Lords Sitting of 9 February 1894

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments; read, and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Amendments and Reasons.
FEE-PAYING SCHOOLS.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYcalled the attention of the House to the hardship inflicted upon fee-paying schools under Memorandum I of 9th March, 1893, issued by the Education Department, which forbade them to make any charge for books and other school requisites, and pointed out the inconsistency between this Memorandum and the Form 167 of October, 1891, which explained the bearing of the Elementary Education Act of that year upon these schools; and further asked the Lord President—whether he would be good enough to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the legality of the said Memorandum, pointing out to thorn that both the Act of 1891 and Form 167 were subsequent to Articles 8 and 85 of the Code of 1890, by which the Vice President defended the Memorandum: whether he would refer back the question to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons which reported on this matter in 1892 (Fourth Report, page v., ordered to be printed l5th June), and rested their recommendation on the Act of 1870 and not on the Code: whether he would secure that schools which had been unexpectedly mulcted by the Department under this Memorandum should have the money so lost repaid to them; whether in the event of the managers of these schools desiring to recover the money by process of law he would kindly inform them what form their action ought to take? He said, those who had had dealings with the Education Department had often had cause to admire the ability, fairness, and patience shown in controlling the immense machinery committed to its charge. Cases, however, occasionally occurred in which its action called for public criticism, and this was one of them. The Department seemed to have yielded here to two temp-
  202
  tations natural to Public Departments— one, to strain the power of the Central Government to the utmost extent as against local autonomy; and the other, to obtain popularity at other people's expense. His appeal to their Lordships related to an important class of schools. In the absence of available statistics he could not say it was a, very large class, but it might easily have become a large class if the Department had encouraged it. But it was important considering the kind of education given in the schools, the class of children to whom, and the payment for which, that education was given. The education was of an advanced grade— above that of the ordinary elementary schools, and was on the way to something like middle-class or secondary education. Had the Department encouraged these schools, instead of the middle-class or secondary education being as at present simply chaotic, a, good and broad basis would have been formed on which to erect a, system of secondary education. The schools were intended for the children of the lower middle-class—small officials, clerks, small shopkeepers, persons in the employ of large manufacturers, and so on, people deserving of all possible encouragement and sympathy, and forming one of the most virtuous classes in the community. The cost to parents of the education in these schools was about '50s. a year per child, though by the aid of the Government grants the sum spent, by the managers was from £4 to £5. They could not be carried on with proper appliances and teaching for less per head. The action taken by the Department had been to greatly discourage this class of schools. Whether that action was politic was one thing—its legality was another. The Elementary Education Act, 1891, was passed by Lord Salisbury for the purpose of assisting education, but the Department had read it apparently as intended to free education in the public elementary schools of England: and not only had it to a great extent made it impossible to charge fees for instruction, but it had also tried to prevent books and other school requisites being charged for. That Act distinctly implied that a distinction should be made between the two classes of fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools, in regard to charging for school books and requisites. And that was the view taken by the Education Department

  203
  when the Circular was sent out to explain the working of the now Education Code. Then came the Memorandum of the 9th March last year, forbidding managers to make any additional charge for hooks—
  "All charges for books must be included in the fees, and no additional charge of any kind is allowed."
  That was most unfair, the previous Circular having told school managers that a distinction was to he made between the two classes in sending in their claims, and such an act of unfairness on the part of the Department certainly required some explanation. What explanations had been given hitherto? Two had been offered: one by the Vice President in the House of Commons, that the Memorandum referred to Articles 80 and 85 of the Code providing that the managers were responsible for furnishing books and school apparatus; and the other by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons referring to the proviso in the Act as to fees not exceeding 9d. For the satisfaction of many people who were very anxious on the subject, seeing that an apparent—he did not say intentional— unfairness had been committed, he asked the Lord President to take the opinion of the Law Officers upon the legality of the Memorandum. This was a most important matter to them— Quod ultimum populus jussis in lex esto —he forgot the exact words; but surely an Act of Parliament must override every other document of whatever kind, even supposing the Code (he did not think it did) made it imperative that books should be provided gratis. That was never intended, and it was very hard if any such proviso had been slipped into the Code without anybody knowing it. Much Judges' Chambers-made legislation frequently followed upon Acts of Parliament; but in this case not even the authority of sequence existed, for the Act followed the Code.
  *LORD KNUTSFOEDasked whether the right rev. Prelate could quote what the Public Accounts Committee had said?
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYhad looked up the Report, and was sure they rested their case on the Act of 1870— that the fees for instruction should not exceed 9d., such fees not including school books and apparatus.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I would point out to the right rev. Prelate that there has been no alteration in the actual practice of the Department since the Act of 1891. For many years past it has been a condition of the payment of the annual grant to these schools that no scholar should be refused admission without reasonable ground, and the Department had held, long before the Act of 1891, that the refusal of the parent to pay for books was not a reasonable ground on which the admission of a child to a school could be refused. So much for the former practice of the Department. In 1890, under the late Government, an Article was introduced into the Code on the subject of providing books, but that does not seem to me to be of the very essence of the matter. The question really before your Lordships is, What is the effect exactly of the Act of 1891? The right rev. Prelate has quoted correctly the sections of the Act which bear upon this question. They are simply that if the fees did not amount to more than 10s., then no further fee could bo charged. If, however, there was a fee beyond 10s., then in those schools where such a fee existed the fee might continue to be charged. The question that has arisen is whether the compulsory payment for books is to be regarded as a fee, and the Public Accounts Committee, with whom the Department entirely agree, have held that such a payment is a fee. That seems to me to be the clear ground which has been taken. There is no kind of hindrance to school managers selling books to such parents as might desire to purchase them, but they could not compel them to purchase them, and anything beyond what the Act of 1891 allows would be to interfere altogether with the principle of the Act, the very meaning and intention of which was to grant free education to children. This attempt to compel payment for books is really an attempt to take back the boon of free education, and unless that is clearly authorised by the Act the Memorandum imposes no hardship, but simply enforces the Act as it stands. The policy of the law is not in question, but I believe that the interpretation of the Act which has been given by the Department is quite correct. With regard to Form 167, which was issued under the late Government, I am not concerned to argue that it was very clearly worded. If I were asked for my

  205
  opinion, I should say it, was not; but a subsequent form was issued which amended it and made it quite clear, and the Memorandum subsequently issued does not alter in any respect what I am informed was laid down before. The question which the right, rev. Prelate asks me I can answer very simply indeed. He asks me, first, whether we shall take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. As the Department is not aware that, any question of doubt, exists with regard to the legality of the Memorandum of March 9, 1893, they do not see any ground upon which they could take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. As to the Public Accounts Committee, the Department do not think it is their business to refer back to that Committee the question which the latter has already decided and as to which the Department entirely agree with them. Nor can I admit, that schools have been mulcted at all, for they have been left in the position which the Act of 1891 prescribed, and the practice is in accordance with the views taken by the Department for a number of years previously. It is not my business to state what form of action the managers of these schools ought to take if they desire to recover the money. J should say that they have no power whatever to recover the money, because it, is not due to them.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYwas exceedingly sorry the Lord President had given this answer to the questions, because he was doing a considerable and grave wrong to a number of innocent persons.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: How can I be doing a, wrong, when the law prescribes it?
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, the Act of 1891 intended to draw a clear distinction between fees paid for instruction and for books. He would defy any lawyer to read the Act, and not see that. The Department had distinctly laid down that such charges might be made. What had happened? In his own justification he must give this illustration: The Inspector passed the accounts sent up to the Office containing the statement that a certain sum per week had been charged and received from parents. That sum was allowed without any question under Form 167. It was not until a year afterwards, when this docu-
  206
  ment was issued— which he ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, changed the whole policy—that it was disallowed, and it seemed strange to say that, those persons had no right by law to recover that money.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then they had better try it.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked the noble Earl against whom the action was to be brought?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have not the slightest idea.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYwould ask whether the noble Earl was not bound to tell the House in what form an action would lie against a Public Department of which he was the head? He ought, surely to be able to say how the honour of the Department was to be maintained in a Court, of Law, and ought not, to hide himself behind interpretations which he had simply given without defending.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I really must say I think the language of the right rev. Prelate is very extraordinary. He talks about the honour of the Department. Does he think that in the Department we do not act as honourable men in the interpretations we give to the law, or that we have any other object, than to administer the law? The only object, of the Department is to administer the law, and such language in reference to it is extremely offensive and wholly unjustifiable. As to bringing an action, did anybody in the world ever hear of a Department being called upon to tell anyone how to bring an action against, them on a matter which the Department did not admit to be ground for an action? I cannot conceive anything more extraordinary than the suggestion that, they should do so. The only object the Department has is to administer the law fairly and equitably. I do not, say that mistakes may not sometimes be made. I do not claim that the Department is infallible, but I do claim that they have acted from conscientious motives, and not from such motives as the right rev. Prelate has imputed to them.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he was extremely sorry if in anything he had said he had offended the noble Earl, but he still ventured to think that this was a matter which ought to be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown

LUTON NATIONAL SCHOOL GRANTS.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATION'S.
  *LORD COLCHESTERasked the Lord President of the Council whether the grants due to Luton and Luton New Town National Schools for the year ending 30th September, 1893, had only just been paid; and whether the reason alleged for the delay was that plans for improvements suggested by the Inspector at his last visit had not yet been submitted to the Department; and whether the Lord President would consider the hardship inflicted on schools by the nonpayment of grants earned for past work pending the settlement of arrangements which referred to future work? When his attention was first called to this matter these grants had not, he believed, been made at all, but they had since been paid, The matter arose out of a difference between the Department and the schools as to certain improvements which were necessary in future. The Department had power to compel anything to be done which they thought necessary by withholding any future grant till it was carried out. But what was complained of here was that the grant was withheld for past services, thereby making the school unable to meet the liabilities they had incurred, and to pay the ordinary expenses of the staff in carrying on the school. That was clearly a hardship. A distinction should be made between what was owing and what was prospective, and schools should not be deprived of money due to them merely as a, means of forcing them to carry out requirements in the future, and announcing to them that after a certain period they would be declared inefficient. He therefore asked the noble Earl whether that distinction would not be made in regard to future grants, and if any explanation could be given of what had been done in this case?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords: The explanation is extremely simple. There was no desire whatever on the part of the Department to deal hardly with this school. I need not go into details of the sanitary changes required; but it is sufficient for me to say that, according to the Report sent to the Department, the sanitary condition of these schools was not satisfactory, and the school managers were thereupon called upon to make the necessary alterations, and to submit plans in accordance with the requirements of the Department.
  208
  Not having done so, they in point of law forfeited the grant; but the Department thought it very hard upon them to insist upon their losing the whole of the grant, and had postponed its payment until the managers had complied with the requirements of the Department. That is the only mode in which the Council can compel the managers to do what is required, and I think a good deal of consideration has been shown to them in the matter.
  LORD COLCHESTERasked when the decision was announced to the managers?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Inspector, after his visit in October, reported at some length upon the position of each school, and thereupon a correspondence ensued.

TEACHING WELSH IN SCHOOLS.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord President if he had any objection to state what percentage of Welsh schools had taken up Welsh as a class subject; in how many schools that had earned the "excellent merit" grant had Welsh been taught; the percentage of failures amongst Welsh pupil teachers in English composition? He said, these questions were not in any sense contentious, for they involved no complaint with regard to the Lord President or the Vice President. As a matter of fact, the course taken by the Department, which was thought by some people to be wrong, was begun under the late Government, for in the Code of 1891-2 the teaching of Welsh was made a special subject. That was in consequence of what had been said by the Cymrodorion Society, and of what had appeared in some vernacular papers advocating that Welsh should be taught in the day schools. In the last Code, 1892-3, the present Government had made it a "class" subject. The question was not hostile to the teaching of the Welsh language; it was simply a plea for more attention in teaching English in Wales. The Chairman of the Welsh Land Commission (Lord Carrington) would bear him out, or would certainly not contradict his statement, that many of the witnesses called before that Commission regretted that their insufficient knowledge of English prevented them from going to England for the purpose of farming and taking part in the industries there. But without going into that,

  209
  it was very clear that people who only spoke Welsh must be under a great disadvantage. Even in the Welsh-speaking districts a farmer was at a loss if he could not speak to English dealers, nor read English agricultural newspapers. He had asked a Board school teacher in Anglesey whether he was satisfied with what the Department had done, and if he was now teaching Welsh, and he replied, "No, it is a special subject, and we do not want it here." If was only in South Wales, and places where Welsh was dying out, that some people thought it would he well to keep it up by having it taught in the schools. A gentleman who spoke Welsh thoroughly had written to him—
  "It is difficult In conceive a more retrograde movement than that taken with regard to teaching Welsh in the day schools. The great want of Welsh children is a thorough knowledge of English, for which the present Code makes no special provision, as it should do in the ease of Wales. There is no man (unless he is a paid agitator) who wishes to have his child taught Welsh ill the day school. The great complaint is, and has been, that the children are not taught English, and the hotter class of working men very often send their children to Liverpool or some other English town to learn English.…To introduce Welsh into the schools is simply ruinous, and, besides, I do not think one in 50 of the schoolmasters knows Welsh grammar, though they speak Welsh colloquially."
  An illustration of this difficulty in teaching Welsh grammar was that hardly two persons would be found to agree upon the reason for the permutation of initial consonants, which was now neglected in South Wales and had almost disappeared in Brittany.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not going to enter into the question of the advantage or otherwise of learning the Welsh language; but my noble Friend need not be alarmed, I think, because it does not appear that much advantage has been taken of making Welsh a class subject. The Department are not aware that any schools inspected have yet taken up Welsh as a class subject. It was only under the Code of 1893 that Welsh was first introduced into the list of possible class subjects, and that Code has not yet been a year in force. No school, therefore, could yet have taken Welsh at the inspection without changing its class subjects in the course of the school year— a most unusual course. In the inspection year ended August 31, 1893, 21 departments took Welsh its a specific subject, not as a class subject. There has been no pro-
  210
  vision for the payment of an "excellent" or other merit grant in any Code since 1889. The higher principal grant of 14s.,to which it is presumed Lord Stanley of Alderley refers, was paid to 14 out of the 21 schools which took Welsh as a specific subject. The principal grant is paid according to and for proficiency in elementary subjects alone, and the Inspector, in awarding it, does not take into consideration whether Welsh is or is not taught. No record has been kept of the failures amongst Welsh pupil teachers in English composition.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYexpressed himself as much obliged for the answer the noble Earl had given, which he thought would be satisfactory to those who had desired the question to be put.

SOUTHAMPTON BOARD SCHOOL INSPECTION,

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD MONTACL OF BEAULIEUcalled attention to the action of the Education Department in regard to the School Board of Southampton in ordering a second inspection of one of the 10 schools belonging to that School Board on private representations made to the Education Department by the National Union of Teachers, which the Education Department had declined to furnish to the Southampton School Board, and notwithstanding the knowledge that the School Board had refused to apply to the Education Department for a second inspection; and moved for copies of all the Correspondence between the Education Department and the National Union of Teachers and the School Board of Southampton. He was sorry to give the Lord President more trouble after so many long nights' hard work, and would try to be as brief as possible. The matter was local and not of great importance, but it involved a question of principle, concerning, first, the relations between teachers, School Boards, and managers; secondly, the proper discipline and subordination of teachers to managers; and, thirdly, the relations between the latter and the Education Department. The facts were simple. An adverse Report was sent in 1893 regarding an infant school at Northend belonging to the Southampton School Board. The Report reflected somewhat seriously on the head teacher, who, being dissatisfied with it, asked to have an examination of the school. The Board considered the application, and for

  211
  reasons satisfactory to themselves refused the head mistress's request. Thereupon she appealed to Mr. Yoxall, the Secretary of the Teachers' Union, and induced him to take up her case. He seemed to have made an inspection of the school on his own account, without the permission or knowledge of the Board, not, however, occupying much time over it, for the documents showed he only spent 20 minutes in the inspection. He sent a confidential communication to the Education Department, who thereupon ordered a second inspection of the school. The Board was never consulted about the matter by the Department, and did not refer to it. in any way in ordering the second inspection. In this the Department had shown a great want of courtesy to the school managers, though no doubt they disclaimed any such intention, and the Chairman of the Board had accepted that disclaimer in the best possible spirit. When the Board complained of not having been consulted in the matter they were told it did not really concern them, but only Her Majesty's Inspector, and that the second inspection had been ordered to investigate the charges of harshness and partiality which had been made against him. No doubt it was open to anybody to hear what was to be said on matters of this kind; but as the school was under the responsible management of a Board, they felt that they should have been communicated with in the first instance to ascertain whether they thought Mr. Burrows had acted in any way harshly to the head mistress. This was a very serious matter as regarded school inspections. The first question was, whether the Department was to receive confidential communications from persons outside against their own Inspectors or against school managers and act upon them? Or, still worse, were they to refuse to put those communications or charges into (he hands of the persons against whom they were made? That was one of the worst features of the whole proceeding, because the Department were asked to hand over the charges which had been made. A serious attack had been made upon Her Majesty's Inspector, a man of great ability and known to his Lordship, strictly carrying out his duties without fear or favour, and who, at the same time, had the confidence of almost everybody connected with teaching in that
  212
  district. The only result of the attack made upon him bad been that the teachers in his district had held a meeting at which they had expressed the greatest confidence in him. But his Lordship was not concerned in defending Her Majesty's Inspector. The School Board were entitled to know what the charges made confidentially against him were, though Mr. Burrows himself had not apparently asked to be supplied with them. The gentleman who undertook to send the charges had the effrontery to say he was trying to defend the Southampton School Hoard against the tyranny of Her Majesty's Inspector, which seemed to be going rather far. Attention should be drawn particularly to the fact that this was altogether a new departure for the Department in matters of this kind. If the Department were to receive from persons outside confidential communications against persons connected with the School Boards an end would be put to all discipline amongst the teachers, who would say—"If we cannot get the Board of Managers to take up our case, we will go to some outside person or the Secretary of some Trades Union, and get him to espouse our cause, and get something done for us which we cannot get done on the merits of the case alone." Under those circumstances, the matter became of serious import. Though this particular case might not appear to be in itself of any great importance as a mere local affair, yet if the application of this new principle was to be universal the relations between School Boards and teachers would become very unpleasant; discipline would be relaxed, and it would no longer be possible to control the teachers if they thought some outside individuals would be listened to by the Department, which would set aside the decisions of school managers and order an inspection to be held which the Board of Management had refused to ask for themselves. He would, therefore, be glad to hear what explanation the Lord President might kindly be able to give on this subject, and he asked, in common justice to the parties concerned, that the School Board should be favoured with the confidential communications on which the Department had acted.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before the House conies of all the Correspondence between the Education

  213
  Department and the School Board of Southampton with respect to the action of the Education Department, in regard to the School Board of Southampton, in ordering a second inspection of one of the 10 schools belonging to that School Hoard on private representations made to the Education Department by the National Union of Teachers."— (The Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, speaking first of the rights of the Department and not as to how they exercise them, it is the absolute right of the Department to hold an inspection at any time, and, if necessary, without any notice; and that right it cannot possibly forego; but, in the present ease notice was given. It is a perfect mistake to suppose, as the noble Lord appears to do, that there was any inquiry into the conduct of the School Board: it was a totally different thing. The Department received a confidential letter of complaint respecting one of their own Inspectors and of his Report. The noble Lord is under a curious misapprehension if he thinks it is contrary to the discipline and practice of the Department to receive it complaint of that nature from any quarter whatever. Numbers of such complaints are received in all Departments; and it is for the Department to judge whether any and what inquiry should be made into them. In this case two Inspectors were sent down to inquire not into the conduct of the Board at all, but whether their own officer had in any way acted wrongly. It was a great mistake to suppose that there was any intention to review the recommendation that had been made by Mr. Burrows as to the annual grant after the first inspection. This was not at all in controversy: and the object of the second inspection was solely to assist the Department in forming an opinion as to the truth of the charges which had been brought against their own officer. There was no reflection of any sort upon the Southampton School Board. The result of the inquiry was that the Inspector complained of (Mr. Burrows), was entirely exculpated from the charges brought against him to the satisfaction of the Department. With regard to the production of Papers, the matter did not in any way concern the School Board: and I cannot produce confidential Papers with respect to the conduct of one of the Department's officers. I am quite prepared to produce the Correspondence with the Southampton School Board.
  *"LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, after hearing the explanation given, I must say I do not think the answer of the noble Earl is altogether satisfactory as regards the action of the Department towards the School Board. The Department might, in common courtesy and justice, have asked the School Board for an explanation of the circumstances of the examination which had been complained of. Of course, the Department must receive confidential communications; but in this case it has taken action upon such a communication: and as that action affected the School Board, I think some information as to the nature of the communication should have been given to the Board. The noble Earl docs not seem to me to appreciate that this charge against the Inspector was based mainly upon his examination of this infant school: there may have been other charges, but surely it was the proper thing for the Department to ask for a statement of the circumstances connected with that examination before they hold a second examination, and had they done so they would have found that the Board were satisfied with the Inspectors1 Report. Instead of taking this course, they communicate behind the back of the School Board with Mr. Yoxall and the head teacher. That, I think, was an unfair thing to the School Board, and I must say that feeling has not been relieved by the answer of the noble Earl. He says there was no charge against the Board, but they were implicated in the matter, as it was their infant school which was examined, and they had declined to ask for a, second examination. The action of the head teacher was thus an appeal against them: and the Department should not, without communicating with them, have sent down to have another special examination. The Department is bound, of course, to read confidential Reports from anyone who may choose to send them; but before acting upon one which bears, as in this case, upon School Board matters, they should, I am disposed to think, say to whoever makes the Report—"We are prepared to act upon this. but we shall not hold ourselves bound to treat it as confidential." This course is often taken, and I think it would have been the proper course in this case.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: With great deference to my noble Friend, I

  215
  must say I entirely dissent from him. I think it would be most prejudicial to the Public Service to admit that a confidential Report with regard to one of the officers of a, Department is to be produced. My noble Friend is far more versed in these matters than I am; but as I understand it is suggested that the Board should have been recognised as having a kind of right to take part in the inquiry—
  LORD KNUTSFORD: No; only that they should have been asked for an explanation of the circumstances.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That was a matter solely in the discretion of the two Inspectors who were sent down.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Then I have not made myself understood. What I am pointing out is the fault, of the Department in not asking for an explanation of the circumstances before they determined to send down these two special Inspectors.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is entirely a matter of discretion. Of course, I do not know the precise circumstances sufficiently to say there might not be a difference of opinion as to the mode of procedure in this particular matter; but it seems to me that, where an inquiry is being made into the conduct of an officer, possibly it would not be prudent to make other inquiries beforehand. To do that would be very likely to prevent your arriving at the truth, and it would not have been fair to the Inspector. Something very different was required to exonerate him, and the proper course, as I think, was taken of sending down two Inspectors to make the inquiry in the manner they thought most desirable. My noble Friend thinks the proper mode would have been to communicate first with the Board. I do not think so at all. If it had been a matter affecting the conduct of the Hoard, then I admit they should have been consulted in the first instance; but I think this is just the kind of matter in which the Department should send down its Inspectors to find out the truth in the best way they could without communicating with the Board, and that by doing so they were more likely to arrive at a fair and just conclusion.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid, he had not stated that charges were made against the Board. The whole matter arose out of the inspection of the school, and the complaint was
  216
  made by the schoolmistress, who had made representations to the Board. The Board had refused to ask the intervention of the Department; and then the schoolmistress appealed to Mr. Yoxall, of the National Union of Teachers, at whose instance the Department ordered inquiry without communicating with the Board. If there had been charges to be dealt with outside, that would have been a different matter: but the School Board had refused to ask the Department to order a, re-inspection, and they had nevertheless ordered it on the ipse dixit of a person entirely outside. The School Board should have been communicated with.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That would have been to make the School Board judges in the matter.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: It would have prevented the Department working in the dark.
  THE: LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, it seems to me that this case involves a matter of some importance. It is most valuable to every Department that it should receive confidential communications, and should exercise its own judgment with regard to the extent to which it will act upon them. If such communications could not be received most important knowledge, which it is most, important a Department should have, would fail to reach them. Therefore, I should certainly regard it as most unfortunate that any Department should not be entitled to receive confidential communications from any quarter, and to act upon them absolutely at its own discretion. Personally, I must protest against the doctrine that a Public Department has not the right to act, as it may think expedient for the public interest in a, confidential matter, and that the Department is not the sole and exclusive judge of the best mode of prosecuting its inquiry.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Does the noble Lord move for the production of the Correspondence with the Board, leaving out that with the National Union of Teachers?
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid, he would ask for that.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.