, and through constantly being in contact with the girls whilst 
 teaching her own clothes alwa3's needed a thorough inspection after each school 
 session. I myself have found both lice and bugs on the needlework specimens 
 that I have taken home for my wife's judgment. To say the children* were 
 clothed would be inaccurate ; they were literally in rags. To-day, although 
 this same neighbourhood is not Utopia, yet a striking change is manifest. There 
 are nearl}' three times as many children attending the schools, which have been 
 considerably enlarged, and all the worst features of the past have disappeared. 
 There is something like regularity and punctuality, although there is room for 
 improvement in this direction ; cleanliness in person and decency in dress have 
 taken the place of dirt and rags ; the scholars are docile and respectful 
 to the teachers, and the parents have come to regard the teachers as the friends of 
 themselves and their children instead of counting them, as heretofore, as their foes. 
 Within a stone's throw from the above school is Nightingale-street IJoard school, 
 and all the worst features of the one were observable in the other. But kindness, 
 gentleness, sympathy, and firmness on the part of the teachers have done their 
 work here. The children have become humanized and civilized. The teachers^ 
 have told me that the scholars constantly bring little offerings of stray flowers 
 from the adjoining market, or even grasses and weeds, to place on "teacher's 
 desk " as their tribute of affection. When the head mistress left at Christmas 
 last, to recruit her health, the scholars, poor as they are, brought as evidences of 
 their love and regret no fewer than 150 Christmas cards, and numerous messages 
 were sent by the mothers saying how sorry they were at losing one who had been 
 so good to their children. 
 
 I have taken these two cases as showing in a very striking manner the changes 
 that have been effected. They show out in clear relief, because they were of the 
 worst type, and therefore the contrasts are vivid. But I believe the same leaven 
 is doing similar work in every school, different in degree and character, as the 
 schools themselves vary in character. Naturally the schools of the Board supply 
 evidences of this kind more than other schools, because they have gathered in 
 those children who were left uncared for by voluntary effort previous to the 
 passing of the Education Act and the consequent formation of School Boards. 
 
 Aldenham-street Board school, which has taken in children of the poorest part 
 of St. Pancras, supplies similar evidences, 
 
 I was much struck on Thursday last when inspecting the St. John's AVood 
 R. C. Boys' .School. The scholars here, most of them, are children of the poorest 
 Irish of the quarter, and j'ct out of nearly one hundred boys present only one
 
 20 
 
 ■could be said to be in rags. Ten j'oars ago the greater majority answered this 
 description and were dirty in the extreme. I remember, in particular, one of the 
 l)igger boys who had no shirt on, an apology for trousers, and a man's cast-ofF 
 •old coat, that was s/cewered together round him for the want of buttons. Under- 
 neath this old coat I saw several times during the morning when I was near him 
 bugs racing about his body ; and the smell from the unwashed bodies of the mass 
 of the boys was horrible. 
 
 On Thursday I took particular notice, and the change was striking. Nearl3- 
 every boy was clothed decently — boots blacked, hair neatly combed, face and 
 hands clean — tone and discipline satisfactory. 
 
 The master, who was a pupil-teacher in the same school eleven jears ago, 
 remembers the former condition and corroborates this testimonj'. Naturally on 
 the day of inspection one sees the children at their best, but this was equally true 
 in the former state of things. I would ask, if these changes have not been pro- 
 duced by the action of the educational forces at work during the past twelve 
 years, by what causes have they been produced ? I think to every unprejudiced 
 observer there is no doubt but that the Education Department, in carrying into 
 •effect both the spirit and letter of the Education Act, has been the means of 
 effecting the good that has been accomplished. 
 
 That is one illustration. I could give you hundreds such. AVell now, 
 
 gentlemen, you all admit — and I was thankful to Llr. Hughes for the 
 
 words — he said he rejoiced in the success which has attended the 
 
 Board schools. Well, I say I rejoice in the success which may attend 
 
 all schools. AVliatever you may think, I have no partiality for one 
 
 class of school over another. Every teacher, eveiy manager, whether 
 
 of Board or voluntary schools, indeed everybody engaged in the 
 
 work, I regard as a co-operator, a colleague, and a friend. But, I 
 
 beseech you, do not make the mistake of supposing that, by cutting 
 
 down your staiF, by cramming yoUr children into too small rooms, by 
 
 reducing their breathing space, by employing children to teach 
 
 children, 5'ou muII be working anything like economy. You will be 
 
 doing mischief to the children themselves, and they will pass out ot 
 
 ■school only half-educated ; and you will save nothing, for you will lose 
 
 in the grants. I am equally desirous with you that we should do the 
 
 work well and as cheaply as possible, and I can assure you that anj-- 
 
 thing I can do to promote that end I shall always be very glad to do. 
 
 (Hear, hear.) I shall be glad to receive any hints and suggestions that 
 
 Mr. Hughes can send me. If you find that any school is going to do 
 
 mischief to another school, or is not requisite, or is to be put in a 
 
 wrong place, we shall be always glad to receive your reports and your 
 
 suggestions. And I do hope that one result of this day's deputation 
 
 will be that we shall have less conflict hereafter in the matter of 
 
 London Board schools. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Hubbard rose to express, on behalf oi those present, their 
 
 gratitude for the interesting explanations which they had just heard, 
 
 ■exhibiting as they did such an entire familiarity with the subject, and, 
 
 what was to them more precious, a warm sympathy with the work 
 
 which they desired to see prospering in conjunction with the work of 
 
 the Board schools — he meant the voluntary schools themselves. He 
 
 would have liked to see greater prominence given to the question of the 
 
 distinction between infants and children. It would be admitted that in 
 
 every one of the Education Acts there was no definition of "child" 
 
 given excepting as between the ages of five and fourteen.
 
 21 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : Pardon me for interrupting you. Five to fourteen is 
 the compulsoiy age, but you are to provide education for all children. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard : That is perfectly true ; and when you look to see 
 what is the delinition of "child" given by the statute you iind it is 
 from live to fourteen. 
 
 Mr. MuNDELLA : No, no. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard : Then I will thank Mr. Cumin or anybody else to 
 point out the provision in any one of the Education Acts which men- 
 tions three years of age at all. That figure does not appear anywhere 
 except in the Code, which is not a statute, although we admit that 
 the Code, with Parliamentary authority, does regulate the action of 
 the Department, and thus has a general effect upon the country. I 
 think we may safely stipulate that that which comes in simply as an 
 administrative interpretation of what a "child " is ought to be treated 
 with considerable forbearance, and that the new interpretation of 
 *' child," as regards its application to managers and ratepayers, should 
 not be strained to the prejudice of those who have to promote the 
 schools and to teach the children. 
 
 ]\Ir. MuxDELLA : Would you then be willing to give up all pay- 
 ments for all children under five years of age under the Code ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard : Not in the least. Continuing, he expressed the 
 particular favour with which he regarded the suggestion to increase 
 the grants. The proposal to limit the rates was quite inadmissible, it 
 could not be done. Increasing the grants would simply be throwing 
 the cost upon the whole community instead of merely upon the owyers 
 of house property. The Education rate was a new rale originated in 
 1870, and accompanied by a declaration that it should not exceed 3d. 
 in the pound. (Hear, hear.) After remarking on the increase in the 
 School Board precepts between 1875 and the present time, and again 
 expressing the hope that a continued life would be given to the voluntary 
 schools by an increased support from the public revenues, Mr. Hubbard 
 concluded by again expressing the thanks of the deputation for the 
 kindness and attention which they had experienced. 
 
 Mr. MUNDELLA thanked the deputation for their attendance, and 
 hoped that the result of this discussion would be a better understanding 
 on some of the points raised. There was a great deal to l)e said 
 on the question of local rates, and it was a hard thing that the poor 
 people of Bethnal-green should have to pay 6s. in the pound, while 
 where he was living, in South Kensington, they paid only 4s. 2d. He 
 would be verj' glad indeed to increase his own rate in order to relieve 
 theirs a little. (Hear, hear.) As a householder he paid something 
 like 100/. a year for rates, and he believed that about 15/. of that went 
 to the School Board. He paid that 15/. with far greater cheerfulness 
 than all the rest of the rates— (hear, hear)— because it was doing far 
 more good. What did Mr. Sclater Booth say in 1879 ? He said that 
 the mere increase in the cost of paving and maintaining the streets 
 iiad been in the past few years 500,000/. And while they were
 
 22 
 
 paying 8d. for education and 9d. for police, which, he asked, was 
 the best value ? (Hear, hear.) He thought that when they should 
 have educated the people and brought them into a better 
 condition they would diminish some of these grinding rates, such 
 as the poor-rate and the police-rate, and at all events they would be 
 doing more good to the people than any of those things did. (Applause.) 
 After passing a vote of thanks to Mr. Hubbard for his introduction, 
 the deputation left. 
 
 MR. MUNDELLA AT A LONDON BOARD SCHOOL. 
 
 The Right Hon. A. J. Mundella, AI.P., was present at the 
 ceremonial opening of the new London Board school in Carlton-road^ 
 Kentish Town, on the i6th of February. 
 
 Mr. Mundella, addressing the meeting — which, when he rose, had 
 overflowed into the class-rooms and corridors adjoining the hall— said 
 he had received a note from a ratepayer of the district who complained 
 that the poor of the parish were refused admission to the Board school. 
 The writer said that the teachers refused to receive into the school 
 children who were ragged and unkempt, and that the Carlton-road 
 school was not used by the class for which the Elementary Education 
 Act intended it should be used. He said that the School Boafd was- 
 distinctly for the education of the poor, and not for teaching unneces- 
 sary and superfluous subjects to those who ought to be able and willing 
 to pay for their own children without help from the rates. These ex- 
 pressions were not uncommon at the present moment ; but he (Mr. 
 Mundella) hoped it was not true that any child was refused admission 
 to the school. If any parent or guardian would address a statement to 
 the Education Department giving him the name and address of any 
 child that was refused admission to a Board school where there was 
 room he would take care that such child was promptly admitted. 
 (Cheers.) These general statements were often made, and when they 
 came to be inquired into they had little basis in fact. The Elementary- 
 Education Act was not intended merely for the poorest Arabs of the 
 streets. It was intended to offer education to the children of all rate- 
 payers in schools to which no man need be ashamed to send his 
 children. If he (Mr. Mundella) had children whom he chose to send 
 to a Board school, no man had a right to refuse them. The Duke of 
 Richmond, when he was President of Council, said if he chose to send 
 his child to a Board school no one had the right to refuse him. (Hear, 
 hear.) The number of children of the elementary class to be provided 
 for in the Kentish-town division, which was in 187 1 only 8,000, was in 
 1883 about 10,800. The accommodation in 187 1 in all the public 
 elementary schools of the district was for 1,907, and the average 
 attendance 1,147. The accommodation now with this school would 
 amount to 5,600, and the number in actual attendance was 5'483- 
 (Cheers.) This, the right hon. gentleman pointed out, was ncft done
 
 23 
 
 at the expense of voluntary schools, the numbers in those schools 
 having increased from 1,907 in 1871 to 2,508 in 1883. With 
 regard to expenditure, he was in the strictest sense of the word 
 an economist, and the truest economy was not to refuse to 
 spend money when necessary, but to take care that value 
 was received for the money. When the London School Board entered 
 on its duties in 187 1 no body ever had such a tremendous task. The 
 educational destitution of London was greater than that of any other 
 part of Great Britain. Scotland had 980 School Boards to perform 
 the task that had to be done by a single School Board in London. 
 He believed if that Board had been established half a century earlier 
 we should have been saved a vast deal more than the School Board 
 expenditure out of the cost of pauperism and crime. We should not 
 have had so much reason to be ashamed of the wretched condition of 
 large patches of the metropolis at this moment from which we heard 
 the bitter ciy of outcast London. When the School Board came into 
 existence London had three and a quarter millions of population, in 
 which there were 575,000 children who ought to have been in elemen- 
 tary schools. The average attendance at that time was only 174,000 ; 
 that was to say, that about only one in three children that ought to 
 have been in school were really in efficient schools. The Board 
 schools had now provided accommodation for 307,000. The number 
 on the rolls was 337,000, or 37,000 more than they had room for, and 
 the number in average attendance was 266,000. That was an 
 advance in education and a degree of progress in local government 
 which could not be shown by any other municipal institution that 
 had ever been established by Parliament in this realm, and he 
 believed that it was one of the most magnificent institutions that 
 had ever been founded. Since the rate amounted to eightpence 
 there had been a great many strictures on the London School Board, 
 some of a very extraordinary character. Now, whatever public 
 money could be saved ought to be saved, but they must provide school 
 room and they must provide teachers. They might provide a poor 
 staff, but, in his opinion, a poor staff was the worst of all economy. 
 They had been at all the expense of that building, and if they put 
 poorly-paid and poorly-equipped teachers into it they would give the 
 children poor education, and would waste the educational life of the 
 child, and that would be the worst possible economy. The inspectors,. 
 who were not men interested in the School Board, but sometimes 
 rather adverse, were of opinion that in no cases were the schools over- 
 staffed, but in some cases were considerably understaffed. In the list 
 of the twenty highest paid teachers in England of elementary schools, 
 there was only one of the London School Board, the highest paid of all 
 being in a Wesleyan elementary school. Out of a total municipal ex- 
 psnditure in London of 6,758,311/. the School Board was only 
 responsible for 500,000/. The Metropolitan Board of Works alone 
 last year expended close upon 640,000/. In every shilling spent on
 
 local taxation in London a trifle over a r.}d. only was spent on educa- 
 tion. In a few years the cost of paving the streets of London had 
 increased by 500,000/. As to the cost of English schools compared with 
 other schools he found that while the population of London contributed 
 3s. 5|d. per head for education, in Paris the cost was 12s., in Berlin, 
 7s. 3d., and in Boston, U.S., 19s. Another charge made against the 
 London School Board was the cost of officials. Now, the cost 
 of administration of the London School Board by inspectors, 
 cleiks, and other officers who managed the great work of bringing 
 the children to the schools amounted only to 4s. 8d., as against 
 5s. lod. in Birmingham, 7s. gd. in Manchester, 6s. lod. in Leeds, 
 4s. lod. in Sheffield, and 3s. 6d. in Hull, which was at the bottom of 
 the list. With respect to complaints that the School Board had done 
 nothing for the Arab class of London, if persons who made those 
 statements w^ould turn into schools at Bethnal-green or Whitechapel 
 ihey would see thousands and tens of thousands of children who come 
 from the one-roomed homes we had heard so much of. He could con- 
 .ceive no more difficult task than that of the women wdio taught in these 
 schools. There was no better work done than was done by those 
 w'omen in their sympathy with the girls in their schools, badly fed, 
 badly clothed, and coming from miserable homes. He was glad to 
 know from unimpeachable testimony that the work was having 
 beneficial effect on those children and their parents, and that not only 
 did the children go to the Board schools, but they went to the Sunday 
 schools as well. He found also by official returns from the Home 
 <,)ffice that the diminution of crime of late was especially satisfactoiy, 
 and that this decrease had been mostly among the younger criminals. 
 ^.It could not be doubted that this was partly due to the advance in the 
 education of the people. Although in some cases the School Board 
 remitted the fees, he thought one of the most important works of 
 «iercy that had been performed in the worst districts of London w-as 
 to provide a penny meal a day for poor children. That had been tried 
 under thoroughly business auspices. He had received a letter from 
 Sir Henry Peek, who had tried it Avith much success in connection 
 with one of the Board schools of London, and he believed the children 
 would benefit as much intellectually as physically by that arrangement 
 ■of a penny meal a day. He congratulated the Kentish-town district on 
 their educational improvement and on the appointment of Mr. and Mrs. 
 «Groome to the management of the schools. (Cheers.)
 
 ■■■■-■ 
 
 f^Wr'A i 
 
 d^. 
 
 ,./^-^- \^\"tV 
 
 i -q 
 
 
 -.■?j.i^. 
 
 V i