TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.) (Hansard, 19 March 1891)

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend to tell us why it is necessary to push this Bill on with such haste. It involves several questions which are of interest to County Councils which are not very clear, and which they have not had the opportunity of considering. This Bill was read a second time in the House last Monday. I am not at all sure that the Bill was in print when it was read a second time; but if it was, it certainly was only to be had in the House. It was not circulated among Members until Tuesday, and my noble and learned Friend proposed its passing through Committee on that day; but in deference to the representations made to him, he acceded to the request to postpone the Bill until today. On looking into the Bill I must say I think we ought to have further time for considering it, unless the noble Lord is prepared to say that there is some very urgent reason why the Bill should be passed now. The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons consisted only of the 1st clause—I may say the Bill consisted only of subsections A and B of the 1st clause. I do not think there would be any objection to passing it now were that all. Sub-section 2 of Section 1, however, appears to raise one very difficult question. As regards Section 2, part of it is unnecessary and the other part is objectionable; the second paragraph of Section 2 also is difficult to construe, but it is, as far as I can understand it, an objectionable provision. There are several other matters to which I might refer, but I will not say anything more on these different provisions, because, if we are to go into Committee on the Bill, the particular points which may be objected to had best be raised in 1359 Committee; but I would ask my noble and learned Friend, unless there is some very special and urgent reason for pushing this Bill on with such haste, whether he would consent to postpone it so as to give your Lordships in this House, and members of County Councils, an opportunity of considering its provisions?

§ *LORD THRING
My Lords, the fact that this Bill was likely to be opposed in this House came upon me, and upon the supporters of the Bill, as an entire surprise. The Bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. No objection whatever was raised to it. The Bill was approved by the Local Government Board, and, in fact, the 2nd clause of the Bill was drawn by the authorities at the Local Government Board. I understand that both sides in the House of Commons were unanimous in assenting to the Bill. With respect to the necessity for hurry in the matter, there really is very great necessity for it. A question has been raised whether, if this Bill is not passed before the close of the present financial year, it would be lawful for the County Councils to carry over the sums which were appropriated for the purpose of technical education—whether it would be necessary to carry them over to a general account. There are very few County Councils in England who have decided yet how they will apply this money. The whole object of this clause is to provide that where the question of the application of the sums for purposes of technical education is under consideration, it shall not be necessary to carry them over to a general account. If this Bill does not pass before the Vacation, it will be supposed to be necessary that these moneys should be so carried over, and therefore the whole purpose of the provisions relating to technical education will be absolutely frustrated.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
My Lords, I can bear my testimony to the accuracy of what has fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the necessity of passing this Bill at once, because if it be not passed, it is, I understand, the view of the Government that these moneys will be carried over and will be distributed under Section 23 of the Act of 1888, and the effect will be that the use of them for the purpose of technical education in the 1360 present year will be in the main lost. But it is not only important to pass this Bill as speedily as may be for that purpose. The 1st clause is of great importance, and, though I do not mean to say there is the same absolute urgency with regard to that clause as in respect to the others, I do say that the power there given to establish scholarships, and especially in institutions which are not within the administrative district of the particular County Council, is one of great importance. It is certainly of great importance in Yorkshire. No doubt the noble Lord opposite will confirm me in saying that it is of equal importance in Lancashire. It seems to me that these scholarships are the best mode of dealing with a large portion of these funds, and County Councils can do nothing until they know whether Parliament will give them power to establish them.

§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)
My Lords, the reason for passing this Bill has been so clearly explained by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships further than to say that those risks have been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they are unanimously of opinion that this Bill ought to pass at once, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord.

§ *LORD LINGEN
I think, my Lords, the declaratory part of paragraph 2 here enunciates a somewhat new principle, and a rather dangerous one, that in considering the eligibility of a school for support, you ought to consider its needs independently and separately, or at any rate in addition to the question of efficiency. I am afraid this clause very often will be read as meaning that although a school is not efficient, yet, that being needy, it is entitled to assistance. That hitherto has not been the view taken of the meaning of public aid being given, and I do not think it should be suddenly adopted as the principle on which public aid should be given to schools. At present the discretion of the County Councils is quite unlimited. If they see fit to give assistance on the ground of need they can do so, but I 1361 think the suggestion of such a ground of assistance in an Act of Parliament is likely to lead to results which will not be altogether favourable to technical education. I would therefore venture to submit to your Lordships that Sub-section 2 of Section 1 in the Bill be omitted.

§ *LORD THRING
My Lords, I admit that at first sight this clause does appear to give rise to some observation; but it is, in fact, a necessary clause, and I think your Lordships will see why it is inserted. The Technical Education Act provides that the aid is to be given precisely and exactly in proportion to the merits of the schools themselves. In the case of these county schools, your Lordships will easily understand that what the counties want is to have schools in different parts of the counties. They cannot be content with a school at one corner only, but they want to distribute the aid as far as possible. The whole meaning of this clause is that where the County Authority see that they want a school in a particular part of the county, if that school cannot exist without the aid of a grant, and by the aid of a grant might be made an efficient school for the purpose of technical education, they may give a grant to that school, although it is not quite so good a one as other schools in other parts of the county. It is, in fact, a provision to give the Councils a freer hand in the selection of the schools to which they may give aid.

LORD MONK-BRETTON
The explanation which the noble Lord has given is very good; but there is no limit in the section. The aid may be given, as the section now reads, to a school in any part of England.

§ *LORD BASING
My objection to this clause is that it seems to limit the power of the County Council Authority to what they can already do. Why should they be limited in regard to the poverty or wealth of a particular school? It does not follow that they should distribute money through agency of the schools at all, and they might consider it preferable to do something else with it. I do not see how the noble Lord can say that this section is necessary, or that such application of the 1362 money is not within the competency of the County Councils.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
I should venture to ask the noble Lord whether this discussion does not show that it would be very desirable to adopt another word instead of "needs." The two noble Lords who have spoken have construed that word as meaning neediness, and my noble Friend himself contends for the necessity of aiding a school in the particular locality where the school may happen to exist. If that reading be the right one, I think some wording should be adopted to show that pecuniary neediness is not a ground for obtaining the larger grant.

§ *LORD LINGEN
The noble Earl has adverted to a point which contains the principle to be kept in view. It is one thing to say that a school is needy, and another that a school is needed. A school that is needed ought to be created or assisted, but a school ought not to be assisted simply because it is needy. I would point out here that the word is "needs," not "need;" if it was in the singular there would be no objection.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
This is not a compulsory clause at all. It is a power given to the County Councils. If you cannot trust your County Councils to that extent, that is to say that they cannot be trusted not to give the money simply because the school needs it, though there may be no need for the school, then it is necessary no doubt to impose some restriction upon them. But what I would point out is, that this clause imposes no obligation upon them at all. They are to do the best they can for carrying out technical education. All it says is that they may take certain things into consideration, and in the case of a school which down to that time has not been an efficient school, but which may be made an efficient school by the grant of aid, and which will be for the benefit of the county, I cannot see any reason why the County Council should not be allowed to do something for that school.

§ *VISCOUNT CROSS
I do not see any objection to the clause as it stands. The practice seems to be nowadays to create a Local Authority, and immediately afterwards to distrust it. But my impression is that having created the Local Authority, you ought to give them power 1363 to deal with the matters which come before them. This is simply a permissive power, and I think we ought to trust them to exercise that power properly, believing that they will do so to the best of their judgment.

§ *LORD MONK BRETTON
I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that we ought to trust the County Councils, and for that reason I object to the sub-section. I wish to see it left out. There is nothing as the law stands to prevent the County Council from making a grant under circumstances in which they consider a grant is required; but to introduce a clause of this kind, expressly stating that the Local Authority may consider, not the efficiency of the school, or the requirements of the pupils, but the necessities of the school—that is to say, the necessities of some bankrupt managers, is simply an invitation to jobbery.

§ *LORD NORTON
I cannot see how it adds in the slightest degree to the power of the County Councils to give the discretion which is given in the language of this paragraph. In whichever way the words are taken, if they are read as they stand, there is no doubt that their meaning is, as the noble Lord supposes, that these grants are to be given according to the needs of the school. If, on the other hand, the word "needs" were put in the singular instead of the plural, it would be considered that they were to judge whether the school was needed or not, but then the word "relatively" would have no sense at all. What an extraordinary direction to give the County Councils, that they are not to give money unless it is needed. We must suppose the County Councils to be absolute fools if we suppose that they want to distribute their money where it is not needed. It is impossible to suppose that is the meaning of the paragraph. If, therefore, it is meant to stand as we have it, relative to the neediness of the school, it then introduces, as the noble Lord has said, a new principle in the distribution of public education grants money, that the money is to be given according to the worthless-ness of the school. It is wholly inconsistent with the later paragraph, by which money is to be given according to the wealth of the school. There is a 1364 contradictory calculation, which would be as absurd one way as the other.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
There is another consideration. Under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 the Local Authority may give a grant for technical education, and shall restrict the provision so made in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical instruction supplied by these schools respectively. So that at present the hands of the County Councils are tied in this way, that they can only distribute the money according to the nature and amount of the technical instruction given in the public schools. The object of this is to give them a freer hand, and to enable them not necessarily to give the money according to the amount of instruction given in the school, but because there may be a school, in a particular part of the county, which it is necessary to support and keep up, and that that can only be done by giving it more than its proportion would be.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Would it not be simpler to repeal these words? I confess I think this clause has a very ugly look.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
I wish my noble Friend would not only repeal these, but a good many other words in the clause, which render, in my opinion, the working of the Act almost impossible.

§ *LORD HOBHOUSE
I wish to point out that there are two funds over which the County Councils have jurisdiction in applying them to secular education. One is the 1d. rate which they are empowered to raise by the terms of the Technical Instruction Act, the terms of which have been just mentioned by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell), and which seem to tie down the County Councils to distribute the fund according to the efficiency of the school. If the policy of the Technical Instruction Act is to be reviewed, it may be necessary to relax that restriction in some measure. But there is another fund over which the County Councils have absolute discretion at the present moment, and that is the fund which arises from the Beer and Spirit Duties. The share of the County Councils is to be dealt with as the Probate Duties are dealt with—that is to say, it is to be 1365 carried to the Exchequer Contribution Account, and when it is there the County Councils have a discretion given to them to apply it to technical education. They may apply it or not apply it, and if they determine to apply it there is nothing in the Statute to limit their discretion as to what will determine the application of the funds. It seems to me that if too little liberty has been left them this is not a convenient opportunity of considering it, and I think we have been hurried rather into the discussion. I think this is not a convenient opportunity for revising or altering the policy, which was no doubt very well considered, of the Technical Instruction Act. I think your Lordships will find, if this clause is wholly omitted, the County Councils will have as much discretion as they possibly can desire in assisting a poor school which may exist in a particular part of the county which is very much in need of a technical school. They will have as much power as they can possibly want, having a free hand with respect to the Beer and Spirit Duties, and I think your Lordships will consider that it is not desirable now to repeal a policy which was very well considered a year ago, when the Technical Instruction Act was passed.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again. I cannot agree that the policy of this scheme was well considered, because your Lordships had no sort of opportunity of considering it at all, and we are of course not bound by considerations which have taken place elsewhere. I think that it would carry out what has been suggested by the noble Marquess in effect, if the clause were made to read in this way— That the Local Authority shall consider all the circumstances, and shall not be bound to distribute the provision so made, exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of the technical instruction supplied by the schools. That, it seems to me, would free their hands, whilst pointing out what should be the ordinary rule. It would say that they should not be bound exclusively to do so, though they would be empowered to do it.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
Would the noble Lord consent to the sub-section being now struck out, and give notice to introduce the Amendment on the Third Reading?

§ *LORD THRING
No; I could not consent to that.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
Then I must say that I should certainly use my best endeavours to prevent the Bill being read a third time with that sub-section in it.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
I hope the noble Lord will not strike out the sub-section as it stands at present. It seems to me it is intended to meet a very serious difficulty. We are looking about to find good centres for technical education all over our counties. In many cases we find there are old endowed schools which are poverty stricken, and which have been revived by schemes of the Charity Commissioners, but which are certainly not able to go in for technical education unless they have funds provided. I think it would be better if we were allowed to subsidise those schools instead of starting new institutions all over the counties. My attention has been specially called to this by the Charity Commissioners themselves, and they said they thought it would be well worth while that special attention should be paid to the many endowed schools in various parts of the country which were capable of doing the work, but which were now starved for want of a little assistance.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I think we had better, under the stress of circumstances, as we are bound to pass the Bill by the 31st if possible, pass it through Committee without amendment, and then any Amendment can be taken on the Third Reading.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I have read the words which I propose.

§ *LORD BASING
My Lords, I find a great deal of difficulty with regard to the word "appropriated" in this clause. The Act of last Session, the Customs and Excise Act, seems to have contemplated, and the County Councils seem to think it necessary that they must appropriate the whole of this money for the purpose of technical education, not only that they have received it, but that they must apply it for that purpose or else leave it alone. I think, if your Lordships will allow the addition of the words of which I have given notice, it would 1367 be advisable. The words are after "appropriated" to insert "or to be set aside for." Those words will include that they may set it aside and appropriate it as they find convenient from year to year. Recollect, my Lords, that the money assigned to the County Councils last July has not yet been received, and will not be received until the commencement of the next financial year. It must be many months before any scheme can be devised in many of the counties for appropriating the money, and even then great difficulty will be found, I daresay, in appropriating the whole of it. I move, therefore, that after the word "appropriated" the words" or to be set aside for" be inserted.

§ *LORD THRING
I have no objection to those words, on the understanding that they are not to be inserted till the Third Reading.

§ VISCOUNT CROSS
I hope the noble Lord will consent to put it off until the Third Reading.

§ *LORD BASING
I really fail to appreciate the necessity of passing this Bill in such a hurry; because, as I have said before, the money is not really payable to the County Councils until after the 31st of March. It is a delusion to suppose that that is a fixed point for dealing with this money. The money will not be passed or merged into the Contribution Account until that other account is closed. There are two years in question now, the year in which the money is received and the year in which it is spent, and it so happens that another year is the time referred to here. It seems to me not necessary to refer to the 31st of March, when we know that not one sixpence of the money will be received until after that date.

§ *LORD NORTON
It is not clear what the money is that is talked of here. It refers to the most extraordinary misappropriation of money that has ever been made in this country, and I do not wonder at the delicately veiled term of "any sum of money." One thing does not seem to be understood at all, and that is whether it is an annual sum or a sum down. The noble Lord who spoke last treated it apparently as an annual sum. The Probate Duties in Scotland, likewise given, are an annual revenue—an annual sum, whereas this was a definite sum which 1368 had been voted by Parliament for the redemption of beer licences, but that scheme having failed Parliament did not know what to do with the voted money, and it was handed over to the County Councils. It really seems absurd to say that the County Councils are to be enabled to spend this money before they have actually got it, and before they know whether it is to be an annual sum or only a sum down. It is talked of in this Bill by no description whatever, except the vague term "any sum."

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
I do not understand whether the noble Lord moves his Amendment or not.

§ *LORD BASING
I have moved it.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
As regards the appeal made by the noble Marquess as to the stress of time, and without agreeing to anything, it may be considered that it should go out on Third Reading, and an Amendment like that proposed by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) substituted for it. With regard to the Amendment now before us, I should like to know from the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill, and from the Government, whether they accept the Amendment of Lord Basing or not?

§ *LORD THRING
I will accept the Amendment.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
If it is to be inserted on Third Reading, I, for one, will not object.

§ *LORD THRING
I have said that I accept the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Basing) on condition that he does not insist upon it now, but I undertake to put it in on the Third Reading.

§ *LORD BASING
If the noble Lord's observation applies to all three of my Amendments I am content.

§ *LORD LINGEN
Then on Clause 2 I withdraw my Amendment, seeing the way in which Lord Basing has disposed of his Amendment.

§ *LORD BASING
I can only withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it should be considered on the Third Reading.

§ *LORD THRING
I have said that I accept the Amendment of Lord Basing. I intend to put it in on the Third Reading.

§ *LORD BASING
Then I certainly must propose the second Amendment also.

§ *LORD THRING
I have no objection to that on the same condition.

§ *LORD BASING
Then I propose, at the end of the clause, to add these words: "Until the County Council shall have made an order for such application." That is to say, that the County Council shall have it in its power, when satisfied that it had done all in its power for the special appropriation of the money, to deal with it according to the language of the Local Government Act.

§ *LORD THRING
I cannot accept that Amendment, because it would have the effect of enabling the County Council at the end of next year to rescind the resolutions of the County Council come to this year. There is no objection to a County Council rescinding its resolutions passed during the present year, but it is not intended that a power should be given to a County Council to rescind next year resolutions which they may have passed upon the subject of technical education this year.

§ *LORD BASING
The question is not of rescinding the resolution, but of recognising that the time has arrived when all has been done that need be done, and, therefore, that the balance may be paid over to take its place in the Exchequer Contribution Account according to the intention of the Bill.

§ *LORD LINGEN
I must say, unless the Amendment of my noble Friend is accepted, the County Council will be placed in a very unpleasant position. This is a clause saying that if you have once passed a resolution appropriating a sum of money you shall have parted with it for ever, and cannot rescind the resolution; or, as my noble Friend has pointed out, if you find you have made a mistake, and there is more money than is wanted, apply the balance to the other purposes which the Act of Parliament gives you power to do. Noble Lords have talked a great deal of decentralisation in this House, and entrusting powers to Local Authorities, and now the first thing you do is to propose to pass an Act of Parliament saying that, having placed these moneys under the control of the County Council, they shall not go back from any resolution which they may have come to respecting them, under any circumstances whatever.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
I should be the last person in the world to wish to restrict the freedom of County Councils, and my objection to the Act of 1889 is that it does most unwisely, I think, restrict that freedom in many respects, but in this particular instance the noble Lord who has just sat down ought to remember that there are two parties concerned—the County Councils and the Institutions. If the County Councils promise the Institutions that they will pay certain sums of money to them, and then the Institutions perform certain duties in respect of it, I say the County Councils are bound to carry out their promise, and that they are not to have the power of rescinding their resolutions. That is, as I understand it, the light in which we may regard the matter in respect of this particular point.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
My noble Friend misunderstands altogether my meaning, and the effect of the clause. Of course, if County Councils have engaged with certain schools or Institutions that they will give certain sums of money they would be bound in honour to do so; but according to this, if a County Council have resolved that a certain sum of money shall be appropriated to, or set apart for, purposes of technical education generally, and if after that they find they have appropriated more than is wanted to be spent in that way, they shall not be at liberty to rescind that as they should be. As the noble Lord has said, if they have once passed the resolution, they are not to go back from it.

§ *LORD BASING
I would venture to submit to your Lordships the consideration that if the County Councils can never undo grants which they have made that converts the grants into endowments. But let me ask what is to happen if a school becomes thoroughly inefficient? Is the County Council still to go on appropriating money to it?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I think it would be very desirable, before we get to the Third Reading, if the noble and learned Lords would apply their minds to this clause, and tell us whether it really bears the interpretation that has been put upon it. I think it is really too much to say that resolutions of the County Councils are to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that as 1371 long as the trees grow and the waters run they shall continue—and that the resolutions of County Councils are to go on for ever.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
Looking at it by the light of nature, I do not see any objection to the noble Lord's proposal. I think that the objection is a tangible objection. A strong objection was made to this provision, and those who may be supposed to know something about the matter had, no doubt, some good reason for inserting it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
What is their reason?

§ *LORD BASING
The Local Government Board have no objection to my Amendment. It is not for the purpose of limiting the Act in any way, but merely for the purpose of giving County Councils an opportunity of considering what they will do. It is not at all that this money is to be appropriated to such schools, because there are no such schools in many of the counties. There are proposals made that the money shall be peremptorily applied, and that the County Councils may be permitted to give them up if they find the schools to be inefficient. It is not of necessity that the money should be applied in support of existing schools.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Would not your Lordships be satisfied to do this? On one side it is said that the County Councils object to it; and my noble Friend says, on the other hand, that they do not object. I think many of us do not quite see what the effect of the noble Lord's words would be. If he were willing to move them on Third Reading of the Bill that would be a more convenient opportunity for considering the matter and saying what ought to be done.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The Local Government Board, like many other powerful authorities, veils its proceedings in mystery. It is so at the present moment; but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they have no objection whatever to the clause.

§ *LORD THRING
Of course, I accept the Amendment most readily. The reason that I proposed the clause was, in fact, because I was ordered to do so. I was told it was opposed by the Local Government Board. If there is any 1372 objection it goes at once, of course; and I most readily accept the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Not now.

§ *LORD THRING
It will be for consideration on Third Reading.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
May I ask my noble Friend whether, in future, if County Councils have allotted so much money for the purpose of technical education they are never to draw back, whatever the circumstances may be? I understand that to be the meaning.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
No; it is the other way.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
Then they can draw back?

§ *LORD THRING
Yes.

§ LORD HOBHOUSE
I think the Bill will be improved by the omission of the portion of this paragraph beginning at the words "Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating" money. The effect of it would be this: that where a Council, before deciding to appropriate money for the purpose of technical education desires to be informed by a committee, which is a very common and reasonable state of mind for Councils to be in, and calls upon that committee to inquire and report whether any, and what, part of the fund in question shall be appropriated to the purposes of technical education, that is to be considered as if the Council had passed a resolution appropriating the sum. I think that can hardly be intended; but as at present advised as this section is drawn, it seems to me to be very injurious as regards the County Councils. If it merely means that where a County Council, having decided to appropriate something, refers the question to a committee to consider the mode in which that something can be best applied for the purposes of technical education, that would not be so objectionable; but I cannot help thinking it is a very undesirable thing for this Bill, not by a direct Resolution, but by a side wind, as it were, in regard to this one particular fund, to interfere in the mode of business as transacted between Councils and their committees. I do not see that any good is to be got out of this which is commensurate with the amount of inconvenience from the interference 1373 with the business which has to be done in the County Councils. I therefore move the omission of the clause.

§ *LORD THRING
This is a clause in which I am deeply interested as a Surrey County Councillor. My noble Friend's objections, I think, are really due to his imagination. All the clause does is this: The 1st clause declares that where money has been appropriated by a County Council it may then be carried bodily to a suspense account. What is it that the County of Surrey and various other counties have done? They have not decided that the money should be appropriated, but they have decided to refer the question to a committee to report to them whether or not the whole or any part of that money shall be appropriated, Now, the whole meaning of this clause, which is supposed to be so injurious and to interfere between County Councils and their committees, is simply this: I will take one example with which I am acquainted. The County Council of Surrey has referred to a committee the question as to whether that county shall or shall not appropriate the money for the purpose of technical education. If this clause is carried that money would not be carried over to general purposes until the committee have reported upon it; in other words, it simply gives a county that has referred the question to a committee exactly the same benefit which the previous part of the clause gives in the case of a county which has appropriated the money. I cannot conceive a more innocent clause; and if it were rejected, the effect would be that wherever a County Council has not determined that the money shall be appropriated, but has most wisely, as many of them have done, referred the matter to a committee, the whole intention of the Act would be frustrated, and the whole of the money would have to be carried over to a general account, although everybody is anxious that it should not be so carried over.

§ *LORD HOBHOUSE
The noble Lord has given a very innocent interpretation to his draft, but see what it does. It says— Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating to purposes of technical or manual instruction 1374 any sum consisting of the whole or any part of such moneys. The former part of the section is to apply. Then what is to be done with that sum? It is not merely that it shall not be carried over to a general account, but that it shall remain applicable to such purposes, and shall not be applied in manner provided by Subsection 2 and the following sub-section—that is to say, that it shall remain applicable to the purposes of technical education, and shall not be carried over for the purposes of general account until an event which may never happen.

§ *LORD THRING
That is so; it is not to be carried over to the account for general purposes until the committee has given its decision. In other words, you preserve the money in a suspense account until the committee has given its decision; and when they have done so, the County Council will determine what is to be done with the money. Therefore, it will either go over to the general account or be applied for the purposes of technical education. It will simply keep the money to suspense account during the time the committee are considering, and in order to give the Council time for deliberation as to whether the money shall or shall not go over for technical education.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I think the difficulty might be got rid of by putting in the few words which probably the House might think desirable should be put in. This would suspend the money until the Committee had made their Report, which, of course, under ordinary circumstances is the proper thing to do; that is to say, that where a matter has been referred by the County Council to a Committee the effect would be to keep the whole of the money in the hands of the Council for application to those purposes in case the Committee should report in its favour, and the Council should decide to so adopt it. But, of course, there is this consideration, the Committee might never Report at all, and it strikes me it would be well to put in after the word "thereon" the words "or until the appointment of the Committee be rescinded." If the Council has referred the matter to a Committee and the Committee have not reported, the money will be kept over until the Committee has made its 1375 Report; but, of course, if they should rescind the appointment of the Committee, with the view of not doing anything further, then I presume that would not be the intention.

§ *LORD THRING
Quite so.

§ *LORD BASING
A Council may see their way to appropriating some of the money at one time and some at another, and the consequence may be that the County Council may be a year in deciding how to use the money. I should think it is not the intention to press them to do it at the particular moment, they having the power to dispose of what they do not want at the close of the year.

§ *LORD LINGEN
I should like to call attention to a case which I think it is not impossible might occur. The Committee may have under consideration a Report, either original or upon reference back to them, which the majority of the Council do not agree to, and any clause which gives the Committee, or which may seem to give them, a locus standi of their own, as against the Council, is certainly interfering to a very considerable extent with the principle of Local Government. The Committee is a creature of the Council, appointed, as the Statute says, by the Council for business which may be more conveniently transacted in Committee, but the relations of the Council to the Committee, I think, ought not to be interfered with, and I cannot help thinking, from what I have myself observed in the working of the County Councils, that this clause as it stands would not conduce to the smooth transaction of their business.

§ *LORD THRING
I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again upon this subject. This clause does not affect in one iota or in any shape whatever the relations of the County Councils with their Committees. I shall certainly accept the words which have been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in order to remove the effect of the possibility that the Committee may not have reported; but the whole effect of this clause is to prevent the money being carried over to general purposes when the Council and its Committee and everybody else in the county may want it to be carried over to techni- 1376 cal education purposes. All the clause says is, that during the time the Committee and the Council are deliberating, the money shall not be necessarily carried over to general purposes. The meaning is exactly the same as in the first part of the clause, with this difference, that in the one case the money has been appropriated by the Council, and in the other, the Council before appropriating it have sent the question to a Committee to ascertain their opinion, and that opinion has not been delivered. All I want is to wait until the opinion of the Committee has been delivered before we tyranically direct that the money shall go to a purpose for which it was not intended to be applied. I trust your Lordships will not omit the clause, because I think it would be absolutely ruinous to my scheme from top to bottom.

§ LORD HENNIKER
I hope my noble Friend who is in charge of this Bill will not take out this clause. It may be amended, perhaps, in the way proposed, but there is no objection to it on the part of the Local Government Board. It has been carefully considered in the way it is now drawn up, and I think the noble and learned Lord should stick to his opinion, to allow it to remain in the Bill.

*LORD MONK-BRETTON
As the matter stands I think it is not desirable, but the Amendment which has been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in some way mitigates it. The words which Lord Thring agreed to accept from my noble Friend opposite at the end of the first sub-section of the 2nd clause will likewise apply to this 2nd sub-section, and in that way it is mitigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I should be willing, on the understanding that the Amendment of Lord Herschell is accepted, and considering that the Amendments of Lord Basing have been already agreed to, to let the Bill pass this stage, but reserving of course full freedom to consider it to-morrow when we shall have the Third Reading. I should like to ask if the Bill passes now, subject to these Amendments, when we shall see the Amendments in print, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them?

§ *LORD THRING
The Amendments will be in print to-morrow morning.