RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 29 June 1883 vol 280 cc1933-81

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,

in rising to call attention to the fact that the Minister whose duty it is to bring forward the Educational Estimates in this House has never any power of appointing the officers to whom the administration of the Votes is entrusted; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that there should be a separate Department of Education, said, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had a very similar Motion on the Paper, and he would have been glad to surrender his place to the noble Lord; but it would be an advantage that he should speak a little later, and to a larger House. This was no new question. As long ago as 1856 the late Lord Derby said— It appeared to him well worthy of consideration, whether it would not be well to supersede the Privy Council altogether in this matter, and to have a Minister as the Head of a Department, who should have no other duties to perform, and who should be, in fact, responsible for the education of the people. … He had a strong feeling that the institution of a Minister of Instruction was desirable, and that the subject should be altogether separated from the Privy Council."—(3 Hansard, [140] 815–6.) In 1862 the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) brought forward a Resolution calling on the House to affirm that for the Education Estimates and for the expenditure of all monies voted for the promotion of Education, Science, and Art, a Minister of the Crown should be responsible to the House. Sir John Pakington, in 1865, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, and urged, in the course of his speech, that— The great duty of superintending the various branches connected with the Department of Education should be entrusted to some one responsible Minister—some Minister who should be regarded as a State officer of high authority, who should have the sole conduct of that Department, and be solely responsible."—(3 Hansard, [177] 849.) The Committee was appointed in 1865, and re-nominated in 1866. They examined numerous witnesses, and among them the then Vice President of the Council and his Predecessor, Lord Aberdare and Lord Sherbrooke; and it was remarkable that those two right hon. Gentlemen gave totally opposite versions of the position of Vice President—one considering that he was practically an Under Secretary of State, the other being of opinion that his position was materially different; one considering that he was responsible to the House of Commons, the other that the Vice President was responsible to his Chief only. Lord Russell, also, who was questioned with reference to this particular point, said that he found it very difficult to make up his mind on the subject, but would say generally that the Vice President was more responsible in certain cases than in others; while, in some instances, when— The question depends on the discretion of the Lord President, it can hardly be said that he is responsible at all. Lord Russell expressed the opinion that at the time he spoke a Minister of Education was not necessary; but he added that the time might come when we should have a national system of education founded on rates. He said— Before this could be done there are great difficulties which would have to be got over; but if ever they should be got over, then I say that a Minister of Education would be desirable. The result of the evidence given before the Committee was that the Chairman, in his draft Report, proposed— That there should be a Minister of Public Instruction with a seat in the Cabinet, who should be intrusted with the care and superintendence of all matters relating to the national encouragement of science and art and popular education in every part of the country. At the moment, however, when the Committee were about to discuss the Report, Ministerial changes took place; and the Committee consequently decided, though with great regret, that they could not enter with advantage on the discussion of the question. They, therefore, contented themselves with reporting the evidence. In the year 1868 Mr. Disraeli's Government introduced a Bill to create a sixth Minister of State. The Duke of Marlborough, in bringing forward the Bill, said that— Having fully considered the subject, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that there is enough work and a sufficiently large field of enterprize to engage the attention of a special Department of the State; and it is, therefore, the intention of the Government to propose that Parliament shall empower Her Majesty to appoint a Secretary of State, who shall have the whole range of educational matters under his consideration and control."—(3 Hansard, [191] 120.) Lastly, in 1874, the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) once more brought the matter before the House, and urged the same view with his usual ability. On that occasion he was supported by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), to whom the country was indebted for the Act of 1870, the Magna Charta of our educational system. The right hon. Gentleman in the debate of 1874 made a most powerful speech. He pointed out that we had to fight a battle against ignorance, which was a misery to many and a danger to all, and that we were not likely to gain the day unless we had a responsible General. He might quote the Prime Minister himself, who said in the same debate— He must admit that there was much to be said in favour of the general principle that the expenditure of money with the view to the promotion of education in science and art should be placed under the control of a single responsible Minister. It was true that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman supported the Previous Question; but in doing so he added— I am ready to admit that you are entitled to expect that we should show you that we have advanced, and are advancing, in the direction which you suggest. He had now quoted the opinions of three Prime Ministers, and as many Vice Presidents of the Council, in support of this proposal; and he trusted his right hon. Friend and the House would not think him unreasonable in asking them now to take the final step. Every argument adduced in former years had been strengthened by succeeding events. The funds devoted to education were far larger; in fact, the Education Office might be said to have become a great spending Department. In 1856 the sum devoted to Class IV. was £500,000. Even in 1862, when the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) brought forward his Resolution, the sum was £2,266,000, which he called an "appalling amount;" but it had now risen to £4,750,000. He did not know what epithet the noble Lord would now find strong enough. But the magnitude of the expenditure was by no means the strongest argument. They were sometimes, indeed, told that there was a Minister of Education, and that the President of the Council was that Minister. But the President did not conduct the Business. Sir Ralph Lingen, in his evidence before the Committee of 1865, told the Committee— I have transacted all Business with the Vice President with the most trifling exceptions, and those quite accidental. The Vice President, he said, "did infinitely more work than the President;" and that, he believed, had been equally true down to the present time. The Vice President, in fact, did all the Office work, and all the House of Commons work. He was in constant communication with the officials, knew the Inspectors, and watched over the working of the Office; and yet the appointments, and, what were even more important, the promotions, rested with the President. Moreover, the President was now to be Minister of Agriculture, and this would surely give him plenty to do. He need hardly say that he was making no attack on the noble Lord the President of the Council. No one expected him to fulfil the duties. He should, perhaps, be told that the present system secured a spokesman in both Houses of Parliament, and that it had, on the whole, worked well. But, considering the character and qualifications of those who had held the Office of Vice President of the Council, no system could have really broken down. The arrangements had worked fairly well, in spite of the system. Of course, he did not know the secrets of the Office; but, if report spoke true, the system had caused great friction, and thrown much additional labour on the Vice President, as well as on the chief officials, and must have often placed them in very difficult positions. No man could serve two masters. The arrangement of the Edu- cation Office could not be compared with that which placed a Secretary of State in one House and an Under Secretary in the other, because there we had one recognized Head, and everyone knew where the responsibility rested. But in this case the division of functions was very ill-defined, and while the Vice President did the duty, the President had the power. Things were done really by the one, and nominally by the other. The Vice President was chosen for his knowledge of educational subjects; but the President was selected on quite different grounds, and yet the real power rested with the latter. He had all the appointments; the arrangement of the staff and the distribution of their duties were settled by the President, and that though the real work of the Department was done by the Vice President. There was, indeed, one way in which he trusted that the duties of the Vice President would not be lightened. He trusted that in any changes which might be in contemplation with reference to Scotch Business, there would be no proposal to separate the English from the Scotch Education Department. To do so would be a great mistake. At present, the Scotch and English experience benefited one another. They acted and re-acted most beneficially. To separate them would create a number of intricate questions which did not now arise. Moreover, they knew that in the ad.mirable staff of the Education Department there were a large proportion of Scotchmen, who worked very much to the satisfaction of the country. Further, under the present system, the Head of the Department was never in that House; and it was a remarkable anomaly in our system that the Minister who was responsible for the appointments and the Estimates was never in the House of Commons. He knew he should be told that Lord John Russell was for a time President of the Council while a Member of that House; but that was an exceptional case, and they all knew that it was very unlikely to recur. Another important respect in which the present system appeared to be inconvenient and anomalous was as regarded the reception of deputations. The Vice President made himself conversant with the question; he was thoroughly master of it; and yet the official answer was given by the President, after, perhaps, a short consultation with his Colleague. Only last week an important deputation came up from Wales on the question of intermediate education—a question to which his right hon. Friend the present Vice President was known to have devoted great attention. But a short answer was given by the Lord President, and the Vice President did not appear to have been allowed to say a word. Moreover, the legislation of 1870, 1873, 1876, and 1880 had altogether altered the condition of affairs. We had now a great national system, the most efficient working of which was of the greatest importance. It was remarkable that ours was the only considerable nation of Europe which had not a Minister of Education. In France, so important was the post considered, that the Minister of Education was not unfrequently the Head of the Government. At the present moment, the Minister of Education, M. Jules Ferry, was also Prime Minister. And yet there was no country in the world where a Minister of Education had such onerous or important duties to fulfil. In other countries, moreover, the grants were generally made in lump sums; and he believed ours was the only one where there was an individual examination of children, with payment by results. No one would deny that there would be plenty of work for a Minister to do. Besides the very important duty of administering the large and increasing grant for elementary education, he would have to consider the various schemes framed by the Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act. The relations of primary and secondary education were becoming every day more important. At present, schemes were made; but no power existed to ascertain from time to time that they were working efficiently. Moreover, the Government had undertaken to deal with Welsh intermediate education. He would only add, in conclusion, that if his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council was, as the country, no doubt, considered him to be, really Minister of Education, then we had the anomaly that the Minister of Education was not Head of his own Office, and was under the Minister of Agriculture. On the other hand, if we were told that the President of the Council was the Minister of Education, then we were in this extraordinary position—that the Minister of Education undertook none of the duties of his Office. In either alternative it was most desirable that a change should be made, and the whole question placed on a more satisfactory footing. It was not necessary to say that he had no desire to press the particular words of his Resolution, if any other proposal in the same direction would be more acceptable to Her Majesty's Government; or, if Her Majesty's Government preferred to suggest a Committee, he would willingly do so; but he was anxious that some step should be taken in the direction indicated by his Motion. The whole subject was as vast and intricate as it was important. There were various other considerations which ought to be urged. There were, however, many hon. Members to speak, and he was reluctant longer to intervene between them and the House. Moreover, while conscious of the imperfect manner in which he had brought the question before the House, he felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and others would amply make up for all deficiencies on his part. He hoped the Government might be disposed to look favourably upon the proposal. To use the words of the Prime Minister himself, during the debate of 1874, he trusted we should be able to show the country that we had advanced, and were advancing, in this direction. He thanked the House for allowing him to bring this matter forward; and he sincerely trusted that the Government would see their way to meet them with respect to the Motion he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that there should be a separate Department of Education,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) as to the anomaly which now existed between the official and the Parliamentary position of the Vice Pre- sident of the Council. Nothing was more opposed to the principles upon which they generally acted than to impose upon the Vice President of the Council the administration of funds, while he had no direct responsibility as to the selection of the agents and machinery of that administration. In 1864, in consequence of the alleged mutilation of the Inspection Reports, which produced the resignation of Mr. Lowe, a Select Committee was appointed to examine into the duties of the Vice President. Two Lord Presidents, Lords Granville and Russell, and three Vice Presidents were examined, and they all stated that the Lord President was alone responsible for the administration. But since 1864 the anomaly had increased tenfold, for in that year the whole amount expended on education was only £840,000. In 1880–1, it was £2,536,000; in 1881–2, 2,683,000; and in 1882–3, £2,749,000. Thus the annual increase was nearly £100,000, and the Education Vote had thus become a very serious item in our public expenditure. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that a full investigation should be made of that expenditure, and that effective Parliamentary control should be exercised. It was inconsistent with our general Parliamentary system that such an expenditure should be subject to the control of a Minister who was almost invariably a Member of the other House of the Legislature. The Education Department was every year becoming a great spending Department; and it had the advantage over other spending Departments, that oven the most rigid economists were little disposed to criticize it in an unfavourable sense. It was thus specially desirable that the Head of the Department should be an active and influential Member of the Lower House. Of the anomalous character of our pre.sent arrangements no stronger instance could be given than that of the right hen. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was admitted into the Cabinet as Vice President, and thus placed upon an equality with his Chief. Sir Ralph Lingen, the Secretary to the Department, stated, before a Select Committee, that the Vice President did nine-tenths of the educational work of the Office; and yet, while Mr. Forster did this and the bulk of the Parliamentary work, it was the President who dispensed all the patronage. Another disadvantage of the present dual system was that it was difficult, and might sometimes be impossible, for the President of the Council to unite in himself the qualities which went to make a good Minister of Agriculture, and that practical, scientific, and technical knowledge which was required by a good Minister of Education. The views which his hon. Friend had so well expressed were no new ones; but had been expressed by Lord Derby in 1856, and by Lord Russell in 1865, both of whom expressed their decided opinion that, as education advanced in the country, a separate Department would have to be created with a Minister directly responsible to Parliament at the head of it. Then there were great institutions of the country which were managed and controlled by private bodies, and to which large sums of public money were annually voted. No Parliamentary control could be exercised over the spending of those sums. The British Museum, for instance, received £142,000 a-year. He did not for a moment suggest that the money was not well administered; but it was against public policy that such a system should exist, as placed the administration of such funds under the control of irresponsible Trustees. The soundness of the general principle for which he was contending had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, when the question was brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox). Then there were the National Galleries in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, all of which were administered by bodies over whom Parliament exercised no efficient control. There was, in fact, an utter confusion in our present administration of education funds. In the Scotch Universities, for instance, the Regius Professors were appointed by the Home Secretary; while in the Queen's University in Dublin they were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. As to the system of endowed schools, and those directly endowed by the State, they had still a lively recollection of the Report on these schools some years ago, which exposed a system of jobbery and waste of something like £700,000 a-year. At that time there was no Minister to whom the care of these schools could be intrusted, and the result was that the House had to delegate its authority to a Commission, which was still in existence. But a delegated authority was always very untrustworthy; it was subject to no external pressure or outside opinion, but was apt to resolve itself either into an easy obedience to its own internal lights and prejudices, or else to a blind submission to the influence of a master mind, who was threatened with no serious opposition or the pressure of public opinion. Schemes were made for the reform of schools; but Parliament had no means of knowing whether the schemes were working well or ill. No reports were made as to the result of the schemes, nor had they any power to inquire into the working of the schools. In short, Commissions of this kind were not sufficiently exposed to the pressure of public opinion. If they were really in earnest about secondary education, it was necessary, in regard to all schools in possession of large endowments, that Parliament should have some power of being able to test whether, in return for their large revenues, they were able to show any corresponding system of educational efficiency. It was idle to hope for any permanent improvement until these schools were rendered liable to some efficient system of control by Parliament. They could not reasonably hope that such a system would exist so long as the Minister who superintended these matters had no direct responsibility, or any real control over the Office or the resources which were at hand. For these reasons he supported the Resolution of his hon. Friend.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he had a Notice on the Paper, the effect of which was similar to that of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. It ran as follows:— That, in the opinion of this House, the recent important addition to the duties of the Lord President of the Council offers a favourable opportunity to put an end to the dual system of administration at present existing in the Education Office, by relieving the Lord President from direct responsibility for that branch of the Privy Council, and by making the Vice President of the Committee of Council upon Education the legal head of that Department. His noble Friend (Viscount Lymington) had raised another question. All he (Lord George Hamilton) suggested, and all that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) proposed, was that the Vice President should be the Head of the Education Department; but whether they were inclined to enlarge the scope of his powers and duties in the manner suggested by the noble Lord was another question. He hoped it would be understood that in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London he did not take the same view as the noble Lord. With that view it was his intention to refer mainly to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. The noble Lord had spoken disparagingly of the Lord President; but if any hon. Member believed that by relieving him of all educational work his duties would become nominal, he entirely misunderstood the responsibilities of his Office. The Privy Council had invested in it more latent power than any other Department of State. At the commencement of the last century large administrative and executive powers were invested in it, and the King presided over it. When, little by little, the innovation of a Cabinet Council superseded it, there was still left to it certain inherent authority. No one must, therefore, estimate the responsibilities and duties of the Lord President merely by the ordinary routine duties he had to perform. As an illustration, they were all somewhat startled to see that an outbreak of cholera had recently taken place in Egypt. Supposing that that scourge were to spread, and it became necessary to enforce quarantine regulations, those duties would fall on the Lord President of the Council. Further, there was an anomaly as regarded the salaries of the Lord President, and of the Vice President. As a rule, the salary regulated the duties, but the salary of the Vice President was equal to that of the Lord President; though the position of the former in the Education Department was inferior to that of the latter his knowledge was necessarily greater as to the growing wants of education in the whole country, from his being brought in daily contact with educationalists. The proposal made that night was strictly in accordance with precedent. For some time the plantations and trade of the country were in the hands of the Lord President; but when the Colonies developed and trade grew so as to necessitate separate Departments, the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade were established, but no one would say that, therefore, the authority of the Lord President was much diminished by that dissociation. The present proposal, as pointed out by his hon. Friend the Mover, was practically that made by the Government 15 years ago. In the Report that was issued at that time, two points were made perfectly clear—first, that the great mass of the educational work was necessarily performed by the Vice President; and, secondly, that the Lord President, both by law and Order in Council, was directly responsible for everything done by the Vice President. The duties of the Vice President were entirely confined to education, and were considered in the discussion on the Estimates under Vote 4. If Vote 4 were abolished altogether the Privy Council would not be affected. He had had the advantage formerly of serving in that Office as the subordinate of the Duke of Richmond, whose knowledge of men and great practical experience made him a very pleasant Chief to serve under. Supposing anyone of less experience, or anyone disposed to make a less legitimate use of his authority, ever occupied that position, he believed that the present system would be found to be impossible. The relation between the Chief and the subordinate officials of the Privy Council did not resemble that in any other Department. If, for instance, the Under Secretary of State for India were asked a Question in the House he would give the opinion of the Head of his Department as a matter of course; but the House would not be satisfied with that from the Vice President—they would want his own individual opinion. If one official was subordinate to another at all, he ought to be thoroughly subordinate; whereas, if a difference of opinion arose between the President and the Vice President on any educational point, the President, whose experience of the Department was far less than that of the Vice President, would have to give way, for no Government could afford to spare a Vice President whom the House believed discharged his duties efficiently in consequence of a difference of opinion with the President, who was, as a rule, less well informed respecting the Business of the Office. He thought the time had arrived when they should make the Vice President President of the Council of Education. He did not propose to abolish the Privy Council, but to give the Educational Department a distinct legal Head by making him the Head of that Department of the Privy Council which related to education. He was not altogether without precedent in the proposal he made, for Her Majesty's Government had already recognized it in the Order in Council relating to Agriculture, in which the name of the Vice President did not appear; and there could be no doubt that a sharp division had been recognized between the educational and other Departments of the Office. If the Lord President had at this time very large additional duties imposed upon him, in reference to agriculture, it was a fatal blot to continue to make him responsible for the Education Department. The Vice President had, up to the present time, performed the entire duties of the Education Department, and Lord Carlingford, although a nobleman who had held many Offices, had as yet had nothing to do with Education; and he did not think the noble Lord know the working of their educational system. The change was really very small, and it would be a great relief to the permanent staff. He did not wish in the smallest degree to lessen the influence and dignity of the Lord President, nor did he think the change would have that effect so long as the present form of Government existed in this country, and the same onerous duties continued to be discharged by him; but he had given his reasons why he thought the Vice President ought to be placed in the first class of officials, and he trusted the Government would consent to his suggestion.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think, Sir, there can be little doubt that this is a question which is not only of great interest in itself, but is very fit for the attention of the House; and my hon. Friend who made the Motion has shown that it has, on various occasions, attracted that attention in a serious form, and even the attendance at 9 o'clock this evening was a distinct proof of the great interest that is felt upon this subject by a large number of the Members of the House. But my hon. Friend will admit, as a candid man, that upon the various occasions when the House has given its attention to this subject, it has not found itself in a position to proceed to any positive and practical arrangement in lieu of the arrangement that now exists. The question I would place before the House is, whether the time for proceeding to make such a change has yet arrived? In my opinion—I do not conceal it—the time has not arrived, and I think it would be an error if the House were to commit itself by an abstract Resolution to-night to a change, the grounds of which, and the character of which, it is quite impossible for us, in the course of this discussion, adequately to examine. Several topics have been raised, to which I will refer with the view to remove them, if possible, from the field of discussion. My hon. Friend thinks there is a great difficulty in the fact that that person who brings forward the Education Vote has not the power of appointing the officers to whom the administration of the Vote is entrusted. My answer to that is twofold. In the first place, in the Education Department there is an arrangement under which the President of the Council invariably communicates with the Vice President, and takes him into consultation on matters of patronage. There is no arrangement of that nature, so far as I am aware, in any other Department of the State. Therefore, so far as patronage is concerned, there is in practice no difficulty whatever; but, at any rate, there is a provision made which gives to the Representative of the Department in this House a power and a control in respect of patronage such as the Representatives of other Departments in this House—not being Chiefs of Departments—in no respect possess. But what is the value of this argument carried to its logical conclusion? The upshot of it is that every Head of a spending Department ought to have a seat in this House. That may be said. But you have got a Constitution to work with a double Chamber. There is one point, and only one, on which I feel I can speak with confidence and even with authority, and that is that I venture to say the House will make a fatal error if it does anything to increase the difficulties of constructing the Government in this House. The construction of a Government is the most difficult work that any public man is ever called upon to undertake, and I may illustrate what I have said by an anecdote of Sir Robert Peel, who said to me the morning after he resigned in 1856—"Nothing in the world shall induce me again to undertake the labour of constructing a Government." But if you are to proceed by laying down cast iron rules, under which the Heads of every spending Department are to sit in this House, you will destroy that discretion and freedom of choice which it is absolutely of importance to preserve if you wish to have Governments constructed that are to be of tolerable efficiency, or to give any satisfaction to the country. To say that not only the Minister of Finance, but the Head of every spending Department is to sit in this House is a principle incompatible with a Constitution founded on the principle of a double Chamber. I believe there is no person who has ever held the Office of President or Vice President of the Council that will say that a practical difficulty has ever arisen in regard to the administration of patronage. In truth, I believe that with respect to the patronage of this Office it is not only desirable, but greatly necessary, to preserve it free from any taint of political influence. I may compare this Department to the working of the Revenue Department in that respect. All promotion in the Revenue Department has been preserved to the nonpolitical Member who presides over the Department, and the present arrangement is of no inconsiderable advantage in this respect, that it has effectually kept all patronage out of the reach of political influence and mere Party connection. It was next observed that a very favourable opportunity is to be found for acting upon an arrangement of this kind, in consequence of the appointment of what may be called an Agricultural Department. The noble Lord appears to think that the President of the Council is a man oppressed with Business; and, if you deprive him of the Business connected with education, he will still have upon his shoulders as much as the strength of any ordinary mortal will enable him to carry. That is not my opinion. My opinion is, that the President of the Council, as he now stands, is a man very moderately worked, and that he is not likely to undergo any increase in his duties in consequence of the agricultural arrangement. The contention is that the bulk of the Business ought to be done in this House; but if the bulk of the Business is done in this House, a proportionate amount of influence will fall into the hands of the person who does that Business; and I believe I am right in saying that it is the opinion of the present as well as of the late Lord President of the Council that the position will be relieved of duty, and will not have additional duty thrown upon it in consequence of the now arrangement. And then it is said that in every foreign country there is a Minister of Education. But did my hon. Friend reflect upon the vital and essential difference of the position of a Ministry in a foreign country from that of a Ministry in this country? Did he reflect that the system of representation in each Chamber by men being Members of each Chamber is unknown in foreign countries; and that there the provision made is usually to this effect—that the Ministers shall be persons extraneous to the Chamber, or, whether extraneous or not, having the power of appearing in each Chamber to give an account of the affairs of his Department? Does not my hon. Friend see that that is a difference so vitally underlying, so deep, and so near to the root of our institutions, that it, in fact, governs the whole question, and that if you live under a system in which you are bound to provide for the representation of Parties in two Houses of Parliament, the conditions are essentially different, and in that respect you can draw no arguments from one to the other? People may say that it is a secondary matter whether Ministers shall have seats in the Chambers, or have a right to speak in the Chambers; but that is not the result of my experience. A great many matters that are called Constitutional changes are, in my opinion, things of much less importance and consequence than that rule of established law by which Ministers of the Crown must be not only speakers in, but Members of one of the two Houses of Parliament; on the one hand, responsible to the Crown, and on the other hand, responsible as the Representatives of the people, or Members of the House of Lords, and having the feelings of the Chamber in which they sit. I think that is a vital difference, and I do not believe it would be in the power of man—you may talk of the payment of Members and 20 other things—but I do not believe it will be in the power of man to suggest a more vital change in the institutions of this country than if you wore to pass a law by which you were to be content with—instead of having a seat in this House—the Ministers of the Crown having leave to state their opinions before you without the responsibility which arises from their being like yourselves, Representatives of the people, and in all respects as responsible as you are. But now, again, Sir, there is a great desire for an effective restraint on the expenditure. But will anybody say there is a less effective restraint upon expenditure in the case of education, so far as the subject-matter admits of comparison, than in the case of the naval and military charges? My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty simply moves an Estimate to the amount, say, of £10,000,000. Have you, through the medium of his personality, any more effective check over the expenditure than you have over the expenditure of the Board of Education? No doubt the expenditure of the Council of Education is different in this respect from that of the Admiralty, that it is very largely governed of necessity by fixed rules, and that whatever system you establish, it must be to a great extent inflexible. But I will venture to say that the constitution of a Department, whatever may be its weaknesses or its faults, certainly gives to the House of Commons a security of fully as great a control through a responsible person, over the expenditure of a Department, as is given in other cases, perhaps even where the Head of the Department sits in this House, and certainly more than is given where the Head of the Department does not sit in this House. Well, Sir, what I wish to point out is this—that, in my opinion, it may be very unobjectionable; it may be proper and becoming, if it be thought fit, that the House of Commons should institute an inquiry into this subject, and make a careful examination of the facts; but I think that it is plain from the course of this debate that you are not in a condition to proceed with an examination of the facts. The three speeches we have listened to at the commencement of this debate proposed three plans. My hon. Friend who has made the Motion proposes the appointment of a separate Department of Edu- cation. The noble Lord does not go so far as my hon. Friend; he does not propose to take the Ministry of Education out of the Council Office; but he proposes to leave it in the Council Office as a Department of that Office; and I quite agree with the noble Lord that the Committee of the Council is in this instance an essential element in the history of this question. I do not know whether the Committee of the Council practically did much work under the last Government. I do not think it has done much under the present Government; but during the Government of which I was formerly the Head, the the Committee of Council did considerable work; and I wish to point out, as results are concerned, the critical and vital points of that system have not been discussed and settled from the year 1840 up to this time. It is a very important question whether that system should be kept alive or not. The noble Lord thinks that it should be; my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) proposes the wider plan of the completely separate Department of Education, and the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington) goes further still. If that be so, I think I have made good my statement, which, perhaps, appeared a little startling at the first moment, that the three speeches with which the debate commenced proposed three plans, and it will be well for the House to know more of the comparative merits and practicability of these plans before committing itself to a broad declaration in special terms that a change ought to be made, and before committing itself to words which would still remain open to great dispute and a great variety of interpretation. My noble Friend the Member for Barnstaple engages in criticisms on the use of delegated authority, with respect to which I do not doubt that they have considerable force; at the same time he will have to learn more and more as he grows older, in what I hope will be a brilliant and successful career, the extreme imperfection of even the best contrivances of human government. I can assure him, at any rate, that after my long experience my opinion of human government, taken at the best, whether in Conservative or in Liberal hands, is that it seems every year that I live to verge a little further from the ideal; and, although it may be true that delegated authority has great faults, yet you cannot afford to dispense altogether with the assistance of delegated authority. Take, for instance, such a question as endowed schools. I think this is a matter for further inquiry; but it is probable that you might find that in dealing with these old foundations there was necessarily involved so much of a judicial element that they could not be quite safely intrusted to the sole influence of political action. You are almost compelled to interpose between the popular change and the important public interests the action of a body which, though I grant it may be open to criticism, as a certain amount of freedom from purely Party influences, and is not liable to the sudden and sharp mutations which may, in certain circumstances, attend upon changes of Government. As I have said, this question is one that deserves the attention of Parliament. I have no desire to withdraw the subject from his attention. I have no dogmatic proposition to lay down in answer to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I could not affirm it, and I should be sorry to meet it with a negative, because I hold it to be a subject calling for more information and for more inquiry; but happily the Motion which is made from the Chair, that the House should go into Committee of Supply, gives to those who think as I do the power to say by voting for that Motion that they do not think the time has come when a definitive Resolution can be framed on the matter. I will venture to offer a few words more on that point, to show that there is meaning in my words. There are three propositions which I think may very fairly be stated to the House. In the first place, I have very great doubt whether, even if we had a plan ready for altering the present arrangements in regard to education, it would be wise for us to make any declaration on the subject by way of Motion at this moment. But, secondly, we have no plan, and I do not think the time has arrived for it; and, thirdly, the subject ought to be a great deal more examined before we commit ourselves to a final opinion whether there should be such a plan or not. On the first proposition, I may say that every Member of the House—which is an Assembly of business men—knows perfectly well that our administrative changes are made piecemeal, and must continue to be so made. A great deal is to be said in favour of what is called a patched house, for most of us find that it is the most comfortable house in which to live. Let the House observe that we are not at this moment quite idle in the matter, and if we have this piecemeal reconstruction we must be content to take the changes in order and in succession. We have proposed to put into action a plan with regard to agricultural affairs; but that plan has not yet received the definite sanction of the House, and it may be reversed by the House. We have prepared, and are about to submit, another plan of administrative change for the better administration of Scotch Business; but we have not yet been able to make it known, and therefore cannot tell what will be the judgment of the House in regard to it. We know, however, that it touches upon the territory we are now dealing with, and I think the House ought to arrive at conclusions on these subjects before committing itself to any general declaration on the question of education. But I come to my second proposition—that we have not got a plan, and that the time has not come for making a plan, presuming that it ought to be made. I would point out to the House that the Business of the Council Office in respect to education has been in a state of almost incessant flux and change. At one time, it only superintended elementary education; but it has gradually come into contact with a great number of other subjects, seine of which are widely and others totally and fundamentally distinct from elementary education, and yet that are more or less similar in subject-matter. The business of endowed schools, of secondary education, the settlement of most important academic questions connected with our great Universities—these are subjects of an order distinct from the mere administration of primary education; and it may constantly happen that you may get the man who is most specifically fit, by pursuits, habits of mind, and inquiry, to deal with primary education, but who, at the same time, would be a very secondary workman indeed with regard to some of those other classes of subj ects. Nor have we yet reached the point when we can say that this process of mutation and extension in the business of the Council Office has reached its close. At any rate, it is very clear to my mind that you ought not at this moment to commit yourself to declaring peremptorily that a change should take place until you see in its fundamental bearings the nature of the change to be made. Now, let me point to one of the most vital questions in this matter, with respect to which I should be sorry if the House took any precipitate step. There is at the root of the contention of hon. Members who have supported the Motion the assumption or doctrine that the Representative of Education should be a Cabinet Minister, and should sit in this House. My contention is, that though they may be ripe for inquiry they are not ripe for decision, a proof of which is that their plans differ from one another. I wish to bring this point sharply to the attention of the House, which, I say again, I am sure would commit a serious error were it now to deliver a definite judgment in the shape of a vote before minute and careful inquiry. I have never served on this subject, except as a Member of the Committee of Council upon Education, in which capacity I have taken part in important discussion and decisions. But there is certainly considerable difference of opinion in this House on the subject. The noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) has served in the Office, and I may take him as an authority. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) served long in it, and carried the Education Act, and, therefore, I accept him as a great authority. Lord Norton, a man of high authority, served in the Office; and there are differences of opinion between them, though they are in favour of the change. There are other authorities who oppose the change, and the House will do well to hear what they say on the matter. There are Earl Granville, who was President of the Council; Earl Spencer, who was President until a recent date; Lord Carling-ford, who is now President of the Council; and, finally, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, with respect to whom I have received the most distinct information that he has a very strong opinion in favour of the maintenance of the present system. I do not wish to go so far as to bind myself to the maintenance of the present system. I have admitted that there are presumptions which might tend in favour of change. All I desire is that we should take all natural and reasonable methods to ascertain, before we commit ourselves, that we know what we mean, and that the thing should be practically beneficial. Perhaps I should remind the House that one of the consequences of the arrears of Business in this House is that we have travelled during the present Session further than has been done at any former period in the matter of promises—of drawing Bills upon the future. No 'doubt, we shall redeem them; but we cannot say that we have any immediate prospect of doing so, and, therefore, it is time that we should be cautious of going further. I do not wonder at the contention of my hon. Friends behind me that this business ought to be represented by a Gentleman sitting in this House; but I entreat them not to force us to adopt a declaration upon that subject. I could wish to have the opportunity of explaining to the House the effect of the multiplication of great Officers of State, particularly if you limit them to sitting in this House, upon the efficiency of the Cabinet. The efficiency of the Cabinet depends in a great degree upon its Members, and there was no more remarkable proof of the sagacity of Lord Beaconsfield than the manner in which he contrived to keep down the number of Members of the Government sitting in the Cabinet. It sounds very plausible to add one or two more Ministers to the Cabinet; but every experienced person knows that the larger the Cabinet the less able is it to do its business efficiently. I am not arguing against any change, but only this particular point as to the increase of the Cabinet. We have already gone far in that direction. There are now no less than 11 great Offices, the holders of which must be Cabinet Ministers. In former times there were not so largo a number of persons sitting in the Cabinet, and it was an immense advantage to have a very considerable choice of Offices, the holders of which might or might not be in the Cabinet. It is impossible to describe all the considerations which make it desirable to maintain freedom of choice with regard to a large number of Offices. As we now stand, I do not hesitate to say that the number of Offices, the holders of which are in the Cabinet, is absolutely inconvenient; and I firmly believe that if the number were increased to 12, or at any rate to 13, the addition, however good, would render the machinery of the Cabinet less workable and efficient. I hope that the House of Commons will not bind itself by a distinct pledge on this subject. Nothing pains me more than when the House of Commons, if it ever has done such a thing, comes to a Resolution which is evidently destined to remain a barren and sterile Resolu.tion. After all, this is a question which must be dealt with by a responsible Government. You cannot settle administrative matters of this kind until they are completely and clearly worked out in all their parts and supported by a clear mass of authority. It may be said of the authorities whom I have quoted as being unfavourable to change that they were all Presidents of the Council. Besides them, I have two most formidable Vice Presidents. There is not a more judicial man in this country on all practical questions of administration than Lord Aberdare, and he sides with the President. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: He was President.] But he was also Vice President; consequently, he has the advantage of looking at the question from both points of view—that is, from a comprehensive and impartial point of view. Therefore, I lay the greatest stress on Lord Aberdare's opinion. Then there is Lord Sherbrooke, who had a very strong opinion against this change. He served long as Vice President, and introduced changes of great importance and value, and I place him, therefore, on a level with my right hon. Friend who carried the Act of 1870. His authority is one that I think the House ought to consider before it commits itself on this question. I wish to say that I have no foregone conclusion in this matter, and that my mind is perfectly open. All that I want to do is to point out that there is considerable danger in rushing to any rash and precipitate conclusion. There is no urgent necessity for incurring the dangers of the change. I cannot honestly say that the work of this Department is worse done than the work of other Departments. If I were to hold that the Vice President of the Council is not a functionary of sufficient weight to represent the Department in this House, there are, at any rate, two things to be said in his favour. He is in quite a different position from an Under Secretary of State. The noble Lord has pointed out that an Under Secretary lies to refer in a much greater degree to the Secretary of State than the Vice President of the Council. The Vice President is a substantive personage in the House, and has to speak for himself as much as for his Department. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] That is no inconsiderable advantage, if you take into view that in the system of government it is absolutely necessary you should consider a division of the Ministry between the two Chambers; and perhaps I may add, there is a special necessity in the case of a Liberal Government, which is not so fortunate as to command a majority in the Upper House, that makes it not the less, but the more desirable that its Departments should be efficiently represented in that House. I know of no likely circumstances in which it will not be found necessary to give some share not only of the dignified, but of the working Departments of the Government to the Upper House. The Office of Lord President of the Council is one eminently fitted to be filled by a Member of the other House. It is uniformly held by a man of rank, and almost uniformly by a Peer, for the Lord President of the Council has many duties to perform in immediate connection with the Sovereign. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) says, if you make a man subordinate, make him thoroughly subordinate. I dissent altogether from this sweeping doctrine, which I think neither safe nor Conservative. There is a remarkable instance to the contrary which I will point out. The old organization of the Board of Trade, which Parliament some years ago altered, was of this character; it was represented, not by one, but by two substantive personages. It was under that organization that the whole of our Free Trade system was worked out. The reformation of the Tariff was worked out under that system, the question of the abolition of the Corn Laws was carried, and nearly all the political and economical measures which have since been carried out, except what have been done by the Treasury, were worked out by the Board of Trade. We must not be too ready to go forward and to affirm the proposition that there can be no circumstances of administration in which it may not be found necessary to have two Gentlemen representing the same Department in both Houses, especially when, as in this case, the superintendence of elementary education is allotted to one, and the super intendence of secondary education, of academical education, and the regulation of endowed schools is intrusted to the other. I state these matters entirely as arguments against any precipitate conclusion. The noble Lord who spoke in favour of this Motion seems to be in solitary blessedness, so far as regards the practical statesmen of his Party. The noble Duke who was President of the Council in the late Government is not of the same opinion as himself. I submit to the House, in conclusion, that the time has not yet arrived when we can judiciously set about the construction of a plan, and that when we do set about it there are many points to examine with respect to it which have not yet been settled by adequate inquiry, and by adequate concurrence of authority. If it be, indeed, the pleasure of the House that an inquiry should be instituted, to that course Her Majesty's Government would have no objection. We should freely concur in it, and we should give it every assistance in our power; but I do very earnestly express the hope that the House will not prematurely run the risk of doing mischief—with little hope of doing good—and of considerable and very practical embarrassment, by committing itself to a definitive conclusion upon a matter of great importance which is still unripe for final discussion.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he had stated his views so fully on the subject in 1874 that he did not intend to make a long speech that evening. If that question were not ripe for settlement, he did not know when it would become ripe. In 1856 the matter was brought before the House, on the ground that the Vote for Education had increased to £500,000. Now it amounted to close upon £4,000,000. A Bill was then brought into that House by Sir George Grey, and into the other by Lord Granville, for creating a Vice President of the Council; and the reason given for the Bill was that a responsible Minister in this House was urgently required. But, in 1864, it was discovered that he had no responsibility. A Committee was then appointed to consider the relations existing between the President and the Vice President of the Council, and it was found that the Vice President was nothing more than an Under Secretary of State. For a great many years every Prime Minister had been telling them that the question was becoming ripe for a settlement, and that it was time to consider whether we ought not to have a responsible Minister of Education. Four of the most distinguished Prime Ministers had expressed opinions to that effect—Lord Russell, Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, who brought in a Bill for the creation of a sixth Secretary of State for Education, and, lastly, the present Prime Minister himself expressed views largely in the same direction. It ought to be ripe for settlement, if it was not. The House ought, now that we spent such enormous sums, to say whether there should not be a Minister directly responsible to that—the peoples' House—for the education of the people. At all events, the Minister ought not to be always in the other House, as he was at present. The education to be dealt with was the education of the people, and, surely, their Representatives were chiefly interested in it, and not noble Lords, who looked down upon them as if from a balloon. The noble Lord opposite, who had spoken with such ability, had cautiously expressed the views of the Conservative Party, and would be content if the Vice President had a certain amount of responsibility. But the Duke of Marlborough had introduced a Bill of far larger scope. [Lord RANDOLPH CHI: But the Liberal Party would not have it.] But the Liberal Party were a Party of progress, and would now go much further. The Primo Minister had quoted Presidents of the Council who were not in favour of the proposal. Naturally they were not. But two noble Lords who had been Vice Presidents, and one of whom was also subsequently President, had expressed different views. The Duke of Richmond had said—"I am the Minister of Education." But the Lord President was not Minister of Education. He was Manager of a large number of primary schools in Great Britain, and of a few schools connected with the Science and Art Department. He was not even the Mi- nister of Primary Education. He had no control over the primary schools in Ireland, where a very loose system was carried out. In that country, especially, which it was so necessary to educate, and where 40 per cent of the people could not read and write, it was absolutely necessary to have a responsible Minister of Education, with direct Ministerial responsibility in that House. There were, in addition to the requirements of ordinary education, large Votes for Museums and National Galleries. The British Museum and those great Galleries were administered by Trustees or Commissioners, with no direct responsibility to that House. Then there were arising Provincial Museums and Galleries, in Birmingham, Nottingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Manchester, Derby, and Glasgow, and those Provincial Institutions asked for the loan of our National Collections. But they always received the reply that Parliament had forbidden them to do so. In this year's Estimates a Vote was put down in their aid. The Vote was sure to increase. These Provincial Museums had a fair right to complain that they were not fairly treated. Then there were the endowed schools, which were under the control of irresponsible Commissioners, and Parliament had a perfect right to ask what those endowed schools were doing for the cause of higher education. Those endowed schools had been re-organized by a delegated Legislature, which had formed them by schemes; but we had no knowledge whether they were looking well or ill. They wanted to know which. Why did Parliament interfere with their ancient modes of working? They found that in England, those endowed schools, with £600,000 a-year, had been taken from the poor and handed over to the rich. Parliament said that they must be applied to the benefit of the people. Had they been so applied? They had no means of knowing. The new schemes might be working well, or they might be working ill; but, as we had no inspection or superintendence in the matter, we were left in perfect ignorance whether this delegated legislation had succeeded or failed. It was from these reasons he had long advocated that they should have only one responsible Department for Education. The House had no idea how much money was spent on education. They voted to the Home Secretary large sums for industrial schools; to the Local Government Board, large sums for workhouse schools; to the War Office they voted money for military schools; and to the Navy, money for naval schools; and not one of these was under the Education Department. Such a state of things was so totally against public policy that its existence at this moment was scarcely credible. He saw, from what had fallen from the Prime Minister, that if he had moved now the Resolution which he proposed in 1879, his right hon. Friend would not refuse it, and he should himself have been satisfied with it. That Motion was to the effect that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the-Votes for Education were administered might be better secured. There was nothing in that Resolution which said that the Minister should not be the President of the Council, or that he should be a separate Minister. But he wanted to know why all these Educational Votes were under no one distinct administration, under no co-ordination? And if a Committee of that kind were granted, they should have got one step towards securing that that should be done.

MR. RATHBONE

said, that, he did not approach this question in any way from au abstract point of view, and should not say a word if he could not speak from practical experience of the absurdity of the present system, and its injurious effect upon elementary education throughout the country. He had not a word to say against the President of the Council personally or his Predecessors. On the contrary, if such a system could by any possibility have been made to work satisfactorily it had the best chance of doing so under the management of the Presidents of the Council of whose rule he had had experience. They could hardly pick out men more likely than Lord Ripon, Lord Aberdare, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Spencer, and Lord Carlingford to work such a system with consideration and tact, if only the system was capable of being worked with advantage. But it could not be made to work satisfactorily. For 15 years he had gone to successive Vice Presidents with grievances arising out of the present system, and had received the same reply—"We are very sorry for what has happened; but the power does not rest with us, but with the Lord President." But, as they all knew, the practical responsibility for the work to be done did rest with the Vice President, who had to do it. Now he would just take one case, and that the most flagrant. The entire patronage of the Department was in the hands of the President of the Council. The Vice President had nothing whatever to do with it, and was often not even consulted with regard to the appointment of Inspectors, or about their promotion. They might as well expect a man to manage a business with some other person to appoint the clerks, and to promote them without being obliged to consult with the real manager. Why, no man of business who had any respect for his own character or success would undertake to do such a thing for a moment. This matter was first brought painfully under his notice soon after he entered that House as Member for Liverpool. They had then in Liverpool a first-rate Inspector, who was raising materially the tone of education throughout his district by his admirable management, but he was himself constantly pestered by complaints from the schoolmasters throughout the town; and no blame to them, for in an adjoining district grants were given on requisitions very inferior, and the Liverpool schoolmasters naturally felt very much aggrieved to see inferior men receiving larger grants for inferior work. He had had, moreover, to complain repeatedly to successive Vice Presidents of appointments which he could see plainly they had not made and were not prepared to defend. How could a man who had not the real management of a business know how to select and promote those who had to carry out the work? And, again, how could the man who had to carry out the work be really made responsible for it if he had no share in either the selection or the promotion of his agents? And yet upon these Inspectors rested the maintenance of our national system of elementary education. The best way to secure that appointments of that kind should be free from political influence was to place them in the hands of the man who would suffer in case the business was badly done, and that man was the Vice President of the Council. He hoped either that the Government would agree to rectify this system, or that the House of Commons by a distinct vote that night would compel them to do so.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not detain the House long, because he thought that the question had been well argued, and that they had come to a substantial agreement upon it. It was quite true that anomalous as was the present position of the education work, it was much better that that system should continue than that the work should be done by a Minister not in the Cabinet. But the contention of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play-fair) was that the Minister who, being in the Cabinet, had to deal with education, ought to be the Minister who did the educational work. At present he certainly was not that Minister. There was no question whatever that education had been so managed that the Vice President did the work, and was looked upon throughout the country as the Minister of Education, and the extraordinary anomaly resulted that, having this position, he was not in the Cabinet, and on matters of considerable importance had not the authority that belonged to the Head of the Department. The argument was that education was now so important that the man chosen in the Cabinet to represent the cause of education should be the real head of his Office. It appeared to him that this view was merely in accordance with common sense. A new rule had, he believed, been established within the last few weeks, that the Lord President should consult the Vice President as to appointments. That was an improvement on the old system; but it was desirable that appointments should be in the hands of one man and not of two, and that the country should know who was responsible for them. While he was himself in Office he was exceedingly glad to be without patronage; but that was not the way in which important work should be done, and the Minister whom the country regarded as responsible for the conduct of the Office ought to have the appointment of the officials; indeed, no one framing an Administration for the first time would ever dream of adopting any other principle. The Notice on the Paper was to call the attention of the House to the existing anomaly, and he believed that the ano- maly was admitted to exist, and that the Vice President had not the power of appointing the officials. [Mr. GLADSTONE assented.] He had not this power then, but the Lord President always consulted him. That was exactly what he supposed; the Lord President was the responsible Minister, not the Vice President, though the latter did the work, and was judged by the country according as it was well or ill done. He might ask the House how long such an anomaly would be permitted to continue in the Army or Navy, if the head of the Office were always in the other House, while nine-tenths of the work was done by an Under Secretary? His right hon. Friend said that the anomaly did not work amiss, and that the feeling in Public Offices was such that almost any anomaly could be endured. That might be so; but the question was, whether the time had not come for putting an end to it. Ono argument against its abolition was, perhaps, that the Primo Minister disliked it himself; and he believed he could detect, in the right hon. Gentleman's very strong Conservative feeling against changes in administration, almost the last remnant of his ancient Conservatism. Another argument was that the change would require time. That would be a good argument, were it not for the fact that just at the present crisis many changes were being made. A Minister of Agriculture was being appointed, and the Lord President was to undertake the new duties, so that it could not now be said that without his educational work he would have nothing to do. He hoped hon. Members would not be led away by any Motion of the Council. The Committee of the Council for Trade, or Agriculture, or Education, meant nothing whatever. Persons might imagine that the Privy Council occasionally met for the transaction of business; but they never did so either in England or Ireland. The Minister for Agriculture was the President of the Committee of the Council on Agriculture; but he greatly doubted whether that Committee ever met, or ever would meet. The changes now being made offered an opportunity for entertaining this proposal. The real objection probably was, that it was undesirable to make too much of education, that if we wore to have a Minister of Education he might be pushing things on too quickly. Of course, the one Minister would have charge of elementary, secondary, and University education; it would not be his ideal state of things that they should be divided, any more than the Army and the Volunteers should be under different management. There might be a fear that under one Minister too much money would be spent, or there would be too great an interference with local bodies. No doubt the Education Vote was increasing very largely, and, though there was no desire to stint the Vote, still it ought to be watched, to see that we got value for it. We were less likely to have extravagance or over-interference if we had a Minister who was known to be responsible generally in the House of Commons, or occasionally in the House of Lords. What was complained of now was that there was no really defined responsibility. The man who moved the Estimates and did the work was not the Head of the Department, and he ought to be. The work was done by a Minister who was controlled by another, and the latter was scarcely seen by the public. He did not see why we should continue that Japanese mode of managing affairs—an apparent Minister appearing before the public, and the real power being concealed. he believed the effect of inquiry would be to bring out facts so clearly that it would be necessary to make a change.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he followed the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with the greatest possible trepidation; but he desired to make one or two remarks to the House which, however, he should have hesitated to make if it were not for the fact that a Relative of his at one time held the Office of President of the Council, and at that time he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had an opportunity of knowing the way in which the Office was worked. He was certainly surprised the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had supported the Motion for an Educational Department submitted by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), because, although the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and solely responsible, for the educational system of the country, he thought he was right in stating that that was the first occasion upon which the right hen. Gentleman had ever made a statement in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Education.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had made a long statement upon the subject in 1874, which was the last time it was before Parliament.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

remarked, that that was when the right hon. Gentleman was out of Office; and the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman when in Opposition always differed very widely from his opinions when in Office. It was perfectly certain that the House would not have heard the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just made in opposition to the views of the Prime Minister if he had been upon the Treasury Bench instead of occupying the position in the House which he now did. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he brought in that great Education Bill, which established the system of primary education in the country, he did not state these opinions then? The idea was not a novel one, and that was the proper time to have made this change. The right hon. Gentleman left it, however, to be made by a Conservative Government; and the fact that it was so made was quite enough to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from having anything to do with it, or from having a word to say in favour of it. No doubt, when the right hon. Gentleman commenced the system of education which now obtained throughout the country, he might have made the present proposal; but, not having made it while in Office, he had lost his right and title to recommend it now with authority. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) must say that it had been his privilege to listen very often to a very interesting speech from the Prime Minister, but he did not know that he had ever listened to a more interesting one than that which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman that night. The right hon. Gentleman h ad paid. the greatest compliment to the House of Commons which it was possible for a man in the position of the Prime Minister to pay, because he had taken those who were practically inexperienced and, to a great extent, ignorant into his confidence as to the machinery of the Government as regard to education. No doubt, the revelations which the Primo Minister had made, coming from a Minister of his authority, were of the very highest importance, and could not be listened to with too much attention. Nothing could have been more eulogistic of, or more in euphonism with, the Constitution of the country and the defence of our system of government than what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He did not believe if any other right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench had exerted himself to the utmost, he could have put forward with so much force the defence of the present system of government. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play-fair) was not a speech in favour of the Amendment, but it was a speech entirely in favour of inquiry; and he understood, from the assent which the Prime Minister had given to it, that the Government were prepared to assent to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, which would no doubt be useful, and which, he presumed, the House would agree to. He did not think it was possible for the House of Commons to order too many official inquiries into our system of government, because he was satisfied that inquiry would lead to useful legislation. What he found fault with in regard to the Liberal Party was, that they were too apt to precede their inquiry by legislation, and to inquire after they had legislated. If they would take a new departure, and inquire before they legislated, he thought they would not regret the result. There was one thing which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) which ought not to escape notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Minister of Education, after discharging the duties of his Office in connection with the Privy Council, had only to do with primary education, and that secondary and University education were not sufficiently attended to by him. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not know whether the House would be prepared to imitate very closely the system which prevailed in foreign countries of placing secondary and University education entirely under the Government. He had always felt that if there was one thing more deserving of approval in our educational system than another, it was the independence which existed in our University education and the variety which existed in our system of secondary education. There was no country in the world in which there could be found such an amount of independence and such an extent of variety; and he thought it would be most unfortunate if the result of this Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) were to bring all our schools of primary, secondary, and University education to the same cut-and-dried level — all running into the same groove of the Privy Council under a Minister of Education. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) he understood to be in favour of the Motion for appointing an independent Minister of Education, and he had little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who now sat on the Treasury Bench and represented the Education Department in that House, would, if his tongue were not tied, be also, in a certain degree, in favour of it. While he was alluding to the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he might also be allowed to say that he thought the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of London was somewhat uncharitably conceived, and that it might be taken as a reflection upon, and a bad compliment to, the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "No!"] It certainly might be so taken by some ill-natured minds; but, as far as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was concerned, he was only too glad to have the opportunity of recognizing with all sincerity the ability and earnestness with which the right hon. Gentleman had, on all occasions, discharged the duties of his Office and the intense desire he always seemed to have to place before the House of Commons the fullest statement of the exact condition of the education of the country. If it was in any way a credit to a Minister to be able to get his Estimates easily through the House of Commons, he doubted whether it was possible to find anyone who got them passed more easily than the right hon. Gentleman. He dare say the right hon. Gentleman was more or less in favour of this Motion. Speaking with all respect of right hon. Members who had occupied a position which was, more or less, one of inferiority, he had no doubt that it would be their wish and desire to make the position more independent and supreme. Therefore, anything which came from an ex-Vice President or the present Vice President, although it would be very valuable, must be received by the House of Commons with caution and should be submitted to the inquiry which the Prime Minister was kind enough to concede. He did not know whether the House would allow him to offer an opinion upon the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it a great grievance that the Minister in the House of Commons who moved the Education Estimates was not in the Cabinet. Now, for the life of him, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not see why the Minister of Education should have a seat in the Cabinet. Certainly, when the great educational controversy was going on in the country, with which the right hon. Gentleman's name was inseparately connected, there was every reason why the Vice President should be in the Cabinet, because, at that time, education was one of the most vital and burning questions of the day. But would they say, now that the question of education had probably been settled, and was likely to run in the same groove for a quarter of a century, that it was necessary to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that the Minister of Education should be in the Cabinet? In his opinion, there were many Offices which should take precedence, so far as the Cabinet was concerned, of the Office of Minister of Education; and he, therefore, did not concur in the dogmatic character of the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. After all, it appeared to him that this was one of those "fads" which were very apt to come from a certain group of Members who sat between the two Columns on the opposite side of the House, and which, when they came to examine them, would be found to be exceedingly unsubstantial, and might be generally summed up in the common expression—"What's in a name?" They had a Minister of Education in the House of Commons at the present moment. They were more fortunately situated, because they had two Ministers of Education; and, as far as the patronage was concerned, he did not know what might be the present state of matters, except that the Prime Minister had stated that as far as patronage was concerned, there was an agreement between the two Ministers. All that he could say on the matter was, that when his Relative was President of the Council, that was invariably the case at that time. Lord Robert Montague was Vice President at the time, and the noble Lord make appointments to several vacancies; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) recollected perfectly well that there was no separate patronage on the part of the Lord President at that time. The patronage was not swept up into the Lord President's hands, but communications invariably took place between his noble Relative and Lord Robert Montague, who filled the post of Vice President. He could not see that divided patronage was an evil, and it certainly used to be the custom in Ireland, before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) went there, to divide the patronage between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. He was quite aware that that was not after the right hon. Gentleman went there as Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman did away with that rule, and he did away also with the Privy Council; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently successful in his operations in Ireland to induce him to advocate changes in other Departments. Before the right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland the patronage there was invariably a matter of consultation between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. He thanked the House for having permitted him to make these remarks, and he wished also to express his thanks to the Prime Minister for the statement he had made, and also the sincere hope that the House would in every way follow the advice the right hon. Gentleman had given, and accept a Committee of Inquiry.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

(who was very imperfectly heard) said, that what he wanted to see was that whenever the Committee was appointed—and he understood the Government to accept the proposal—it should turn its attention not only to the question of how far it was expedient to appoint a Minister of Education, but to various legitimate questions connected with University Education and the public schools. He said that because he believed it was necessary to introduce very serious alterations into the existing system, which produced an effect upon various public institutions that was almost ruinous. At the present moment there was no person in the House charged with the duty of answering Questions relating to the Universities and public schools. There was no opportunity for a Member of Parliament to ask any Question upon such subjects of any person in authority, and it was impossible, therefore, to get a satisfactory answer. It was his duty last year to make an effort to preserve a great public school from rapine. Some time ago the Dean and Chapter of a certain city, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, seized on property which belonged to a school and appropriated it to the use of one of its own members. Wishing to ask a Question with regard to this alleged act of rapine, he found that he could get no answer from any Member of the Government, and he was compelled to have recourse to a Member of the House who happened to be one of the Governing Bodies of the school. He believed there was another school in the same position; and, in point of fact, whenever the Dean and Chapter of a city had anything to do with a public school, they invariably attempted to rob the school of what belonged to it. He thought there ought to be someone in that House officially connected with the Government with authority to answer Questions upon such subjects, and also about the action of the Civil Service Commission. That Body was now practically a great examining University, and upon its decisions depended the distribution of a large amount of patronage and of public money. He did not say that the Commissioners did not discharge their duties in the best possible way they could; but if the House would look at the examination papers they would agree with him that nothing could be more foolish, irrelevant, or improper for the purpose of discovering the capacity of the person examined than the questions asked by the officers who conducted the examination. And yet there was no one in the House who was able to get up and answer any Question on the subject, or say whether the examination papers were proper or not. He contended that there ought to be some person in that House of whom they might ask Questions as to these very important branches of education. There was no such individual at the present moment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consent to enlarge the terms of the Reference, so that they should be wide enough to include the question whether the Minister of Education, whoever he might be, should not be made responsible for every detail, because it would be irrelevant and foolish to interfere with the domestic government of a school, and not to give information when it was asked for. For instance, an Act of Parliament was passed in that House under the last Government which involved the establishment of a new College at Oxford on principles altogether contrary to those which were then existing in the University. If there had been a responsible Minister of Education he did not think that Act would have passed—at any rate, not in the form in which it passed in direct violation of the principles of other existing Acts. He had heard of a School Inspector who abused his position by delivering highly inflammatory addresses. Such conduct was very reprehensible; yet there was no responsible Minister in that House to interrogate about it. There were undoubtedly branches of education in this country which required a certain amount of Parliamentary supervision; and there ought, at any rate, to be in the House of Commons some person charged with the duty of answering Questions not connected with the domestic control of Universities and public schools, but the duty of answering reasonable Questions as to how far the authorities of the schools wore carrying out the duties imposed upon them by Act of Parliament. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to extend the terms of the Reference, in order that the Select Committee might inquire how far the Minister of Education might be made responsible for the performance of their duties by the authorities of the higher class schools connected with secondary public schools and University education.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, they had had for the last three hours an interesting discussion upon a very important subject; but he wished to remind the House that they had also been promised a statement upon another interesting and important subject—namely,there-adjustment of Scotch Business. And in order to enable the Home Secretary to made a statement upon that subject, and to insure that it should be taken at a reasonable hour, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he trusted that the House would allow him to say a word by way of explanation, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet opposite would not press his Motion, seeing that the House had very nearly arrived at the end of the discussion. He rather gathered from the course the debate had taken that the House assented to the suggestion which he had himself thrown out, and which had also been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). Indeed, the Prime Minister had in his speech suggested a somewhat similar course; and if that were the general feeling of the House, he (Sir John Lubbock) thought that some such Resolution as this might be adopted— That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how far Ministerial responsibility in connection with the Votes for Education, Science, and Art may be better secured. If that Resolution met the views of the House, and if the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he (Sir John Lubbock) would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; and, as he technically could not do so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) to move a Resolution to this effect, which he understood Her Majesty's Government would not oppose and which would meet with the general acceptance of the House.

MR. SALT

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would not press the Motion for Adjournment, because the discussion was evidently just coming to a useful close. The proposition made by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Lubbock) seemed to be a reasonable proposal — namely, that a Committee with fairly wide powers should be appointed. He had no wish to say more, as the question had already been well discussed, except that he always viewed with alarm a serious division of Departments, unless the matter had been well and carefully considered and brought forward on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Under any other conditions it would be a very serious matter, especially when they had a Government Department working fairly well; and they did not know what they were likely to get if they embarked in something entirely new.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, it was with the greatest possible reluctance that he had proposed the adjournment of the debate. He had merely made it in view of the importance of the statement which had been promised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

MR. RAMSAY

wished to suggest, before the Motion was withdrawn, that the Scotch Members would like to have some information as to whether the Select Committee proposed to be appointed could not inquire into the question of placing the administration of the laws relating to education in Scotland under some authority which should be connected exclusively with Scotland. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House is the adjournment of, the debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility, under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered, may be best secured,"—(Sir Lyon Playfair,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had no wish to postpone the decision upon the Amendment; but he wished the House to understand that no arrangement would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland unless they had a Department of their own for administering the laws relating to education in Scotland. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen representing English constituencies might say "No!" but would they get any Scotch Member to say "No?" What he wished to point out to the House was that they had had an educational system in Scotland for more than 300 years, and the administration had been placed under a Department in England. The whole of the staff and the heads of the Department were in England; and, as a natural consequence, the system was so unsatisfactory that unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was about to make a statement in regard to the future administration of Scotch affairs, presented some solution of the difficulty now experienced in dealing with the question of education in Scotland, any measure proposed on the subject would be totally unsatisfactory to the people of Scotland and the Scotch Members generally.

MR. BRYCE

said, he was anxious to disclaim, and he thought he might also do so on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the construction to be put upon the Motion was that it was an attempt to force upon the country a Minister of Education, who should necessarily have a seat in that House, or to increase the number of the Cabinet. He did not think that either of those two ideas were in the minds of those who supported the Motion. He conceived it possible that the Minister of Education, if appointed, should not be in the Cabinet; and he fully recognized the force of the arguments of the Prime Minister against increasing the number of the Members of the Cabinet. But he should like to add that, without increasing the Cabinet, there was already a Cabinet Officer in existence to which no definite duty was attached—namely, the Lord Privy Seal. and the Minister of Education might be substituted for that Officer. What they objected to was a dual control. They objected to the fact that there was one Minister who had the practical responsibility for the educational work of the country, and another Minister who had the supreme control of the Department. There was one Minister whose duty it was to frame the Estimates and consider the way in which they should be spent on education; while another, who had the ear of the Cabinet, and was capable of persuading it, was able to decide that certain legislative measures, and certain measures only, should be brought forward. They regarded that system as a divorce of power from responsibility, which did not exist in any other Department of the State; and they also looked upon it as an injury to the Public Service. It had been stated in the course of the debate that the functions of the State as regarded primary education and those of a Minister who should deal with secondary and superior education were entirely distinct; whereas those who supported the Motion thought they were intimately connected, and that neither set of functions could be properly discharged until both were united. Cases frequently arose in which the regulations of an endowed school required revision, and the authorities who had the duty of framing schemes for endowed schools required to be stimulated in order to induce them to make more rapid progress in their duties. At present that could not be done, because there was no power in that House to do it. The Charity Commissioners were not directly represented in the House, and were hardly amenable to it. Why was it that the Charity Commission was so unpopular? Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works found that the Charitable Trusts Bill met with a dozen blocks? It was because the Charity Commission was, so to speak, hidden away in a dark corner. It was not amenable to public opinion; and there were no means of ascertaining what it did, or what it did not do, or what were the grounds of its action. The only way in which they could deal with the Charity Commission was to place it under a responsible Department, whose Head sat in the House of Commons. And the supervision of endowed schools—the dealing with secondary and superior education generally—was one of the functions which it was most important to intrust to a Minister of Education. They would all remember the point, made long ago, by the then Head of the Department, about the desirability of creating a ladder from which the children should rise from the primary to the middle schools, and so on, to the Universities. But how could that be carried out, if there was no Minister to take any interest or concern in it? Take the case of the Training Colleges. How was it possible to arrange for the reception of teachers at the Universities, or for the relations which the Universities ought to bear towards the secondary schools and the elementary schools, if there was no Minister of Education with a seat in that House? He admitted the necessity of maintaining a large measure of independence for the secondary schools as well as for the Universities; and he would be the last to propose that such schools should be placed under central control; but there should be an opportunity of making suggestions, and of showing how such institutions were working, and what was required, in order to bring about a certain extent of harmonious co - operation between them. There was all the difference in the world between increasing the arbitrary and bureaucratic authority of a Central Department and enlarging the action of that Department in the line indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). No one would desire to see the Central Authority invested with such a controling power over the Universities as was possessed by the State in Germany or France. Bearing in mind the importance of dealing with the various aspects which the subject presented, and of considering how best to make the Education Minister a true Minister of Public Instruction throughout the country, he thought the Committee ought to be sufficiently large to enable all these questions to be brought under discussion and fully considered.

MR. SALT

said, he begged to apologize for having committed an irregularity on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What he wished to say on that occasion was that he was sorry that the proposal for introducing changes in a very important Department of the Government had not emanated from the Government themselves. It was extremely difficult to carry out such changes; and he was bound to say that, having confidence in the Department, and in the Minister connected with it, he did not see that any sufficient reason had been shown for the adoption of any extensive change suddenly proposed outside the Government. At the same time, as he believed the Motion to refer the matter to a Select Committee would be assented to, he trusted that the labours of the Committee would be successful. As to any result which might be arrived at, in consequence of the action of the Committee, he hoped it would not end in the introduction of another and a new demand upon the finances of the State. They did not want a more excessive expenditure for the administration and control of the Department. If they desired to carry out out education well, whether the education was elementary, middle class, or a high class system in the public schools, they must depend in the main upon the good administration and the good effects of the principal persons connected with the localities; and it seemed to him that the real office of the Central Department was not to enter into mere details and create an. enormous establishment with high salaries, but to give such assistance and to collect such information as would be valuable in the local administration for the purposes of education. The real work was to be done in the country itself, and the more it was done in a locality the more efficient it would be. Of course, he was not disposed to raise any opposition to the appointment of this Committee; but he had thought it well to say at this stage that he did hope the result of appointing the Committee would not be the establishment of another and an expensive Department of the State.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Bryce), and he was not one of those who thought the proposal to make the Minister of Education a Cabinet Minister ought to be pressed. At the same time, it was their desire that whoever was appointed should be a perfectly independent Minister. His only object in rising now was to make an appeal to the Prime Minister that, as he was about to appoint a Committee to inquire into the functions of the Privy Council connected with Education, he should not limit the inquiry to the three questions suggested in the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair)—namely, Education, Science, and Art. If that were done, he thought there would be great disappointment to-morrow among a considerable number of Members of that House and in the country generally, especially if it were found that the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council was altogether left out of the scope of the inquiry. At the present moment he knew that utter disgust was felt at the manner in which matters concerning agriculture were conducted by the Privy Council. The Minister who was at the head of the Department was in the House of Lords, and another Cabinet Minister, who had very little to do with controlling the Department, represented Agriculture in the House of Commons at present. He sincerely trusted that in appointing a Select Committee his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would consent to refer all questions concerning every Department of the Privy Council to the Committee.

MR. WARTON

said, he had listened with considerable interest to the discussion; but he could not join in the chorus of exultation which seemed to have been raised about a possible addition to the Cabinet. He thought that Lord Beaconsfield had displayed his practical good sense when he preferred a moderate Cabinet of 12 or 13 to a large Cabinet of 13 or 16. There was a constant demand for additions to the Cabinet. There was a cry for a Scotch Minister. ["No!"] Some hon. Gentlemen certainly had raised that cry. There was a cry for a Minister of Agriculture, and another for a Minister of Education; and if all these demands were complied with the Cabinet would become in the end most unwieldy. In point of fact, it would degenerate into a Grand Committee.. Not only did he object to these demands on principle, but in this particular case he objected to the request on the special ground that the Vote for Education was already far too large. He believed that it was growing by £100,000 a-year. When the present educational system was first introduced a pledge was given that the rate should not exceed 3d. in the pound; but that pledge had been violated, and the rate was mounting up year by year. He was afraid the effect of having a Minister of Education would be that, when he came into his new Office, he would be disposed to magnify its importance. That seemed to be an error committed by all Ministers. It was the case with the old Department, and the expenditure was quite high enough; but with a new Department, and a new Minister anxious to show how the new broom could sweep clean, the Education Vote, now very large, would be further increased. Therefore, on both of these grounds, he opposed the creation of a new Cabinet Office.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

rose to continue the debate.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

wished to put a Question to the Speaker upon a point of Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, as the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had been withdrawn, it was competent for the Committee to discuss another Motion not on the Paper before the Motions which were on the Paper had been disposed of?

MR. SPEAKER

The course which has been taken by the House is quite regular. By the leave of the House the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was withdrawn, and there was no irregularity in taking another Amendment. The course pursued was entirely a question for the House.

MR. RITCHIE

asked to be allowed to make a remark upon a point of Order. He understood the original Motion to be one for going into Committee of Supply. And when the Amendment to that Motion, which stood on the Paper, had been withdrawn, he wanted to know whether it did not follow, as a matter of course, that the Member who had the next Amendment upon the Paper should be called upon rather than that a new Motion, by somebody else, which was not upon the Paper, should be taken?

MR. SPEAKER

The Motion for going into Committee of Supply was not withdrawn, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was withdrawn. The original Question was then put, and upon that Question the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) brought up his Amendment. The course which has been pursued is quite regular. The original Question has not been withdrawn at all.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

desired to say a word upon a practical question—namely, the working of the Endowed Schools Commission and the Charity Commission. There could hardly be two opinions of that side of the House that not only should stimulus be given to the working of these branches of Public Business, but that it was also very desirable that the character of these Commissions should undergo some very important modification, and he could see no more suitable time for pressing the point upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government. He would, therefore, move to add to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) these words— And how such other duties as would fall within the province of a Minister of Public Instruction may be best discharged. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment to allow these words to be added to it, on the ground that it would prevent inconvenience from arising at a subsequent period.

MR. SPEAKER

That Amendment could not be put at the present moment. The Question immediately before the House is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. If the House decides that Question in the negative, then the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) could be put as an original Motion, and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) would be in Order in moving his Amendment.

Question proposed, That the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered may be best secured,' be there added.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "and how such other duties as would fall within the province of a Minister of Public Instruction may be best discharged."—(Mr. Illingworth.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

I am afraid these words are beyond the scope of the present discussion. It will be observed that the words now before us are not in the main our words, but the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh. I can con- ceive certain collateral duties which may be, and have been, actually discharged by the Vice President of the Privy Council, and my impression is that they will be considered by the Committee; but, at any rate, I think the Motion, as it cannot be altered by the proposal of my hon. Friend, would be of quite a different character, and would require the Committee to mark out and frame a plan for the discharge of all duties which could be brought within the scope and view of a Minister of Public Instruction. That, clearly, would be much beyond the matter we have been debating since 9 o'clock, and could not, I think, be assented to by the House at the present time. That would require a full discussion. My hon. Friend may raise a question of that kind by a proposal to instruct the Committee; but I do not think the House is in a condition to enter into this at the present time, and we could not be a party to accepting this Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 104: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 156.)

Question, That the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility, under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered, may be best secured,' be added after the word 'That' in the original Question,

put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put. Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered, may be best secured.