BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL [Lords].

HC Deb 01 August 1899 vol 75 cc1066-130

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill as amended (by the Standing Committee) be now considered."

* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

I do not intend to trouble the House at any length upon the present question, because I fully recognise the desire of the House to pass this Bill, and I am not going to use any undue efforts to resist its passage through the House. As a matter of fact the Bill has had a very remarkable history, and the most objectionable point about it has been the very little information the Government have been able to deliver. The Bill very properly went to a Grand Committee, and it is just one of those Bills that should go to a Grand Committee. But when it got there the proceedings had to be abruptly shortened to get through the necessary work of that Committee. Perhaps, for Parliamentary reasons, the Government did not think it was a very good plan to tell the Committee what were their intentions. I am going to ask the Vice-President of the Council one or two questions which I hope he will answer, as it might perhaps enable us to shorten the discussion further on. As the House is aware, the Bill proposes to transfer or give power to transfer by an Order in Council, the authority and jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education. What I am very anxious to find out from the Government is how far they propose, under the new state of things, if the powers are transferred, to reproduce, in any form, the protection which the law gives to these endowments. In the first place the practice is that a local inquiry may be held, and is very often held. Do the Government intend that these local inquiries shall be held in the future?

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,) Cambridge University

Yes.

* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

Do they intend that those inquiries shall be carried out by persons independently of the responsible Minister? There are certain periods which are allowed to persons to make objections when a scheme is proposed to be made. Very often the persons interested are not able to move very quickly, and a certain amount of negotiations have to take place. I want to know whether the Government intend to allow the usual period which is necessary at the present moment before the scheme can be finally enacted by the Order in Council. I should like to know whether the Government propose to allow the same period of five months to elapse. I also desire some information as to how the Government propose to deal with the judicial work of the Board of Education, because the House will observe that henceforward the Board of Education will have very extensive judicial powers. They will be called upon to decide an enormous number of very difficult and intricate points of law. Are those points of law going to be decided by the ordinary officials of the Education Department, or is there going to be a legal side to the Education Department, as it were, with a particular commissioner, whose business it will be to know the law and have a judicial mind, and be able to give a decision according to the precedents which govern these cases, and according to the accepted principles of the Court of Chancery and the Charity Commission? Leaving Section 2, I want to ask one or two questions about Clause 4. Could the Government now tell us what sort of subjects they propose to refer to the Consultative Committee for their advice? Do they propose to refer the powers now wielded by the Charity Commission to the Consultative Committee? I think it would be possible under the Bill to do so. I apologise to the House for raising all these details, but the Bill contains nothing to guide us, and the Government have given us no information up to now. Under the Bill I think it is possible under Clause 4 for the Government to refer any matter to the Consultative Committee for advice, so that it will be possible to replace the Charity Commission by the Consultative Committee. Then there is another point—is the advice of this Consultative Committee to be public or private advice? I can quite conceive that private advice might be a very valuable thing on many subjects; but if the advice be public and we have a Minister at the head of the Department, he might be able to shelter his own responsibility behind the advice of the Consultative Committee. Technically he would always be responsible to this House for the decisions given by the Department. We all know that these technicalities have very little value, but the Minister might shelter himself by saying, "My Consultative Committee have decided, and they advise that such a course should be taken, and I can hardly take it upon myself to ignore their advice." In a case of that kind no hon. Member of this House will deny that the power of this House will be very seriously diminished, for hon. Members must remember that the Consultative Committee will not be responsible to this House. I do not know whether the salaries of this Committee will be voted by this House or not.

SIR J. GORST

There are no salaries.

* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

Then there are no salaries, and therefore there will be no control, except the control which will be exercised by the Minister. I think this is a matter which the House ought to be advised upon. I should like to ask one other question, and it is this—How long do the Government contemplate it will take before the organisation under the Bill is likely to be complete? It is very important for us to know whether this proposal will be carried out before the next General Election or not. Perhaps it is rather uncivil to speak in the presence of the Government of the possibility of their political death, and I do not anticipate it.. But, of course, it is possible, and under those circumstances it might happen that all the more delicate and difficult matters which have to be decided by the transfer of these powers would not be decided by the Duke of Devonshire, and by my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council, in whom we have the greatest confidence, and these matters may be decided by hon. Members who do not hold the same views as we do on this side of the House. There are such difficult questions which might arise as the administration of the Endowed Schools Act, which might have to be carried out by another Government. I again apologise to the House for detaining it so long, but I would just like to say another word by way of warning. I want the Committee to realise the magnitude of the interests which are involved. This includes not a small number of Acts of Parliament, but it is a complete Code in itself. During the year 1898 the number of charities dealt with under the Endowed Schools Act shows how much is still going on in the way of reorganising our charities. These charities alone, all of which were dealt with in one year, involve an income of at least £700,000 a year. I think that shows the enormous importance of the interest with which we are dealing under the Endowed Schools Act. Besides these charities there are the charities dealt with under the Charitable Trusts Act, under which 219 charities were dealt with in London by the Charity Commissioners. All these charities are to be henceforward subject to what cannot be essentially a judicial mind, and a body which will not be able to look at the thing from a purely impartial point of view. I just quote these instances to show how important it is that we should have a little more information than has yet been given us, especially upon those points to which I have alluded.

SIR J. GORST

I will reply as clearly and as shortly as I can to the questions put by the noble Lord. My noble friend must remember that this is not a Bill to create new powers. It is merely a measure to transfer from the Charity Commissioners the powers which they hold, and which they exercise, to a new body which will exercise those powers with exactly the same safeguards. Therefore, not only will the Board of Education observe all the restrictions which have been hitherto imposed upon the Charity Commissioners, but they are obliged by law to do this. The noble Lord asks about local inquiries. I may say that the Board of Education must hold local inquiries in the same manner and subject to precisely the same restrictions and safeguards as to the preservation of charities as the Charity Com- missioners do at present. I suppose that in time to come the inquiries will be held by inspectors under the Education Department. Whether this would meet the noble Lord's idea of what is an independent inquiry I am not able to say. Certainly any inquiries I have to provide will be as independent as possible. With reference to the period of objection, it will be exactly the same as at the present time, the only difference being that if this Bill becomes law the person objecting will make his objection not to the Charity Commissioners but to the Board of Education. The noble Lord said something about judicial work. Every Minister has to exercise some kind of judicial choice. At the present moment under the Education Act, the Technical Instruction Acts, and other Acts of Parliament, a great number of judicial determinations are made by the Education Department, and those quasi-judicial decisions are, I am sure, made with the greatest possible care and with the most anxious desire to arrive at true and correct decisions. There is a judicial side to the Education Department, and we have a trained lawyer to whom questions which have a legal bearing are invariably referred. There is no decision ever taken on any legal question without consultation with the proper legal adviser. With regard to the Consultative Committee, that is to be a body which is not in any way to relieve the Minister of Education from his responsibility to this House for everything which is done by the Department. The Consultative Committee will deal with technical questions, such as the framing of regulations which will govern the registration of teachers. In making use of the inspection of any body other than the Universities, the Minister is directed to consult the Committee as to the body whose inspection it is intended to make use of. With regard to what is called technology, the Minister would avail himself of the inspection of the admirable City and Guilds Institute. Before doing so, however, he would consult the Board, and ask them to consider whether the City and Guilds Institute is such a body, and the examinations they conduct are of such a character, as should be properly taken into consideration officially by the Department. Then again, such a question as proposed changes in the curriculum of elementary schools, which is now settled generally by a com- mittee of quasi-experts in the Department itself, may be taken into consideration, as well as the curriculum of schools in the rural districts, which departs in some manner from the curriculum prevailing in the towns.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

was understood to ask whether the Consultative Committee would advise as to certain forms of religious teaching, as, for instance, that in the School Board Schools in Liverpool.

SIR J. GORST

I am speaking purely my own opinion, but I would rather be inclined in such a case to consult my hon. and learned friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, for that is a question of law and of the construction of the Statute. The next question was as to whether the advice given by the Consultative Committee would be published. I should say, in ordinary cases, certainly not. There may be eases in which it. might be desirable to publish advice, as, for instance, in the case of the registration of teachers, or a new curriculum drawn up for a particular class of schools. But, as a general rule, the advice given by the Consultative Committee to the Minister would not be published. There is a well-known precedent in the public service. Scarcely a single tiling is ever done by the Secretary of State for India with regard to Indian administration without first passing through the Indian Council. Papers are laid before the Committees of the Indian Council before being submitted to the Secretary of State for his decision, but the advice of those Committees is no more published than the advice of the officials in other Departments. Whatever the Committees may have advised it does not in the least relieve the Minister of any responsibility. It is he who is responsible to his colleagues in the Government and to Parliament, and in no case is that responsibility shared by the committee of experts to whom he may have had recourse. The noble Lord asked how long it would be before these changes were completed. That is an extremely difficult question to answer. And he asked about the General Election. I do not know how far off' we are from a General Election. I believe this Parliament may last for a; couple of years longer. Whether it may last for two or three years is a question which a person in my position cannot possibly answer. All I can. say is that due diligence will be exercised in carrying out the powers: given to the Board of Education by this Bill. The power given is that of transferring such of the educational functions of the Charity Commissioners as may be convenient to the new Board of Education, but that power is not exhausted, until every educational function of the Charity Commission is transferred. I think it would be extremely unwise to transfer the whole en bloc.The intention of the Government is to deal with the matters tentatively; they will transfer those powers first of all which are most necessary to carry on the work of the Board of Education, and transfer other powers as they may become necessary, and as experience may show to be useful. I hope the House will not press me further than this. I should think that some powers will never be transferred at all. But how far and how rapidly the powers are to be transferred it is impossible to say. The only object now is to transfer to the Board such powers as are necessary to enable it to act as the central authority for the schools in the country, and this transfer will be effected gradually and as experience shows will be best.

MR. BIRRELL (Fife, W.)

I think the curious Debate to which we are listening, is a rather disagreeable commentary on the new fashion of legislation by way of skeleton. The noble Lord, who in these matters is a hungry politician, comes here in search of flesh, but fails to find it on the bones of this skeleton. He interrogates the right hon. Gentleman who is in command of the Department as to what he means to do with this Bill when he has got it; but not a single word which, the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the noble Lord either binds him or his successor as to how the law will be administered. The right hon. Gentleman takes a certain view as to what the Consultative Committee may do, and as to how the Endowed Schools Act and the Charity Acts—which are most complicated measures—are to be worked, clause by clause, by the new Department, regardless of the fact that the mere transference of the powers throws those Acts out of gear, and makes it exceedingly difficult to say how they are to be worked under the general terms of this Bill. The long and the short of the matter is that this Bill gives no information whatever. It simply creates a new Department and hands over to it, without explanation, existing powers now worked by an entirely different, body and machinery. The Government, in fact, says: "Pass this Bill in outline, and leave it to the Department to fill up all the details." Of course we all know that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has patented this new mode of Parliamentary legislation in order to avoid Parliamentary discussion. He drafts a skeleton measure and asks the House of Commons to pass it as a vote of confidence in him, and leaves it to the Department to work it out as best they like. We have seen it in the case of the Light Railways Act. I can only say, without entering into any points of controversy between educationalists on both sides of the House, that this Bill, so far from settling questions of importance, will fling open the door to a great deal of angry controversy as to what is the meaning of such legislation, and what is to be the power in future of the Department to be constituted. It is a new thing that in order to ascertain what this Bill means the noble Lord has to interrogate, not the Legislature, but the man who will hereafter exercise the powers under it. I think that, on the whole, the old-fashioned way of saying in an Act of Parliament what is meant is certainly the better method of legislation.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tonbridge)

I think what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Fife is ample justification for what was said by my noble friend. And for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a mere transference of old powers to the new Board of Education, and that all the safeguards exercised heretofore by the Charity Commissioners will be exercised by the Board of Education. But what fills us with apprehension is that you are entirely altering the body which is responsible for this work. You are putting in place of a body which is quasi-judicial in its character and entirely independent of Parliament, a new body which is in no sense judicial, and entirely dependent on a Party vote. That is a serious matter, and I think it is only natural that when the matter is brought forward we should ask for more information as to what the functions are which this new body are to carry out. I had the honour myself of serving five years ago on a Select Committee of this House which inquired into the administration of the Charity Commissioners, especially in regard to the transference of these powers; and we had most important evidence laid before us that the Charity Commission was a judicial body transacting work with an inherited jurisdiction from the Court of Chancery, and obliged to construe Acts of Parliament and deeds in a purely judicial way. The strength of the Board was that it was not amenable to Parliamentary pressure, and was altogether independent of this House. Now, you are putting in its place a body which will be dependent on a Party Vote any day during the session. There is, therefore, some ground for our apprehension that, in consequence of the pressure that will be brought to bear in Parliament, the character of the administration may be altered, and charities intended for other purposes may be utilised for educational schemes. I do not wish to interfere with the progress of the Bill, but I join my hon. friend in protesting against the exceedingly indefinite and vague manner in which this Bill has been brought forward, and I express the hope that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will accept Amendments which will safeguard the judicial work now carried on by the Charity Commission.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, South)

The objections which have been taken by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side appear to me to be objections that ought to have been taken on the Second Reading. It is too late to raise them now, and to attempt to remedy the defects complained of. It was pointed out when this Bill was debated on the Second Reading that it was practically only a skeleton Bill, and that the whole thing would have to be filled up; that it approached very difficult questions, on which there was a great deal of controversy, but that it passed them by, and did not attempt to grapple with these difficulties. But the House was desirous to have some Bill, and feeling that the session was advanced, and that there was not much chance of getting anything better, the Bill was given a Second Reading. Accordingly it has gone through the various stages, and received discussion in the Grand Committee, and it is now too late to remedy the defects complained of. We cannot clothe the skeleton with flesh and skin at the present moment; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President is questioned it is quite impossible for him to give any more definite answer than he has given to the questions put to him. It is quite clear that the Department cannot yet have had time to face all the difficulties which the transfer involves, and even months must elapse before the right hon. Gentleman can say what precise action he can take on these questions. I am glad to find that the Charity Commission has at last begun to gain the confidence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have been accustomed to see schemes which the Charity Commissioners have prepared with great care, and produced exactly on the lines which the law laid down, overthrown with very little consideration or regard for the provisions of the law by motions made in this House. But now at last the Charity Commission is receiving its due meed of praise for the impartial and judicial spirit in which it has approached and discharged its duties. I do not think that the new Department to which its duties are transferred will depart from that spirit, because the questions with which it has to deal are mainly questions which would have to be determined with the advice of the law officers; and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions the Education Department would allow itself to be influenced by improper motives any more than the Charity Commission, or than the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board. After all, these religious difficulties happily form a very small part of the administrative questions which the Department will have to deal with.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for West Fife. First of all, however, let me say that many of us who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill did so in the hope that when it came back from the Grand Committee the skeleton would be clothed to a certain extent. But the Bill has come back as naked as when it went upstairs. The Bill, as it stands, is not legislation in the true sense at all. Not a single individual in the House can tell what he is legislating about. I appeal to any Member on either side of the House whether he knows how secondary education is going to be organised in future. The fact is that the House is asked to give a blank cheque to the Education Department, which after all must have a political complexion—there is no harm in saying that either of the Education Department or of the Board of Trade—and when you get a new Ministry it is very likely that you may get an entire change of policy. I go further, and say that you ought to have an entire change of policy. And when you have an organisation of that kind, and when the whole fabric has to be rebuilt, you cannot escape unfortunate political discussions in regard to the methods of secondary education, just as we unfortunately have them in regard to elementary education. In fact, you are introducing into secondary education, which is now almost free from the religious difficulty, and ought to be so free, those very difficulties we have in regard to elementary education. We are certain to discuss what the new President of the Board of Education does. Is it not certain that there would be great differences of opinion as to whether endowments should be used one way or another; and what guarantee is there, after all, in regard to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown? I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Solicitor-General, and yet we do not desire to put ourselves, bound hand and foot as regards questions of this kind, in the hands of any Department. What are the two points referred to by the hon. and learned Member opposite? Take the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President. Do we know what powers are to be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education? Of course not. It is a matter on which the House ought to make up its mind and ought to legislate; but nobody knows what is intended to be done, and we have not made up our minds as to what is to be done. We simply give a blank cheque to the Education Department, and there will be, hereafter, endless political discussions. Instead of formulating a mere skeleton of this kind—a mere paper scheme—we might have clothed it with a proper body. A great deal undoubtedly in the Bill depends upon the Consultative Committee, but no one knows whether there is to be a Consultative Committee or not, or how it is to be organised—and these points are the very essence of the matter. There is no obligation under this Bill to appoint it at all; there is only power to appoint. And if appointed, no one knows how it is to do its duty. You might have a Consultative Committee which would be of the greatest advantage as regards secondary education; and you might have a Consultative Committee which would do nothing but harm, according to my view, to secondary education. There is a further more extraordinary element as regards this Consultative Committee. Suppose a certain number of gentlemen are appointed on it, does anyone know what the Consultative Committee would do? Is it to be a mere name, a sham, or is it to be a reality? What are its true functions to be? I agree that it is, unfortunately, too late at this stage to attempt to clothe the skeleton in flesh and blood. I believe that this new patent method of legislation ought to be discouraged in every way. I say emphatically we are not doing our duty, and nothing will be worse if we proceed on this principle in the future—namely of giving up our own responsibility and merely throwing a skeleton Bill at the head of a Department, leaving it to be worked out on political lines, according as the head of the Department is chosen from one side of the House or the other. The organisation of secondary education is one of the most important matters in our time, and it should be dealt with fairly and fully by this House.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

I do not know whether my right hon. friend will make any concession to the suggestions which have been made, or whether he will give us an assurance that this Bill is to be followed up by another Bill. We are rapidly approach- ing the close of the present Parliament, and it is an exceedingly awkward arrangement if this skeleton Bill, which has been so roughly handled this evening, is not to be completed during the present Parliament by that further measure which will give it life. We have got very little information about this Bill. My right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council made a very remarkable suggestion when he said that in certain cases the advice of the Consultative Committee would be submitted to Parliament, and in other cases not; that sometimes the Minister of Education would keep the advice he receives to himself, and at other times it would be made known to the public. I would like to know how. By those communications to the Press which are sometimes conveniently made, or by official documents laid before the House? The whole of this discussion leaves in my mind an uncomfortable feeling, and I join with my hon. friends on both sides of the House in regretting the manner in which this Bill has been brought forward. I do not, however, desire to put any impediment in the way of the passage of the Bill, and would only ask the Government to carefully consider the Amendments which are to be put before them.

* MR. YOXALL (Nottinghamshire, W.)

The House seems to have rather a false impression of what this Bill does. The Debate up to the present has consisted almost entirely of complaints and anticipations from one narrow point of view, and has led the House to believe that the Bill deals with secondary education only. The Bill unites in one administration the present authorities, and enables the Charity Commission to decide whether a certain charity is an educational trust or not. It also takes power to inspect secondary schools where the governors of those schools desire to be inspected. Really the Bill has very little to do with secondary education. As to robbing the Charity Commissioners of their powers, I heard the Secretary before the Secondary Education Commission say that all the powers of the Endowed Schools Commission might well be handed over to the Board of Education, and I heard Lord Justice Davey express almost the same idea. The apprehensions which have been expressed are unfounded. The Bill is an important one, dealing with a wide subject, touching more than one point. It is an essential Bill if the central administration of education is to be improved, and for my part I heartily hope it will be passed.

Bill as amended considered.

* MR. YOXALL

I move this Amendment for the purpose of securing that the Minister for Education under this Bill should be a Member of the House of Commons. There are obvious reasons for that proposal. It is the House of Commons which provides the money and discusses the Estimates, which sits more frequently and for longer hours than the House of Lords, and exercises the greater part of the control over education. It is therefore important that the Minister for Education should be a Member of the House of Commons. But under this Bill we are not to have necessarily a person of the status even of the Vice-president in this House. The head of the Education Department is the Lord President of the Council, and he receives £2,000 per annum for his Lord Presidency, but receives no salary as the head of the Education Department. This Bill as drawn would perpetuate and crystallise that system, and make it impossible to depart in future from the existing arrangement. The Lord President of the Council has only twice during the last thirty years been a Member of the House of Commons. On one occasion it was Lord John Russell, and on another occasion the Lord President, ten days after his appointment, was translated to the Upper House. It is clear, to my mind, that unless something is done either by an addition to the terms of the Act or by a definite undertaking on the part of those who will have to make this appointment, we shall run a serious risk of having the first President of the Board in the House of Lords, and thenceforward he will always be a Member of that House. I therefore move this Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8, after the word 'President,' to insert the words 'who shall be a Member of the House of Commons.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)

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

SIR J. GORST

I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It is quite impossible that we should give any assurance as to who should be the first head of the Board of Education. That is a matter which lies with Her Majesty's advisers, and it would be quite a departure from constitutional practice for any instruction of this kind to be inserted in the Bill.

MR. BRYCE

While I entirely agree with the hon. Member's views in desiring that the Education Minister should sit in this House, I feel there is a great deal of force in the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

In supporting the Amendment, I would remind the Government that when the Board of Agriculture was instituted there was a distinct and definite assurance given that the President should have a seat in the House of Commons. It seems: to me, having regard to the much wider and enormously more important interests covered by the Education Bill now before the House, my hon. friend is absolutely justified in insisting that on the constitution of this authority there should be some guarantee given that the responsible Minister who will have to deal with this question should be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division as a matter of principle. Having regard to the enormously responsible duty to be discharged, it seems to me the head of the department should be in this House, and capable of being questioned as to the policy of the department.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

I am in fullest sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view, but I venture to hope he will not press the Amendment to a Division, because the result will not represent the true feelings of the House. There would be a large number who would not be able to vote for the Amendment, on the ground that it is contrary to the usual constitutional practice to insert in a statute a provision which would limit the discretion of those who in future will advise her Majesty in appointing a Minister of State. At the same time, I regret that there should be a suggestion in the clause that in future the chief of this great department will sit in the House of Peers, and not in the House of Commons. This department must become one of the great spending departments of the State. Of necessity the amount of money which Parliament will have to vote in connection with education will year by year increase, and I do not think the House of Commons will be content to see the Board of Education represented in this House as the Post Office at present is, with the actual and responsible Minister in the House of Lords. But, although holding these views, for the reason I have given I do not think it would be wise to go to a Division.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)

I feel as strongly as anyone the desirability of having the Minister in charge of this most important department in the House of Commons. We are spending about £8,000,000 a year on education, but the system, as every expert knows, is of a deplorably inefficient character, and the only way in which we can get it reformed and made worthy of the country will be by subjecting the department to the constant criticism of the House of Commons. For the reasons which have already been given, however, I hope we shall not divide upon the Amendment. If such a Division took place many Members would abstain, and we should go into the lobby with an extremely small minority, the result of which would be that next year, if we complained that the Minister of Education was in the House of Lords, we should be told that the proposal that he should be a Member of this House was rejected by an enormous majority.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

Whether we divide or not, I wish to give my support to the principle involved in this Amendment. We have an illustration of the inconvenience resulting from the head of a department being in the House of Lords in the case of the Post Office. Unless the principle of the Amendment is adopted we shall be in a similar position of inconvenience with regard to the Board of Education. Ministers who have to deal with questions in which the great masses of the people are deeply interested should have seats in this House, so as to sit face to face with the real representatives of the people—which the Peers are not.

MR. YOXALL

As my object was to ventilate this question, I do not propose to take a Division, and by the leave of the House I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

I desire to move the Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the hon. Member for Hertford. I understand he intended to move it, not in any great expectation that the Government would add the words to the Bill, but in the hope of getting some assurance about a matter concerning which we were in doubt with regard to the constitution of the department under the Bill. He wished to ensure that Secondary Education would, be represented as well as Technical and Elementary Education.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words, '(6) There shall be established under the Board three separate Departments for Secondary, Technical, and Elementary Education respectively.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

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

SIR J. GORST

The Committee of Council had formerly two separate departments, but the system was found to be extremely inconvenient, and the two departments are now amalgamated into one. It would, therefore, be a very unfortunate thing if Parliament were to saddle the new Board of Education with the obligation to have three departments. I understand the Lord President of the Council has given a pledge that there shall be a third additional secretary who shall discharge certain functions, either in connection with some of the secondary schools or some of the subjects that are taught in secondary schools. What these precise functions are has not yet been determined, and cannot well be determined until the organisation of the Department for carrying out the Bill is more advanced. I hope my hon. friend will not ask for any pledge beyond that which has been already given by the Lord President of the Council.

MR. BRYCE

The object of the mover of the Amendment was to obtain an assurance from the Vice-President that the interests of secondary education should be duly and fully considered when the Department comes to be organised. The right hon. Gentleman has said something pointing that way, but I think he might have given an assurance of a more ample character, which would have tended to remove the uneasiness existing in many quarters outside. It is very important that we should carry with us the masters, especially of the great public schools, who have so frankly and cordially intimated their wish to come under the Bill, and to help the working of it by opening their schools to examination and inspection. They had some uneasiness lest the Education Board should not be provided with a staff suited to deal with the question of secondary education, and they had a fear, in particular, that scientific education would be divorced from secondary education in general. The whole object of the reform of the educational system is not to divorce scientific education from literary education, but to bring them into an organic relation to one another, and so to organise the Department, that whoever looks after secondary education should look after it in all its sides, and that the secondary and technical departments should be in the closest possible touch and connection. I do not think that scientific education should be relegated to what might be called the technical department; it ought to be regarded as part of a general liberal education. The technical work, although in a measure scientific, ought not to absorb the whole of the scientific teaching, neither ought scientific teaching to be divorced from the work of the assistant secretary for secondary education. I understand that what I have stated is the object of my hon. friend in moving this Amendment, and I desire to express our sympathy with that object, and the hope that when the Education Department comes to be organised, it will be organised upon such lines as are desired by the friends of secondary education outside.

MR. JEBB (Cambridge University)

My right hon. friend, the other day, answered a question upon this point, and his reply seemed to be perfectly satisfactory. He said that secondary education would be represented in the organisation of the Education Office by an assistant secretary, distinct from, and not subordinate in official status to, the Assistant Secretaries who have charge respectively of elementary education and of the Science and Art Department. I do not understand that there is anything in the reply he has just given which is inconsistent with the former statement. I conceive that when the future Education Office is fully organised, the section which more specially represents secondary education will have a staff of its own, selected with a view to the inspection and examination and general supervision of the secondary schools, more particularly on the literary side, and that all the resources which are at present at the disposal of the Science and Art Department will also be available to the Education Office for the purpose of testing the scientific portion of the work done in secondary schools. If I am correct in that supposition, I should concur with my right hon. friend opposite in recommending my hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford not to press the Amendment.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

My hon. friend has specified two matters upon which a distinct reply was hoped for—one as to the status of the third assistant secretary, and the other as to whether his functions were to be entirely confined to secondary education. I am not quite sure whether the reply of the Vice-President was what was wanted on either point. He did not say that the status of the third assistant secretary would be equal to that of the other two, and he used rather ambiguous words as to the functions. He said that this assistant secretary would have a certain section of the subject to look after. Does that mean that a part of secondary education will be dealt with by another assistant secretary, or that this assistant secretary will have other functions besides secondary education? Either would be consistent with my right hon. friend's answer; but what I understand the representatives of the two universities to desire is, that this third assistant secretary should be of equal status with the others, and should be distinctly set apart to look after secondary education.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

I would like to support the request for a clearer statement from the right hon. Gentleman. There is an apprehension lest the methods adopted with regard to elementary education, which the elementary educationalists themselves are now recognising as inadequate and inefficient, should be applied to secondary education, and there is also a fear lest the literary side of secondary education should suffer in comparison with the technical. I think the true way of allaying these apprehensions, and, at the same time, bringing about that desired unity beween the different branches of education, will be by providing an assistant secretary of at least equal status with the others, who would have special regard to secondary education. In that way, I think, we shall find, as is being found now in many secondary schools, that the literary and technical subjects are by no means so entirely divorced from one another as has been believed.

SIR E. CLARKE (Plymouth)

I think some definite answer should be given from the Front Bench, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, at least by one of his colleagues, to what is a very specific request. It is bad enough to have to pass a Bill like this, of which no one understands the result, but we certainly ought to have some information as to the organisation of the Department. I learn from my hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University that he understood a promise had been made that there should be a third under secretary, and that the third under secretary should be in an equal position with the other two, and have special duties with regard to secondary education. If that pledge has been given there will be no harm in its being repeated.

SIR J. GORST

I can only repeat again my belief that that is exactly what I said in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University. I said that a pledge had been given that there should be a third assistant under secretary; that he should be of equal status to the other assistant secretaries; and that he would have functions to perform in connection with secondary education. But it is quite impossible at this stage to state with precision what those functions would be.

SIR W. ANSON

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT

I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have the best reason for believing that it has the sympathy of my right hon. friend, because when I recently moved an Amendment similar to this in the Grand Committee my right hon. friend supported me by his vote. That Amendment to my regret, and, I think, also to his regret, was not carried, and I thought that it was only respectful to the House that I should give hon. Members an opportunity of reconsidering the Amendment I suggested on this important subject. I do not intend to detain the House by making a long speech on this question, but I would remind the Government that this is a matter which has had a very conspicuous history. The question which is embodied in Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, was one of those compromises which we very often come to in this House on a very thorny and difficult subject. The working of the section has been difficult, but, on the whole, satisfactory. It has taken away from the arena of religious controversy, to which we are so much accustomed in this House, a large number of endowments; but, of course, it has left, first to the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and afterwards to the Charity Commission, a great amount of quasi-judicial authority. We are now proposing by this Bill to transfer these functions to a body which must be by the very nature of things a political body. The Board of Education of the future is to be presided over by a Minister of Education. That Minister of Education must be a member of the Government, dependent, of course, upon the support of the majority in this House, and on whichever side that majority rests, it must in the nature of things be a political majority, and any action that that Minister takes must be—though I have no desire to speak disparagingly of the Minister—political action. And when his decisions are challenged, he must, speaking generally, be supported by the majority on which the Government subsists. To remove religious bitterness from the decision of matters of this kind I contend that it would be wiser, in the interests not only of the Church of England, but of education, to keep the functions I have mentioned in the hands of a body which, after all, is of a quasi-judicial character, and which can be challenged without any detriment to the Ministry of the day.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 1, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'other than the power of determining whether an endowment is within the exceptions specified in Section 19 of The Endowed Schools Act, 1869. as amended by The Endowed Schools Act, 1873.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)

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

SIR J. GORST

As the right hon. Member says, I supported an Amendment of the same character as that now proposed in the Standing Committee, as did my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but our proposal was opposed on the ground that it would be a slur on the Board of Education to deprive it of the power of taking, if it thought fit, this particular function of the Charity Commission into its own hands. I sympathise with my right hon. friend, but the Government are not able in this House to support an Amendment which would reverse the decision of the Standing Committee.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)

I am very sorry to hear the decision an- nounced by my right hon. friend. He appears to think that the Board of Education might feel that some slur was cast upon them if they were deprived of the power of taking this particular function away from the Charity Commissioners. The whole point is this. Under a particular section of the Act of 1869 the question arises whether certain endowments do or do not come within that section. Such questions are decided by the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are not a political or removable body; they go on from year to year acting together as a body corporate. They give their decisions on precedents, and those decisions are as legal as if the questions were decided by the Vice-Chancellor or a judge of the Supreme Court. In this respect I believe the Charity Commissioners have always had the confidence of hon. Members on this side. Any want of confidence in the Charity Commissioners has not been due to the fact that they were not acting judicially, but that they were acting as creators and framers of now schools. It does not follow that we are inconsistent because we do not wish to transfer to the Board of Education—a political body—a judicial power. It seems to me that we are perfectly consistent in what we are doing. We are glad that the Charity Commissioners lose the power of framing new schemes, and that it is to be entrusted to the Board of Education. But we do certainly regret and object altogether to the present proposal, and our objection was evidently shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. friend below me, the Minister of Education, because they voted the other way in the Standing Committee. We submit that the judicial functions ought not to be handed over to a political body, where no precedent will be a guiding precedent and where the Minister of the day may give a decision one way, while the Minister who succeeds him and who belongs to another political party, may, under political pressure, decide that the same form of words may mean something totally different. I hope, therefore, the Government will reconsider their decision.

MR. CRIPPS

I should like to say a word or two on the legal character of the functions which are at the present time exercised by the Charity Commission, and which it is proposed to hand over to the Education Department. At the present time all decisions given under Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, are given as judicial decisions, and not as they might be in the case of a new Board of Education on administrative or on political grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President says that he agrees with the contention which we now seek to urge on the Government. But surely, having regard to the extreme importance of the Bill, we ought on an occasion of this kind to support the view originally taken without regard to what has passed in the Standing Committee After all, in a Standing Committee we do not get the same representation of opinion as we do in the House of Commons itself. There ought to be a distinction between administrative matters and questions of judicial interpretation. We are only asking the right hon. Gentleman to support those Members in this House who think he was right in the attitude he took when the Bill was being discussed before the Standing Committee. I certainly hope that the Government will support the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice-President, because, to my mind, this is one of the most vital features of the Bill.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

I have only one word to say upon this question. This is a very important Amendment, and I do not think the House or the Government fully realise how difficult the position is with regard to Section 19. That is not my own statement merely. I am only repeating the views of the Vice-President, and now these matters are to be handed over to a new Department. I would ask the Government to remember that the new Board might be under the control not of Unionists or Conservatives, but of their political opponents, to whom would be transferred the decision of the religious and other issues arising under this difficult and important question of the Endowed Schools Act. I hope my right hon. friend will not think it is altogether unreasonable to press this Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

I do not see that this question is, after all, a very important one, taking only this Bill into consideration. The question, however, may become a very important one, say next year, when you discuss the question of local authority. This Bill does not provide any local authority to deal with this question at all; it is a simple Bill to take stock of what schools you have already in the country. Apart from that, several great authorities have given it as their opinion that the transfer of these powers would be a very simple matter. Lord Davey has already been quoted, but I would quote the authority of the Charity Commissioners, who said that there would be no difficulty at all in transferring these quasi-judicial functions to the new Board. The final decision as to what constitutes an endowment as educational will not rest with the Board of Education, but with the Charity Commissioners. I therefore think the question raised is not such a very important one after all, seeing that next year we shall hare a Bill dealing with the question of local authority and the creation of new schools. Consequently I cordially support the view of the Government, and the view that has been taken up by the Standing Committee upstairs.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I really do not understand what the question of local authority has to do with this Amendment. The hon. Member opposite seems to rely largely upon the fact that some other Bill is to be brought in next year. Does he know that another Bill is to be brought in? We have not had an assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill that a Bill is to be brought in next year.

MR. WILLIAM JONES

If there is no Bill to come in next year, what is the need for any alarm?

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Because you can transfer under this Bill without any Bill at all, Sir. What we object to is that we do not know whether this transfer is to take place this year, next year, or the year after. I really must protest against the position we find ourselves in at the present moment. On this point the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill confesses he is a supporter of the Amendment, and not only so, but he voted for it himself in the Standing Committee. So did the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because the Standing Committee came to a decision adverse to this Amendment, and because apparently some decision has been taken elsewhere, the House is to be bound absolutely by the decision of the Standing Committee. I protest entirely against that. It is simply making Standing Committees dominate this House altogether. I had not the advantage of being on the Standing Committee, and I protest most emphatically against being given away by the decisions of the Standing Committee. We have heard something to-night about skeleton Bills. If skeleton Bills are to be brought in and discussed only by the Standing Committee, and if the decision of the Standing Committee, although contrary to the opinion of the Minister in charge, is to be upheld, we are reduced to an extraordinary position of affairs. I protest against the decision that the Government have taken up.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

Like my noble friend, I was not a member of the Committee, but he and others who have spoken in support of the Amendment appear to have overlooked the nature of the question which will come up for consideration under the section. I should like to inform the House as to what that question is. The question is "whether by the terms of the instrument of foundation or the statutes made by the founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or fifty years after his death, the scholars are to be instructed in any particular religious tenets, or the members of the governing body are to belong to any particular religious body." That is the question, and is it conceivable that any Minister would decide a matter of that kind from any political or party motives?

SIR E. CLARKE

Yes, certainly.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

I do not agree with my hon. and learned friend behind me in that view of the discharge of

Ministerial duties, and I ask the House whether we may not rely just as much upon the judicial faculty being brought to bear upon that question by the new Board as by the Charity Commission. Every decision of this kind involves a question of fact and of law, which has to be determined under competent advice. What Minister would be so foolish and so wicked as to give a wrong decision upon matters of that kind, when he knows there are two checks upon him? In the first place, an appeal lies to the Privy Council, and in what position would he find himself when, having decided wrongly, his decision was reversed by the Privy Council? And, secondly, when such a scheme was brought before either House they could either throw it out or so amend it that it would be found expedient to drop it and introduce a new one. With those checks, is it conceivable that any Minister, however weak or wicked, would be guilty of the conduct which some hon. Members affect to think possible?

MR. ERNEST GRAY

If I had felt that religious endowments were going to be placed in jeopardy by this power I should at once vote against it, but I cannot resist the conclusion that this, transfer of powers will be altogether advantageous. In the working out of these schemes the ultimate decision will rest with responsible Ministers, and if the moral tone of any Minister is so low that he is likely to bring in any scheme from political motives we may be sure that the rank and file of his party will not support him in so nefarious a practice. In my opinion religious education runs no danger whatever from the transfer of these powers, and, on the other hand, it is desirable that the Board should be invested with the widest power and responsibility, and the reign of divided, authority put a stop to.

The House divided:—Ayes. 22; Noes, 142. (Division List, No. 323.)

AYES.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gedge, Sydney	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gilliat, John Saunders	Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cranborne, Viscount	Lucas-Shadwell, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Talbot and Sir John Kennaway.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Macaleese, Daniel
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Flower, Ernest	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fisher, William Hayes	Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold, Alfred	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Moss, Samuel
Arrol, Sir William	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Oldroyd, Mark
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	O'Malley, William
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon	Perks, Robert William
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Goschen, Rt Hon. G. J. (St Georg'S	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gourley, Sir E. Temperley	Pirie, Duncan V.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Rickett, J. Compton
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Billson, Alfred	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hazell, Walter	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Broadhurst, Henry	Heaton, John Henniker	Robson, William Snowdon
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hogan, James Francis	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Burns, John	Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Butcher, John George	Hornby, Sir Wililam Henry	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Caldwell, James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbs.)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Thornton, Percy M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.	Joicey, Sir James	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Channing, Francis Allston	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire	Ure, Alexander
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.	Usborne, Thomas
Charrington, Spencer	Kilbride, Denis	Valentia, Viscount
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Knowles, Lees	Wallace, Robert
Clough, Walter Owen	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lewis, John Herbert	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge	Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Curzon, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Dalziel, James Henry	Lowe, Francis William	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)	Lowles, John	Wylie, Alexander
Dewar, Arthur	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Wyndham, George
Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles	M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)	Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Donkin, Richard Sim	M'Killop, James	Yoxall, James Henry
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Leod, John
Doxford, William Theodore	Maddison, Fred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Monk, Charles James

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

I beg to direct attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.

* MR. SPEAKER

I am satisfied from the result of the recent Division that a quorum is in attendance.

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)

The Amendment I have to move is to insert after "Commissioners" in Clause 2, page 2, line 1, the words "except as here in after provided." I think the words are necessary, because a few lines further down there is a provision preventing certain powers from being transferred.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 1, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'except as hereinafter provided.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)

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

SIR J. GORST

I do not think these words are necessary, he cause every section of an Act of Parliament is read subject to any proviso it may contain. In this clause there is a proviso already.

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY

As the right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is unnecessary, I will ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CRIPPS

The Amendment standing in my name requires a short explanation. The words in the Bill are "appearing to Her Majesty to relate to education." That means that the Education Department would be absolutely supreme in determining any question as to what was a matter of education in reference to which powers should be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education. The Bill extends enormously the powers of departmental interference as against the ordinary legislative business of this House, but on this point it seems to me the bureaucratic element is extended without any due warrant at all. If this Amendment be accepted, any question as to whether a particular matter relates to education will be decided by a judicial authority. From a constitutional point of view this right ought to be preserved. The words inserted are certainly unusual, though I do not say they are without precedent, and the justification I have heard from the Solicitor-General and the Vice-President was that unless they were retained, there would be a chance of litigation as to whether powers should not devolve on the Department. In my opinion it is very important that questions of this sort should be decided by the Courts, however inconvenient it may be to a Government Department. It is only the ordinary right which every person has as regards any matters which affect his interests to see by the decision of the courts that the intention of the Legislature is being carried out. That is really the essence of the case. The argument advanced that you may otherwise have litigation really means that you ought to make the Department absolutely tyrannical. It is only natural that the Board of Education should have a tendency to increase its powers by transfer from the Charity Commissioners. If the Board is to have absolute discretion in deciding these matters the House will lose its control altogether. It is not right that the Department to which certain powers are to be transferred should have the absolute right of deciding what powers are included in the definition, and if this principle is extended it will take away the essence of liberty either as regards institutions or the individual.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words, 'appearing to Her Majesty to relate,' and insert the word 'relating'—(Mr. Cripps)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'appearing to Her Majesty to relate' stand part of the Bill."

SIR R. B. FINLAY

It seems to me that my hon. and learned friend has lost all sense of proportion on this question. It is not for the Board of Education to decide what matters relate to education, but for Her Majesty in Council, and the Board have nothing to do with the matter until the Order has been made in Council. The effect of the Amendment would be to lame the measure completely. An Order in Council might be made and pass unchallenged for years; and yet it would be possible for anyone who alleged it to be ultra vires to take the question into Court, and possibly have the Order upset. I venture to think that legislation on such lines would not be in accordance with common-sense, and I could not imagine any suggestion more calculated to introduce doubt and difficulty into the working of the Bill.

SIR E. CLARKE

I really think that the Solicitor-General is a little too peremptory. What does the advice "of Her Majesty's Council" in this case mean? It means that the Lord President of the Council, who is not unconnected with the Board of Education, will suggest the form of the Order, and then it will be made. The idea that the Lord Chancellor and the other members of the Council will meet to consider the subject and advise Her Majesty, is not in accordance with practice. The Bill provides that an Order in Council once made closes the door against any appeal. I confess I think the Amendment a wise one, as Orders may be made, even by ideal Ministers, which are not in accordance with sound judgment. I therefore hope that these words will be accepted.

* SIR WILLIAM ANSON

I understand, though I do not share, the opinion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud that educational progress will be advanced by frequent recourse to courts of law. Let me ask the House to consider what the position is. The Bill simply provides that matters appearing to Her Majesty to relate to education may be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department; the Charity Commissioners are to determine whether an endowment or any part of an endowment is educational. Surely the opinion of two such bodies, both skilled in educational matters, one claiming, the other conceding the control of an endowment, should suffice. If, after the Order in Council is made, the matter is taken before the High Court, perhaps ultimately to the House of Lords, much inconvenience and expense will be occasioned in order to arrive at a conclusion not really more satisfactory than that previously arrived at by the Departments concerned. There seems to be an assumption that the Education Office will deliberately endeavour to appropriate endowments which are not educational, or to render undenominational endowments which are denominational. I decline to believe that the Department is such a formidable and malignant power, or that the Charity Commissioners would connive at such action. If such things were to happen there are Members in this House who would exert a correcting influence on the representatives of the two Departments, and I will not believe that those to whom the education of the country is entrusted are capable of such petty frauds.

LORD HUGH CECIL

We have heard the Solicitor-General, who has nobly fulfilled the duty of his office in attempting to defend what is essentially indefensible We have all observed that when the Government has a specially weak case they call upon their Law Officers to defend it. The Solicitor-General had recourse to an interesting disquisition on the work- ing of the Constitution, and he drew a picture of the Privy Council, the details of whose constitution he did not enter upon, whose duty apparently was to advise the Crown as if we lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the hon. and learned Gentleman urged that we might rely on the Crown acting with perfect impartiality. But we know very well that the Privy Council is merely another name for the Government of the day. I should like to draw a picture, putting in a few names. Let the House suppose that the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs was President of the Board of Education, that the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall was Lord Chancellor, and that some noble Lord in the other House was Lord President of the Council. Let us suppose that a meeting of the Cabinet Council took place, and one Member would say to the other, "Here is an educational matter of some importance." The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would say that it was properly a power relating to education which ought to be transferred, and that he would be glad if one of his colleagues looked into the matter and gave it his attention, but he had no doubt as to the propriety of the transaction. Let the House also suppose that the other members of that Cabinet were looking into the question. Is it really contended by anyone outside a lunatic asylum that this question would have an impartial consideration? If my hon. friend the Member for Oxford University has such touching confidence in the Government of the day that it would never do such a thing—never misuse the powers confided to it—how does he account for the fact that Parliament has again and again rejected schemes which have passed the Charity Commission and the Education Department? Many of these questions are exceeding perplexing. Often the intentions of the pious benefactor are perfectly well known. It is seen that he must have been intending his endowment to be used for the benefit of the Church of England, because in the days in which he lived there was no other form of religious teaching. If the intention is not embodied in a trust deed and considered as a Church of England endowment it is only the equitable consideration of Parliament that can rescue it. Are we to be asked to put such confidence in matters of this kind in the Government of the day—which may be a Government of the most bitter anti-Church feeling, and there is no feeling so strong as that which the Church of England excites—as to leave it absolutely to their decision, without recourse to a court of law where we should obtain impartial consideration? The Solicitor-General had the audacity to put forward the view that if we went to a court of law the Government would probably be beaten. It requires the experience of a practised barrister to make a declaration at which the ordinary person would not be able to restrain a not unnatural blush. On the contention put before the House I think there is a clear case in favour of the Amendment. There is, of course, no chance of carrying it, but those who study the reports of Parliament will see how this Bill is being carried through the House, and will form an estimate of how far this new Department is to be trusted.

SIR J. GORST

The noble Lord is entirely mistaken as to the object of these Orders in Council. There is no question of seizing endowments. The Orders are simply to transfer from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education certain powers relating to education, which are to be exercised by the Board of Education under precisely the same restrictions, safeguards, and limitations as at present apply to the Charity Commissioners. It is very desirable that an Order in Council of this kind, which transfers powers from one administrative Department to another, should not be subject to legal contention, possibly years after the transfer has been carried out, and really the safeguards proposed by this clause are perfectly satisfactory. If there is a case where there is some doubt as to whether an endowment does or does not relate to an educational matter, it is quite clear that such an Order in Council would not be passed by the Education Minister without reference to his colleagues. Then when it is passed it is laid on the Table of this House, and I am sure that a Government which lent itself to passing an Order in Council transferring a power which ought not to be transferred, would receive very sharp criticism, whichever party was in a majority.

* MR. YOXALL

After the exhibition we have had to-night, we should be justified in holding some suspicion as to the value of legal expertise. It is obvious that there is no substantial foundation for the attack which has been made upon this clause, or for moving the Amendment at all. In the first place, it is decided whether or not an endowment is educational, and then comes the question of who should carry out the work connected with it. The Charity Commission may make a scheme; the Board of Education may make a scheme; the Charity Commission may inspect the working of their schemes, the Board of Education may inspect the working of their schemes. The Charity Commission now do their work subject to legal appeal, the Board of Education will do their work subject to legal appeal. There is no real foundation for the Amendment.

MR. CRIPPS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY

When we came to consider this Bill, and found that it practically gave an entirely free hand to the Government of the day to transfer powers up to now held by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Board, and that Parliament was asked to give sanction to this Bill without knowing what these powers are that are to be transferred, I felt it was a very serious departure, and more especially as neither House of Parliament has power to interfere with the Order in Council if it is passed by this Government or by any other. I have put down this Amendment in order to show, in the first place, the character of the powers that would probably and almost certainly be transferred under this Bill. The Amendment refers to what is at present entirely in the discretion and power of the Charity Commissioners, viz., any question as to interpretation or construction of any instrument regulating an educational endowment. This power was conferred on the Charity Commissioners by the Court of Chancery, and it should not be taken away from a quasi-judicial body which is entirely independent of Party, and put into the hands of a department under a member of the Government of the day, whose actions might be influenced by political exigencies. It has been said that Governments are naturally affected by the strong pressure brought to bear on them from time to time by supporters who hold very strong views. Parliament ought certainly to have some voice as to what powers should be transferred.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 9, after the word 'purposes,' to insert the words: '(b) Any question as to the interpretation or construction of any instrument regulating an educational endowment.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)

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

SIR J. GORST

The Bill gives power to transfer powers from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education with one single exception, and it is for the House to say whether there should be another. Why should not the Board of Education have power to decide where the Charity Commissioners now decide? It may be necessary for the Board to come to a decision in order to frame a scheme, and the House should remember that there will be exactly the same right of appeal, and the same restrictions, as now obtain in regard to the Charity Commissioners.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

I desire to say a word in support of the Amendment of my right hon. friend. Everyone knows the difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory decision as to what is a charitable or educational endowment. Two cases have been decided, but there must be an enormous number of cases lying in between, which will require very careful legal opinion. The right to make such a decision ought not to be handed over to the Education Department. It is said that there will be the right of appeal, but how many hon. Gentlemen know how much it would cost? I happen to know that one appeal cost upwards of£200 to the parties who were successful in both courts. An appeal is no true remedy, and therefore it is desirable that such decisions should be reserved for a really judicial body. I am sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

This Amendment refers solely to educational endowments, not to cases concerning ecclesiastical endowments, which were mentioned by the noble Lord. I do not see how it would be possible for the Board of Education to deal with these charities unless it had this power of interpretation and construction. Otherwise the action of the Board would be paralysed, because, when a case turned up, they would have to send over to the Charity Commissioners. Why should the Charity Commissioners be any better authority than the Board of Education? The Board will have legal advice; they will be able to call upon the law officers of the Crown, which the Charity Commis- sioners are not able to do; and I cannot see why the Board should not be just as capable of arriving at a judicial interpretation as the Charity Commissioners. If the Board are deprived of this power, it will be a considerable slur upon them, and they will be impeded in the work of their office. I was surprised a little by the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He seems to think that the Board of Education will desire nothing so much as to find out and concern themselves with the most complex controversies. When the noble Lord comes to be a Minister, as no doubt he will—his abilities entitle him to expect it—he will find that one of the chief desires of a Minister is to avoid putting his hands into hornets' nests, and that he will desire to avoid those legal controversies, and adhere as far as he can to the law as laid down by the courts, and to act in conformity with that sense of fairness which I hope characterises public departments as it does this House. I cannot see any ground for apprehension that the Board of Education, in the hands of one political Party or the other, will seek to prevent justice. The Education Department under the Endowed Schools Act has already a great deal to do with these schemes, and I do not remember a single instance in which an attack was made on the Department in connection with them. Sometimes, in one House or the other, a particular scheme may have been debated, but the Department has never been accused of trying to act unfairly, and I cannot see the least ground for apprehension in giving the Board the power of which the Amendment would deprive it.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

All the arguments which apply to this Amendment were put forward without effect on a previous Amendment. I hope, therefore, my right hon. friend will not press it to a Division. It seems to me an undignified spectacle that the only support in argument which the Government receives comes from the Opposition. The difference between a highly civilised and a semi-barbarous State is, that in the former the judicial functions are kept apart from the executive functions, while in the latter the judicial functions are handed over to the executive. I regret that the Government, by refusing to accept this Amendment, have driven us into the position of a semi-barbarous State. On the whole, however, the Bill is a very good one, notwithstanding this defect, and as we have indicated our opinion by dividing on a previous Amendment involving the same principle, I think this Amendment ought to be withdrawn and the Bill proceeded with.

Question put and negatived.

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY

We have been accused of being suspicious on this side of the House, but when we are kept in the dark and asked to give an absolutely blank cheque we are naturally a little suspicious. The Amendment I now move is to add on page 2, line 9, after "Commissioners," the following:— Powers to make a scheme for an educational endowment under the provisions, of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1860. These are matters of very great interest. The schemes do not come before Parliament at all, and the appeal from them is not to the Privy Council but to the Court of Chancery, and the court can only decide whether or not it is a case of absolute illegality; it is allowed no discretion as to the merits. This power is capable of very injurious application to Church education, and I therefore move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 9, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words, 'Provided also that the existing power to make a scheme for an education endowment, under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1860, shall remain with the Charity Commissioners.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."

SIR J. GORST

This Amendment is even more objectionable than the other, and to adopt it would be to deprive the Board of Education of the power of dealing with those endowments exempted from the Endowed Schools Act, and also with educational endowments given since 1869. There are some educational endowments capable of being dealt with under the Endowed Schools Act, or the Charit- able Trusts Act of 1860, and it is quite possible that the Charity Commissioners under the Act of 1860 and the Board of Education under the Endowed Schools Act, would each draw up a scheme for one endowment, which would obviously lead to confusion in the administration of the educational affairs of the country.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

A great deal has been said about the looseness of the language employed in this Bill, but most of the criticism which was levelled in that direction referred to Clause 2, and to some extent to Clause 4, and very little has been said in reference to Clause 3, which, however, is open to exactly the same criticism. I find it difficult to understand what is the intention of the Department with regard to inspection, which is a most important matter as affecting Secondary Education. In the Bill of last year the Government, through the Education Department, practically undertook the whole of the duty of inspection, but the expense appears to have alarmed them, and they were compelled to have recourse to some other means. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be able to make it clear that, while saving the Government a large amount of expense, nothing will be done to wreck the hopes we have in regard to secondary education. Inspection to my mind should be effective and should inspire confidence, but the Government do not appear to me to have taken any safeguards to secure efficiency or to obtain the confidence of the head masters. The words, "or other organisations," which were re-inserted in the Grand Committee seem to me to open the door to grave mistakes on the part of officials. What is to be understood by these "other organisation"? The only organisations I have heard mentioned are the College of Preceptors and the City and Guilds Institute. But the second sub-section opens up a new vista by providing that the county councils may insist on the repayment of municipal money expended on inspection. Surely if the county councils provide the money they have a right to be included in the "other organisations." We have no guarantee that these words may not in the future include some organisations unable to fulfil the very important duties the subsection proposes. There is one other point I wish to raise. In regard to the Consultative Committee, arrangements are made as to the qualifications of teachers, but none are made to secure, as inspectors, men of high qualification. I would suggest that the Government should take means, whether by the Consultative Committee or otherwise, to secure the selection only of inspectors of high standing who will command general confidence in addition to the confidence of the head of the new Board of Education. Further than that, I should say the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to make some clear definition as to where the Department would make the inspection, and where the other bodies were to do it. The only distinction that occurs to me is where there are local schools and non-local schools. Are the non-local schools to be expected to pay for inspection, or are they to receive inspection free? I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give us a very clear definition upon this matter. One of the Members for the Oxford University asked if we were to have a Bill early next year establishing local authorities, but we have as yet no answer to that. It would be most important in regard to these schools whether we are to have local authorities or not. If local authorities are established, it is certain that the county authorities would demand power to provide inspection.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 10, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'after,' in line 10, stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. GORST

This clause is an administrative clause, and therefore it is quite unreasonable to expect that all the details of administration should be put in it. I suppose that without any clause at all the Board of Education would possess inherent powers to provide for the inspection of any secondary school which chose to be inspected. There is no Parliamentary authority for inspection in the Science and Art Department. But it was thought respectful to the Department that an indication should be given of the sort of inspection which the Board of Education should set up for secondary schools. The hon. Member has referred to the possibility of inspection, not by officers of the Education Department, but by the Universities, or other organisations. Why, he asks, "other organizations"? The hon. Member himself has mentioned two organisations whose inspection would be most valuable, and why should not the Board of Education avail itself of the inspection by the College of Preceptors or the City and Guilds Institute? Why should they not employ any agency which is really a valuable agency for the purpose of informing themselves of the kind of education given in the secondary schools? This very clause provides, moreover, that the Welsh Intermediate Education Committee may be employed as an organisation for inspection. There is ample security that the Board of Education will not give any kind of official sanction to inspection that is inefficient. Is it conceivable that a Committee, two-thirds of which are gentlemen who represent universities, would sanction, by their advice, the Board of Education having recourse to any organisation which was not in their opinion thoroughly competent to carry out efficient inspection?

* MR. SPEAKER

I may point out that there are Amendments on the Paper to leave out the words "or other organisations," and it seems to me that it would be inconvenient to have a detailed debate upon this point on the clause, and another debate on the same point when these specific Amendments are reached.

SIR J. GORST

I was replying to the speeches of hon. Members who invited explanations on the whole clause, but if I am not in order I will reserve what I have further to say until the Amendments are before the House.

* MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvon, Arfon)

I hope my hon. friend will not press his Amendment, because I consider this to be one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill. It provides for the first time for the inspection of secondary schools, and concedes the principle that the State is responsible for the efficiency of secondary no less than primary education. By this clause there is a guarantee against incompetence in secondary teaching by the intervention of a public authority. Moreover, this clause will afford a guide as to the quality and efficiency of the instruction given in the secondary schools of England. We had a Return of all the schools professing to give secondary education, as well as many others which made no such profession. According to that Return, 32 per cent, of the boys' schools and 74 per cent. of the girls' schools were without a single university graduate on their teaching staff. Ninety per cent of the private schools also had no university graduate on their teaching staff. How does that compare with the secondary schools in France and Germany? In France 90 per cent, of all the teachers in secondary schools have received a diploma from some French university; and in Germany no teachers may teach in public or private schools without a Government certificate. I hope my hon. friend will not destroy the character of the Bill by moving a rejection of this clause. Another point is that provision is made for safeguarding the Welsh Central Board. We have a thoroughly competent authority in Wales discharging the duties of inspection. There are eighty-eight schools in Wales giving secondary education, half of them for girls; and nearly seven-eighths of the pupils inspected were drawn from private schools. The reports of the inspection provided by the Welsh Central Board, and the opinions of such authorities as Mr. Legard and the Chief Secretary to the Charity Commission, show what splendid work is being done, and make the story of Welsh education read like a romance.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

* MR. CHANNING

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say a few words. The Vice-President of the Council has given the strongest argument for excluding this clause from the Bill He says that it is an administrative clause, and that the Board of Education would have inherent powers to carry out any inspection they thought proper. My objection to the clause is, that it lays before Parliament a scheme of unrestricted and unchecked delegation of the powers of inspection which would commit the Board before-hand to yield to the claims of the various organizations which are thus given a foothold. It would be far wiser, in my opinion, if this clause were withdrawn from the Bill, and if the new Education Department were to take upon itself the responsibility of initiating and carrying out its inherent powers of inspection. The Board will, of course, naturally consult the Universities, the College of Preceptors, and the City and Guilds' Institute—as to the best way of carrying out its powers of inspection. They will be able to select their advisers everywhere, and to devise the proper means of testing and checking the education in the schools. It is most important that the whole duty of fixing the standard of education and of checking and testing the education given, should remain with the Board as responsible to Parliament, instead of being handed over to bodies, some of whom are distinctly interested, and would be practically worked to test their own work, and who are liable to lack initiative and originality and to fall into grooves. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are on logical, as well as on administrative grounds, entitled to ask him to withdraw this clause, which is not necessary to enable the Department to carry on the best type of secondary education in the country.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

I have been written to by educational authorities in my constituency, who have urged me to move the rejection of this clause on grounds which, after your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in order to enter into.

* MR. SPEAKER

I have not given a ruling to that effect.

MR. BROADHURST

Their main objection was specially to Sub-section 2, and I shall move to reject it when we come to it.

MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, the educational authorities in my constituency have also pressed me to oppose this clause. They say that in their opinion it is very undesirable that the Bill should be complicated by the introduction of a provision of a highly controversial character, and they deprecate it the more because this provision would come naturally, and be more germane to the measure, which they understand the Government are pledged to introduce shortly to deal with the local authorities and secondary education.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. CHANNING

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, though I do not wish to press it, if it should be found to conflict with the latter Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. This Amendment raises the question whether the Education Board should take the initiative in their own hands, and, with such skilled advice, as they think necessary, should appoint their own inspectors to carry out their own inspection in their own way. What I have in view is to give the Education Board an absolutely free hand. It may be urged that this would exclude inspectors selected from the lists of the Universities and other bodies. It does nothing of the kind, for the Board would naturally consult these bodies in selecting special types of inspectors for special groups of schools. What I wish to insist on is that the Education Department should retain its absolute freedom, and should act on its own responsibility and take the initiative in this matter. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word 'or,' to the word 'inspect,' in line 12, and insert the words 'by inspectors appointed for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Channing.)

instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'or,' in line 12, stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. GORST

pointed out that whether the Department employed the University or any other organisation for this purpose the responsibility would still rest with themselves.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

drew attention to the fact that the clause provided that the Board of Education might by their officers or by any university or other organisation inspect secondary schools. He complained of the ambiguity of the words, "or other organisation," and moved their omission. The words had been deleted by the Grand Committee of the House of Lords, and had been re-inserted by the Grand Committee of the House of Commons, and, therefore, there must have been some object in their being reintroduced. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should be able to give the House some guarantee as to what class of organisations would be employed. It might be that pressure would be brought to bear on the Department to recognise county councils as organisations within the section. Would they be able to come in and claim to be recognised as such? If they were, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had extended the Bill beyond what was his own and the Government's original intention.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 12, to leave out the words 'or other organisation.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or other organisation' stand part of the Bill.

SIR J. GORST

said he did not wish to repeat the speech he made a fortnight ago, but in answer to the hon. Gentleman he could assure him that the object of. the Board of Education would be to get good and thorough inspection, and they would avail themselves of the most suitable organisations to assist. Whether they employed a University or any other organisation, they would still be as responsible for the inspection as if it was made by their own officers. The Welsh Technical Board might be so employed, and he could mention other bodies which were not universities, but he did not like to mention others because there was a great deal of jealousy about these things, and if he were to mention the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council he would probably arouse the jealousy of the School Board authority. It would, in his opinion, be a great pity if these words were omitted, because it would cripple the Board of Education, and prevent them from making use of any bodies except universities, while there were other agencies which were very valuable and ought to be made use of.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

disclaimed any intention of saying anything on behalf of the county council which might cause jealousy on the part of the School Board, but while not denying the force of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, thought that under the clause as it stood there was nothing to prevent the associations formed under the Education Act of two years ago from taking part in the inspection of secondary schools. It was the bounden duty of those on that side of the House to protect the interests of education from the interference of denominational bodies which appeared inclined to take up a peculiarly aggressive attitude towards education. He would prefer to see the words struck out, and ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of his hon. friend.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

failed to see how the clause could be open to the suspicion thrown upon it by hon. Members on the other side of the House. The idea that the words objected to were intended to cover inspection by diocesan and other Church organisations was absurd. In any case the Board of Education would be entirely responsible, and it was not to be supposed that they would accept all and sundry as inspecting authorities. He thought that the clause would accomplish great good, and in fact it was one of the greatest reforms since the Act of 1870. He hoped no Amendment would be accepted, but that the clause would pass in its original form.

MR. BROADHURST

said he thought a great deal of misgiving on the part of the Church party would be removed if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to safeguard the additional clerical staff. If the Vice-President really desired to save the secondary schools from the evil designs of the diocesan associations, he would insert in the clause a provision as to from what source and by what authority the inspectors should be nominated. The county council claimed a right to nominate if they surrendered funds of which they were in need for the children of labouring people who had not the means to follow up their educational advantages. The best class of men ought to be selected, and unless the Amendment was carried there was no guarantee that the best men would be appointed. He supported the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

I think the Government ought consistently to have confined inspection to such schools as are not subject to the local authority; but instead of doing that, they have introduced very general words which would allow them, through inspectors whom they may appoint, to inspect all schools, local as well as non-local. I think it would be better if we were to confine the inspection provided for in this way to non-local schools, and to recognise as the authority through whom the inspection should be conducted the Universities, which are specially fitted to examine the non-local schools, and which, in point of fact, have been examining them at their own request. The Universities now contain a great many people perfectly competent to examine in all branches of science and technical subjects, and they would be able to furnish inspectors. I support the Amendment of my hon. friend, which, I think, would really conduce to a systematic settlement of the matter in the long run. The Amendment proposes to restore the words which were in the Bill originally. I think it would be better not to subject the Board of Education to the pressure which might be put upon them by a large number of different bodies.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

I am very much surprised at the tenor of the speech to which the House has just listened, because the right hon. Gentleman must see that what he suggests as the better way of dealing with the matter would, not be carried out by the Amendment which is now proposed. He desires that the examinations should be confined to non-local schools, and he says that if the examinations were so confined you would have in the Universities, plenty of examining strength to apply to these schools. If the clause were confined to non-local schools, the value of the clause would be practically reduced to nothing. I am not very much in love with the clause as it stands, but it is quite clear that the non-local schools are those which least require inspection. It is the smaller schools which escape the check of existing examinations and inspection, and which require inspection, both in respect of training the scholars and the conditions under which the work is carried on. The Education Board should not be restricted to the Universities. During the earlier part of the evening Members expressed unbounded confidence in the Education Board, but now they will not trust the Board to elect its own examining body It happens that there are two bodies much better qualified than Universities for dealing with these examinations—the College of Preceptors and the City and Guilds Institute. They are habitually devoted to the work, and have examiners of the highest class. Why should not the Board be allowed to employ a method of examination which has succeeded so well in the past?

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

I assume that we can all agree with the hon. Member for North Carnarvonshire in thinking that this is a new and important step in connection with our educational history, viz.: the undertaking by the Government of the inspection of secondary schools. It is because the step is new, and because it is so important, that we are jealous in regard to the means to be adopted in bringing the system of inspection into existence. What are the "other organisations" which the Department have in view in this clause? We were entirely in the dark before the discussion to-night was commenced, and we are in the dark now. My fear is that the inspection may in certain cases be inefficient, that in other cases it may not be impartial, and, above all, that in some cases it may be of a sectarian character. To sum it up in a sentence, there is a fear on the part of the real friends of education lest, in connection with this inspection, there should be initiated a system of jerrymandering, the fear of which, I think, is justified by some of the events which have occurred in connection with the Education Department itself. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked to give certain assurances. I think the best assurance

we could have in this matter would be the omission of these words from the Bill. I do not expect that he will be coaxed into making an attempt to indicate in the Bill his intentions in regard to the "other organisations"; but if he were to make the attempt, I think it very unlikely, at this moment, he would succeed. This portion of the clause, as it stands, is so dangerously vague that, in my opinion, the only safe mode of treating it would be to omit these words. That would not interfere with the adoption of the principle of inspection; it would leave the whole matter open; and it would be possible hereafter to frame such provisions as would secure the confidence of the entire community.

MR. JEBB

As I happened to be a member of the Standing Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to add a very few words before a Division is taken on this matter. I think the latitude given by the words, "University or other organisation," is most desirable, because at first the Board would not have a large staff available, and it ought to be able to employ every agency qualified to assist it. It is also desirable that the Board should have power to inspect local schools where the local schools wish it. It would thus be able to begin a work which ought not to be delayed any longer, and prepare the ground for local authorities in secondary education.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 44. (Division List, No. 324.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bullard, Sir Harry	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Arnold, Alfred	Butcher, John George	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Arrol, Sir William	Caldwell, James	Cranborne, Viscount
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Curzon, Viscount
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Carlile, William Walter	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Donelan, Captain A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. Grld. W. (Leeds	Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Banbury, Frederick George	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Barnes, Frederick Gorell	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Bethell, Commander	Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry	Fisher, William Hayes
Birrell, Augustine	Charrington, Spencer	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)	Flower, Ernest
Bond, Edward	Cochrane. Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fry, Lewis
Brassey, Albert	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Galloway, William Johnson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gedge, Sydney
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Lowe, Francis William	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.	Lowles, John	Runciman, Walter
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Gilliat, John Saunders	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Savory, Sir Joseph
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Macaleese, Daniel	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Macdona, John Cumming	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Maclure, Sir John William	Strauss, Arthur
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Thornton, Percy M.
Harwood, George	Monk, Charles James	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hatch, Ernest F. George	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Valentia, Viscount
Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Morrell, George Herbert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Moss, Samuel	Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Nicholson, William Graham	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Wylie, Alexander
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wyndham, George
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Rentoul, James Alexander	Yoxall, James Henry
Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liv'pool)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Lorne, Marquess of	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Rickett, J. Compton
Bainbridge, Emerson	Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.	Horniman, Frederick John	Robson, William Snowdon
Billson, Alfred	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Joicey, Sir James	Soames. Arthur Wellesley
Broadhurst, Henry	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U	Steadman, William Charles
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Ure, Alexander
Burns, John	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Wallace, Robert
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	M'Crae, George	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Causton, Richard Knight	M'Leod, John	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Dalziel, James Henry	Maddison, Fred.
Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles	Oldroyd, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Channing.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Perks, Robert William
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John	Pirie, Duncan V.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

I now wish to move the Amendment standing in my name, and in doing so I have not the slightest intention of taking up the time of the House by repeating the arguments which I used just now. I can only hope that the Vice-President will save me the trouble of dividing the House on the question, by accepting the words I propose.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 12, after the word 'organisation to insert the words 'concerned with secondary or technical education.'"—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)

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

SIR J. GORST

I cannot accept the Amendment. I object to confining the inspection to purely educational bodies. It might be necessary to employ the services of the sanitary inspector, in order to see whether the arrangements are satisfactory.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 325.)

AYES.
Asher, Alexander	Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Horniman, Frederick John	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bainbridge, Emerson	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rickett, J. Compton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Billson, Alfred	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Birrell, Augustine	Joicey, Sir James	Runciman, Walter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Broadhurst, Henry	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Steadman, William Charles
Burns, John	Lewis, John Herbert	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Caldwell, James	Lloyd-George, David	Ure, Alexander
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Causton, Richard Knight	M'Crae, George	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Leod, John	Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Maddison, Fred.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Moss, Samuel	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice and Mr. Wallace.
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Oldroyd, Mark
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Perks, Robert William
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare

NOES.
Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Arnold, Alfred	Flower, Ernest	More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Arrol, Sir William	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Morrell, George Herbert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fry, Lewis	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Galloway, William Johnson	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Gedge, Sydney	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Banbury, Frederic George	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond..	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Nicholson, William Graham
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Goldsworthy, Major-General	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benja.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Pollock, Harry Frederick
Bethell, Commander	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St Geo.'s)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Rentoul, James Alexander
Bond, Edward	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Brassey, Albert	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.	Robson, William Snowdon
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Harwood, George	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Butcher, John George	Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Savory, Sir Joseph
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Carlile, William Walter	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Lawrence, Sir E. D.- (Corn.)	Strauss, Arthur
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxford Uni.
Channing, Francis Allston	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Thornton, Percy M.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Charrington, Spencer	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)	Valentia, Viscount
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)	Lorne, Marquess of	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Lowe, Francis William	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Lowles, John	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Macaleese, Daniel	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Cranborne, Viscount	Macdona, John Cumming	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Curzon, Viscount	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Wylie, Alexander
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Maclure, Sir John William	Wyndham, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Malcolm, Ian	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Monk, Charles James
Fisher, William Hayes	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 17, after the word 'terms,' to insert the words, 'in regard to fees for such inspection.'"—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, which provides that the council of any county borough may, out of any money applicable for the purposes of technical education, pay or contribute to the expenses of inspecting any school within their county or borough. The sub-section has really no value, except to give county councils a primâ facie claim upon the Government to be recognised as the secondary educational authorities without any further legislation.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 25, to leave out sub-section (2), of Clause 3."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

Question proposed, "That sub-section (2), of Clause 3, stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. GORST

The Association of School Boards have discovered in this sub-section a deep-laid scheme for the injury of the School Board system; and we have had many Members making rather warm speeches, because of that idea. There never was a more unfounded suspicion formed by any public body. The origin and genesis of this subsection is very simple, and has nothing whatever to do with any desire to injure the School Board system; and it does not in any way prejudge the question of the constitution of the local authorities which, in a future session, will no doubt come under the consideration of Parliament. Secondary schools, to be inspected, have to pay the fees for the inspection. The payment of these fees will present no difficulty to the great public schools; but there may be some poor schools which ought to be inspected, but which cannot afford to pay the fees. The only bodies who could come to their assistance are the county councils. They have the money, which has been described as a "miserable grant," but which is in fact about three times the amount that Parliament votes for Science and Art instruc- tion every year. In many cases the whole amount is not spent on education, a portion going to the relief of rates. All this clause does is to say that one of the purposes for which the county councils can spend the money will be the payment of fees for poor schools which are unable to pay them, and I am sure that an innocent plan of this kind ought not to be stigmatised as an attack on the School Board system.

MR. BRYCE

If I thought this clause in any way prejudged the question of the constitution of the local authorities, I should entirely agree with the mover of the Amendment, but I really do not think that is the case. That question remains to be dealt with by Parliament in a future session, and this clause cannot be used in argument, when that question comes up, as being a decision of the House upon that point. I am not a member of a county council myself, but I am informed that the county councils do in some cases use what are practically inspectors to examine into schools to which they are awarding their grants; and they pay these inspectors. If a county council wishes one of the inspectors appointed by the Board of Education to do this work for them, why should they not be able to pay for it? There is, therefore, that practical convenience in the clause, in addition to the object suggested by the Vice-President.

* MR. CHANNING

I desire to ask how we are to interpret the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Are we to understand him to say that the technical committees of county councils will not be one of the "other organisations" which might be employed with a view to inspection? If he means that the inspectors employed by the technical committees can be used for the purposes of the Act, it is perfectly clear that if the county councils supply money for the purpose, it constitutes a very serious and practical prejudging of the question of the constitution of local authorities. It seems to me there is very considerable ground for the suspicion entertained by the Association of School Boards, and the proposal to strike out this sub-section has a great deal to be said for it. Furthermore, the amount at the disposal of county council, for technical instruction is not by any means too large, and would be better employed in teaching than in inspection.

SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorks, Shipley)

The introduction of this subsection will undoubtedly prejudice the question in the opinion of the county councils, and in favour of their having a locus standi. It is the general opinion of the school boards throughout the country that that will be the effect of this clause if passed by the House. Local authorities ought not to be constituted except by a special Act of Parliament, dealing with the question as a whole. If this clause is passed, the question will be prejudged to such an extent, that a very great amount of prejudice will be created when the question comes to be settled in some future session.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

I am strongly of opinion that the Association of School Boards is entirely misinterpreting the object of this clause. It will in no way set up a local authority, or give the county councils any right over the large school boards, but it will simply enable the county councils to avoid needlessly spending money in constituting new schools which are not required, when, if they were able to pay the fees for the examination, they would be able to certify that certain existing schools were of a satisfactory character and must be allowed to continue. That is the sum and substance of the clause, and I hope the opposition will not be continued.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

The hostility of the school boards to this subsection is based upon the alleged fact that it is a quasirecognition of the claim of the county councils to act hereafter as the local authorities under the Act. This is not the time to discuss the relative merits of the two bodies to act as the local authority; but at least we are entitled to insist that nothing should be done in connection with this measure which would decide the question, or seem in any way to prejudice it. This sub-section is not essential to the clause or to the Bill; it was inserted as an afterthought, and might be omitted without any difficulty whatever; but I am coming to the conclusion that it is the intention of the Government to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.

MR. BROADHURST

Will it be compulsory, on the part of county councils, to make this contribution out of the present funds? Does "may" mean "shall" in this case? The Vice-President does not say "No."

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

The object of the Amendment I now beg to move is to give security that the inspectors should have attained a standard which the Board of Education approves. I think it is a very reasonable Amendment, and cannot possibly do any harm.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 28, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words, '(3) No inspector shall be appointed under this clause without the approval of the Board of Education.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

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

SIR J. GORST

These words are quite unnecessary. The Board of Education would not employ an inspector unless they were satisfied of his competency. It would be extremely inconvenient if every inspector should be required to have a certificate from the Board of Education before he was appointed.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. CHANNING

I move formally the omission of Clause 4, in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the members of the Consultative Committee are to be appointed for a limited period. The right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, promised that a limit would be provided for. He will remember that the discussion of the period of appointment being fixed led to various difficulties, and so the matter was left on a definite undertaking that it should be dealt with. The view of the whole Committee was that there should be a time limit to the appointment, otherwise we might have a Consultative Committee which would get out of date in their practical relations to the subject.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHANNING moved an Amendment to Clause 4, giving power to the Board to appoint from time to time a Departmental Committee.

SIR JOHN GORST

It does not require an Act of Parliament to appoint a Departmental Committee.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BRYCE

I put down this Amendment on the Paper to enable the Government to make a statement on a matter which is of some importance. A great many of the schools with which the Committee will have to deal will be girls' schools, and the educational problems to be considered by the Committee concern women and women teachers. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that there should be some women on the Consultative Committee. Oxford and Cambridge have now two colleges which are practically and very closely connected with the Universities. They have got a very large staff of teachers, and they turn out every year great numbers of highly-educated women. All I ask is an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of women to representation on the Consultative Committee will be properly considered. Three ladies sat on the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, and gave most valuable assistance indeed, and they proved amongst the most efficient members of the Commission.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 31, after the word 'persons,' to insert the words, 'some of whom shall be women'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

SIR J. GORST

As the Bill stands, women will be eligible for the Consultative Committee, and it is equally certain that women will be placed on that Committee. It might be rather unfortunate if these words were put in the Bill, because it must go to another place which is not particularly favourable to the claims of women.

MR. BRYCE

Having attained my object, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. EVELYN CECIL (Herts, Hertford)

, in moving to insert "provided that the whole shall adequately represent the three branches of secondary, technical, and elementary education," said that if the Department gave him an assurance that the subject would be considered, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 32, after the word 'education,' to insert the words, 'Provided that the whole shall adequately represent the three branches of secondary, technical, and elementary education.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)

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

SIR J. GORST

I am very glad to give the assurance to the hon. Member. I hope the House will not enter into the very thorny question of different kinds of education.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 32, after the word 'education,' to insert the words, 'and appointed for periods to be stated in the Order.'"—(Mr. Channing.)

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

SIR J. GORST

The Order in Council will certainly make provision for the periods for which the members of the Consultative Committee will be appointed, but what these periods will be it is rather difficult to state.

MR. CHANNING

It will not be a life appointment, or an inordinately long one.

SIR J. GORST

Certainly not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRYCE

, in moving, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, to leave out "by the Board of Education," and insert, "In manner to be provided by Order in Council," said: It seems very undesirable that a political Department should keep a register of teachers, and therefore we ought to leave the Department which keeps the register to future consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR EDWAED CLARKE (on behalf of SIR FRANCIS POWELL) moved to insert, "and unless within such four weeks an Address has been presented by one or other of the said Houses, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from such order, or any part thereof, then it shall be." He said that he could not imagine that the Government could have any objection to the Amendment. It would specifically safeguard the right of both Houses in regard to Orders of this kind.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words, 'before it is,' and insert the words, 'and unless within four weeks an Address has been presented by one or other of the said Houses, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from such Order, or any part thereof, then it shall be,'—(Sir Edward Clarke)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, 'That the words, 'before it is,' stand part of the Bill."

SIR J. GORST

The reason why the Government makes these Orders in Council, is because they are not legislative Orders—they are administrative. They do not create any new powers, but merely transfer existing powers from one Department to another, and which can be exercised under precisely the same conditions as now. It would be extremely inconvenient if administrative Orders in Council of this kind were liable to be interfered with by the action of Parliament.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

This Amendment has a very direct bearing on the discussion which took place earlier in the evening. The Government will, under the Bill, have absolute power to act by Order without either House having the right to interfere. We have not been told how the Consultative Committee is to be appointed, or whom it is to represent, what powers are to be given, or at what date they are to begin. The right hon. gentleman says that no one's rights would be affected by these Orders in Council, and yet the Government have just accepted an Amendment by which a register of teachers is to be formed and kept under an Order in Council; and registration involves the teachers' means of livelihood. Notwithstanding that I am not opposed to the passage of the Bill, I must say that the proposal to oust Parliament from all control, and leave these vital matters always to the Government of the day, is one of the strongest and the least compatible with Conservative tradition that I have known. It is true, that the House of Commons is all-powerful, but we have been accustomed to obtain the assent of both Houses before any legislative changes, small or great, are made; and as these Orders in Council are legislative changes, I submit that both Houses should have a voice in their decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be read a third time."

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

I only wish to say a very few words on this question before the Bill is read a third time. The effect of the Bill, so far as Welsh Intermediate Education is concerned, will be to transfer the educational supervision of that system from the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department. I think it is only right that some Welsh Member at all events should say, now that this transfer is being made, that we have no cause to complain of the action of the Charity Commissioners. From the very institution of intermediate education in Wales we have always found the Charity Commissioners helpful and sympathetic. From the beginning, their representative, Mr. Bruce, who attended every meeting of every Joint Education Committee to frame schemes, guided us with wise counsel and sound advice, and during the past ten years, in which he has been connected with the carrying out of this system, he has done Wales, it is no exaggeration to say, priceless service. He has kept us in the right paths, and it is largely owing to his efforts, I believe, that the system has been brought into working order with such little friction. It is a little difficult to mention names in a connection of this kind, but we do owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bruce, as Assistant Commissioner, and to Mr. Fearon, as the Secretary to the Commissioners, and we should indeed be ungrateful if, now that their connection with us in this respect is practically to cease, at all events as far as the Charity Commission is concerned, we were not to pay some slight tribute of gratitude to them for all the work that they have done. We part from the Charity Commission with great regret, and in saying that I do not in the slightest degree mean to cast the least reflection upon those who are to be our new masters. I believe that we shall receive the same cordial and sympathetic treatment from the new authority that we have from the old, and I would ask the House to remember with regard to the question of education, in connection with which many thorny questions have been and can be raised, that it is something to be able to say that a Welsh Educational system has been started in regard to which we have never had any controversy on religious questions. I can only hope that that question may be kept entirely in the background in the course of any future discussion upon secondary education in England. In this respect I wish England the same happy experience that Wales has enjoyed during the last ten years, for we now find that all parties are most heartily, cordially, and harmoniously working together for the furtherance of great educational ends. We are bidding farewell to the Charity Commissioners, and in doing so I feel bound, however slight and imperfect the tribute may be, to offer a word of gratitude and appreciation to them for all the services that they have rendered to Wales during the past ten years.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)

I shall not detain the House more than a minute, but as Chairman of the Welsh Intermediate Education Board I wish to emphasise the tribute which has been paid to the Charity Commissioners by my hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs, for the work they have done, and at the same time to say that we look forward to the opportunity of working in the same cordial spirit with the new Board of Education. It is a matter of satisfaction to all of us that this Bill has been passed with scarcely any exhibition of party feeling.

Question put.

Bill read the third time and passed, with an Amendment.