Lords Sitting of 2 April 1897

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (The Marquess of Lansdowne).—[No. 43.]
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 44.]

ESTATE DUTY (PICTURES AND WORKS OF ART, ETC.)
EARL STANHOPEasked Her Majesty's Government whether they proposed to formulate by Treasury minute, or by any other means, a definite rule as to the administration of Clause 20 of the Finance Act with regard to pictures and works of art, etc. He had, he said, found a general impression prevailing that pictures, works of art, manuscripts, and books that were made heirlooms, and therefore not saleable, were exempt from estate duty, but that was not at all the case. The clause set forth that
"Where any property passing on the death of a deceased person consists of such pictures, prints, books, MSS., works of art, scientific collections, or other things not yielding income appear to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, or historic interest, and is settled so as to be enjoyed in kind in succession by different persons, such property shall not, on the death of such deceased person, be aggregated with other property, but shall form an estate by itself, and while enjoyed in kind by a person not competent to dispose of the same be exempt from estate duty; but if it is sold or is in possession of some person who is then competent to dispose of the same shall become liable for estate duty."
The administration of Clause 20 was left entirely to the Treasury, who, as he had ascertained, would be guided by the opinion of the President of the National Gallery. That was rather vague, and was a happy-go-lucky arrangement which might vary with different Chancellors of
358
the Exchequer. The object of his Question was to ascertain whether some definite rule could not be laid down in the matter. In this country there were some very great collections, containing many pictures which were open to the public for inspection, and many which were sent to the exhibitions. At Pet-worth House the pictures were always open to the public; they had been frequently exhibited at the Royal Academy, and yet only some of these pictures would be exempted from paying estate duty. The same was the case in many other collections he could name. The inevitable result of such, an arrangement would be that in two or three generations, after paying heavy duties, pictures would not remain in a family, but would probably go abroad. Who would then be the sufferers? They would be the public, the very persons in whoso interest the Act was passed. ["Hear, hear!"] In Italy there was a law which prevented pictures and works of art leaving the country, or, if they did leave, they had to pay a tax to the Government. He would suggest that some means should be adopted of defining what pictures, generally speaking, were of historic or national importance. Whilst recognising the difficulty of formulating any particular rule, he thought that in the decision of such a question it was possible to include, besides the President of the National Gallery, the Chairman of the National Portrait Gallery, and, perhaps, other competent judges—in fact, a small committee of competent judges of works of art find pictures, or even a small departmental committee, should be associated with this inquiry. It was a very hard thing for individuals to go to law with the State in order to have cases cited for precedents. Collections, whether scientific, historic, or national, were of such importance that it would be a sad tiling for the country if, in 50 years' time, they were not merely to change hands, which would be of little moment, but were to be taken out of the country.
LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOURagreed with the noble Earl that Clause 20 of the Finance Act was so vague as to the exemptions which might be made as to prove embarrassing to the possessors of works or art and their successors. Take the case of a man who found himself in the absolute possession of a collection,

359
In view of the death duties, he did not want to tie up all the pictures, but, before bringing some of them into settlement, it was vital to know what pictures would be brought under the protection of this clause. He could not see why a minute should not be framed on the subject, or, at any rate, why the information should not be obtainable during a man's lifetime. The inequality in the operation of the clause was one of the greatest grievances connected with it. It was not so in the case of men who died possessed of property in shares or stock. For instance, upon £100,000 of such property £6,000 would be paid, and there liability would cease. But in the case of lands, shops, factories, and also of galleries of works of art, the property was subject to valuation, and taxed according to valuation, and every valuation was a superadded tax. It was especially so in the case of land, where the tax was not upon what was received, not upon the net but upon the gross, upon which a man did not receive more than a half or a third of his rental. Under such circumstances it could not be expected that- possessors of works of art not yielding income would always keep them back from sale; it was all they could fall back upon to pay the duty. If they were not brought under the clause few pictures would be brought into settlement and more would pass out of the country. He considered the letter he wrote to The Times on October 31, 1895, as establishing the facts, and should continue to consider, until he was refuted, that the grounds on which Sir W. Harcourt justified his exceptional treatment of land were founded on a mistake in historical reference. He did not hold Sir W. Harcourt responsible for the statement; he was misled by his authority, Hallam, who again was misled by a loose and inaccurate statement in the Parliamentary history. But he was not entitled to go into that question now, but he hoped that due consideration would be given to the question of the noble Lord.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)said that the only answer he could give his noble Friends was to ask them to have a little patience. He had been requested by the Treasury to give the following answer:—That in the opinion of the Treasury it is not possible
360
to lay down by Treasury minute or otherwise a definite rule for the interpretation of the section; that, as was stated while the section was under discussion in Parliament, the Treasury will be disposed to interpret it with due liberality after taking the advice of experts in such matters; and that in process of time a series of precedents must necessarily be accumulated, which will be of practical importance in guiding future decisions. [Laughter.]
EARL STANHOPEwas much obliged to his noble Friend for his answer, but it was so unsatisfactory that it was his intention to call the attention of the House to the circumstances, and to the administration of the clause immediately after Easter.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, the EARL of MORLEY, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

AID GRANT TO VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
(1.) For aiding Voluntary Schools there shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the aggregate five shillings per scholar for the whole number of scholars in those schools.

(2.) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.

(3.) If associations of schools are constituted in such manner in such areas and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department, there shall be allotted to each association while so approved,

(a) a share of the aid grant, to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at the rate of five shillings per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby empowered to do) then at those rates; and

(b) a corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated schools.

361

(4.) The share so allotted to each such association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association, and in accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the Department for the time being approve.

(5.) The Education Department may exclude a school from any share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive, if, in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the schools in the association belong to a religious denomination to which the school in question does not itself belong.

(6.) The Education Department may require, as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the Department.

(7.) The decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant, including the question whether an association is or is not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a town or a country school, shall be final.

The first Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of EARL SPENCER, who proposed, in Sub-section (2), after the words "such Voluntary Schools," to insert the words "as provide for the representation of local authorities or parents on the management thereof."
Before the Amendment was moved,
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)called attention to the position in which this Amendment stood, and did so at once for the sake of saving time, for he thought the same question would arise on most, if not all, of the Amendments proposed to be moved. The Bill was for the purpose of making certain, grants in aid to Voluntary Schools. The Rule—and he called it a Rule, for, although it was originally a protest and a Resolution of the other House, it had, as Sir Thomas May said in his book, been acted upon as a Rule of Parliamentary procedure for some three hundred years —was
"that all aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be charged or altered by the House of Lords."
362
Sir Thomas May went on to say,
"It is upon this latter resolution that all proceedings between the two Houses in matters of supply are now founded."
Upon this Parliament had acted ever since, and in the circumstances he put it to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he agreed with him in the construction to be put upon the words? He had no authority, although Speaker of the House, to decide Questions of Order. Had he that right, he should decide that the Amendment standing in the name of Earl Spencer was out of order; but he now only put it to the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord beside him whether it was possible, in the face of the authority he had quoted, to say that the Amendment was in order? If it were not in order, then it would be hardly respectful to the House to discuss matters and come to a decision to which their Lordships could give no practical effect, because, if the Amendment were passed it would, as a privileged Amendment, have to be again struck out of the Bill.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid no doubt if the Amendment came within the privilege of the other House, it could not be inserted in the Bill in this House. His noble and learned Friend said he had no power to decide the point, but no doubt, if he were to take the opinion of their Lordships' House upon it, and said he was satisfied that the Amendment was out of order, there could be no doubt of the result, having regard to the relative number of the forces to decide; and, therefore, if the noble and learned Lord took that view, it would be of no use asserting the contrary.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he would like to know whether the noble and learned Lord agreed with him or not?
LORD HERSCHELLhad not the slightest objection to say he thought it was a doubtful matter, but did not think it was so clear as his noble and learned Friend took it to be. There was no doubt, that their Lordships could not amend any portion of a Bill so as to alter by increase or deduction the charge of the persons who would receive or control it. It was a question whether the Amendment came within the meaning of the words "pay, receive, manage or control." No doubt, if the Bill specifically gave a

363
certain grant to particular schools, to insert a provision which would prevent a school receiving such grant would obviously be a violation of privilege, but all the Bill did was to hand over to the Education Department a sum of money for distribution, with very wide and general provisions; it did not give a grant to any specific school, and no school managers could say they were entitled to receive the grant. It was to be distributed over certain Voluntary Schools in such a manner as the Department might think best. The Question was, whether the Amendment could be said to be an interference with those who were to receive the grant?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he had only endeavoured to get the noble and learned Lord's opinion, which was of high value, in reference to the considerations and conditions in the words he had quoted.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid this was one of the conditions to which the Education Department was to have regard in the matter—one of the conditions they were to take into account in distributing the grant; it did not exclude any school from receiving it; and the whole matter was left absolutely at large for distribution by the Education Department.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid surely not, for the first Amendment was to insert a new condition to provide for the representation of local authorities or parents on the management.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid no doubt it, was a direction to the Education Department, but the question was whether this came within the principle, and affected the people who were to receive the grant, which grant was not made specifically to any school or schools, but left to be distributed by the Education Department. He would not press the matter further. Certainly if the Amendment were Out of order, it pointed the objection to dealing with a great education question in such a manner that the House was impotent to take part in deciding it. It was not impossible so to frame the Bill that the House should take part in the consideration of the conditions under which schools should receive assistance from the State. If the House was precluded from discussing, from an educational point of view, what was to be the distribution of the
364
money for education with a view to educational efficiency, then it seemed to him the House was deprived of the means of dealing with one of the most important questions ever brought before Parliament.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid if a decision were going to be taken on this point, its importance should be recognised, because if the House were precluded from discussing any conditions which appeared in a Bill making a grant of public money out of the Exchequer, then their Lordships would have no power to modify the words of any clause in Committee on such a Bill. The present Bill provided for a grant from the Exchequer, and to exempt certain schools from rates, and it repealed Section 19, known as the 17s. 6d. limit Section. Here were three propositions, each dealing with money. In Clause 1 Earl Spencer proposed to insert certain words having reference to representation on the school management, but how did that affect the grant? Why should not their Lordships discuss a question of this sort, which did not touch any money grant? If their Lordships were to alter the 5s. to some other figure, there would be interference with the grant. There had been cases in which the question had arisen, and their Lordships would remember what took place in reference to the Parish Councils Bill, in which first the House decided it would interfere and subsequently found it was mistaken, and had not the power; but if the question raised by the Amendment—not saying what his view of it was—should be considered out of order, then Committee discussions in the House would not be of much, use.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLcongratulated his noble and Radical Friends on their gallant attempt to assert in a high degree the privileges of the House. Where was poor Lord Rosebery? He and his friends had threatened the House with destruction, and now there was a series of Amendments on what was undoubtedly a money Bill asserting the power of the House not only to reject, but to alter such a Bill. He did not venture to put his opinion in antagonism to the opinions of his two noble and learned Friends, but with regard to the constitutional doctrine, he had always understood that the footing upon which the House stood with regard to the House of Commons Resolution, quoted by his noble and learned Friend, was that if

365
the House of Lords altered a money Bill —there was no question of the power of the House to reject it—it did so at the peril of losing the Bill. It was not that the House had no right to do it. They had never acknowledged that doctrine, so far as he knew. The series of Amendments which had been placed on the Table by the noble Lords opposite asserted the power and the right of that House to amend money Bills, the penalty being that if they did so the Bill would be lost in the House of Commons. But then the noble Lords wanted the Bill to be lost, and that was the whole secret of these Amendments. He took another objection, and that was that the first Amendment was against the principle of; the Bill. The Bill was to assist Voluntary Schools. The very first Amendment would actually alter the constitution of Voluntary Schools as they knew them in this country. Lord Herschell said the other night that all the Voluntary Schools were ecclesiastical or denominational schools. The moment they insisted on the denominational schools admit ting a large representation from public bodies, they entirely altered their constitution. They were no longer Voluntary Schools in the sense in which they understood them.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid there were a considerable number of Voluntary Schools now which had local representation upon them.
THE DUKE of ARGYLLsaid he knew that, but what had that to do with it? This Bill gave a grant in aid of 5s. to Voluntary Schools. Noble Lords opposite said, "We will shut out all Voluntary Schools which are of a particular constitution," though these formed 99–100ths of the whole.
THE EARL of KIMBERLEYsaid he thought it was very unfortunate that, after an objection had been raised, no doubt with great propriety, against the possibility of such an Amendment as this being introduced into this House, the noble Duke should proceed to discuss it. The noble Duke said this grant was for all Voluntary Schools. If he would read the Bill, he would see that in certain cases, where a Voluntary School did not belong to an association, it was excluded from the grant. With regard to what the noble Duke had said as to Lord Rosebery, he would remind him that his noble
366
Friend had nothing whatever to do with this matter, and he did not think his remark was in extremely good taste. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, he was not foolish enough to desire to lead the House, even if he had the power, to infringe the privileges of the other House. The question was merely whether the Amendment did that? He thought that, after what had been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite, who was necessarily an authority to be recognised in that House, it would not be right for them to press the matter further.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid the Bill provided that the Education Department should apply the grant as they thought best "for the purpose of increasing the efficiency" of the schools. By the second Amendment Lord Kimberley defined what in his opinion was efficiency, and he would like to ask whether that was a violation of the orders?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It adds a condition to the grant of money, which is within the express language of the protest of the House of Commons.
EARL SPENCERsaid that, after what had been said by the Lord Chancellor and others, he would not move the Amendment which stood in his name.
THE EARL of KIMBERLEYsaid he thought that the same argument distinctly applied to the next Amendment —[in Sub-section (2), after the word "efficiency," to insert the words,
"in accordance with regulations which will insure that it shall be applied—

"(a) in improving the teaching staff as regards number, qualification, or salary; and so far as it is not in the opinion of the Education Department required for that purpose;

"(b) in the payment of the teaching staff, the provision of special teachers, whether on the permanent staff or not, and in the improvement of the education of pupil teachers; and

"(c) in the improvement of the educational fittings and apparatus of the school, and in otherwise increasing its efficiency"]—

and therefore he would not move it. As to the next Amendment, which stood in his name, and which had reference to the constitution of the associations—[in Sub-section (3), after the word "managers," to insert the words,
"and consisting as to not less than one-half of persons not clerks in holy orders, or ministers of any religious denomination,"

367
and, further, to leave out the words, "approved by the Education Department," and to insert the words,
"prescribed by schemes made by the Education Department, and published and laid before Parliament"]—
he would like to say that he thought there was a very good argument in favour of considering that it did not infringe in any way the privileges of the House of Commons. These associations were purely voluntary bodies, which might give advice, but which advice the Education Department was in no way bound to follow. Consequently, the opinion that the associations might give was not in any way an opinion which could limit the discretion as to the granting of the money, and was not a condition of the granting of the money. He would like to hear whether the Lord Chancellor took that view?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I do not take that view, because I think it comes within "management." The language of the protest includes the management, and I think that this touches the management.
LORD HERSCHELLdid not think the objection to the first Amendment applied to this Amendment. As he understood, these associations were not to manage. They could not control—that was what they had been told—the expenditure of one penny. All they could do was to give advice to the Education Department, and surely they did not interfere with the money grant in any sort of way in dealing with the nature of the bodies who were to give advice. He submitted to the Lord Chancellor that this did not come within the language of the protest.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he hoped the noble and learned Lord would understand that he was now rather speaking in aid of the regular course of procedure in that House, and not at all with reference to assisting the Bill. What appeared to him was that the House of Commons had prescribed the conditions under which this grant should be distributed, and it said that the Education Department should be advised by body A. The noble Earl proposed to add that body A should consist of something else than the House of Commons had already enacted. The result of that was that
368
they would introduce a new qualification and a new condition to the circumstances in which the money might be distributed.
THE EARL of CAMPERDOWNasked if they were now laying down a precedent with regard to the power of that House? If that were so, it seemed to him they might have cause to regret it very greatly at no very distant time. If any supposition existed that by the withdrawal of these Amendments they were setting a precedent that that House was not competent to discuss, then he would take the opinion of their Lordships on the point.
THE EARL of KIMBERLEYasked the Lord Chancellor whether he took the same view with regard to the publication of schemes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I am right, I take it it applies to that as well.
THE EARL of KIMBERLEY: Then I do not move.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYasked for the indulgence of the House while he made a short personal explanation. On Tuesday last he spoke of the Vice President of the Council as having made a speech at Girton, in which he said that he hoped that the associations would be comprehensive, and not run on any sectarian lines. In commenting on this, he said he had some fear that the Vice President was a little tainted with the desire, which he supposed many of them must have seen lately in many excellent people, to undenominationalise the denominational schools. The Vice President had been good enough to write to him to say that he could not admit the inference he had drawn. It was quite true that he thought the associations might be undenominational, but that he had no desire whatever to apply the same principle to the managers of the individual schools. There, on the contrary, he thought it of very great importance to maintain their character as denominational schools, and not to interfere with that in the slightest degree. He felt it was his duty to explain to the House that this inference had been repudiated by the Vice President of the Council, and that he did not at all question that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the slightest degree inclined to rob denominational schools of their denominational character. At the same time, he thought it would be a serious

369
thing indeed if the associations were undenominationalised. On Tuesday night Lord Spencer said that friction, jealousy, and suspicion would be found in the associations. It was easy to answer that, because there were a good, many of such associations already at work. They were working with smoothness and ease, and were doing a great deal of good for the schools. He would not say Lord Spencer's description would not be true in a good many cases, if they compelled two denominations to associate their schools in one association. The business of the associations was to advise the Education Department upon the distribution of the money. For the purpose of advising the Department, it was absolutely necessary that they should ascertain what were, the resources of the different schools. That was rather a delicate duty. It. was not very easy to get people to be perfectly frank about all the resources upon which they could depend, and just as a Nonconformist manager would resent inquiries by a Church of England clergyman as to the pecuniary arrangements of his school, a Church of England clergyman would resent similar inquiries on the part of the Nonconformist manager. It would be well, therefore, if the Government would give them some assurance that they were not to begin what was undeniably an experiment by providing, as it were, fuel for a good deal of heat. For a long time to come, at any rate, it would be better that associations should be strictly denominational.
LORD HERSCHELL—who had given notice of his intention to move in Subsection (6) to leave out the word "may" ("The Education Department may"), in order to insert, instead thereof, the word "shall"—said that the Amendment would probably come within the objection raised by the Lord Chancellor. At the same time, he could not help saying that it was a great pity the Amendment was not made in the other House. The sub-section provided that —
"The Education Department may require, as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited."
It was pointed out that that ought to be obligatory in all cases. Then it was suggested that the word "may" meant
370
"shall," but after the decision of the House, there was no doubt that it was permissive, and not obligatory.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)said he did not know whether the objection taken to the other Amendments would apply to this Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he understood the Lord Chancellor to say that it would.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid that at all events, this Amendment, assuming it to be in order, was totally unnecessary. In the other House, one of the Law Officers had expressed the opinion that, as the duty of auditing the accounts of schools was conferred on the Department, it was obligatory on the Department to make use of it. The Government considered that where an audit was really necessary, it should take place. A similar duty was imposed on the Department by the Blind and Deaf Children Act, 1893, and a minute was passed by the Committee of Council on Education in which the following passage occurred: —
"The accounts shall be audited annually either by a chartered accountant, a banker, or a bank manager, or a professional auditor."
That showed the way in which the Department had acted on similar instructions in a former Act, and it was the intention of the Department to act in a similar manner in this case.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2,—

REPEAL OF 17S. 6D. LIMIT IN S. 19 OF 39 AND 40 VICT. C. 79 AS RESPECTS DAY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
After the last day of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, the following words in section nineteen of the Elementary Education Act 1876, namely, "such grant shall not in any year be reduced by reason of its excess above the income of the school if the grant do not exceed the amount of seventeen shillings and sixpence per child in average attendance at the school during that year, but shall not exceed that amount per child, except by the same sum by which the income of the school derived from voluntary contributions, rates, school fees, endowments, or any source

371
whatever other than the Parliamentary grant, exceeds the said amount per child, and "shall be repealed so far as they apply to day schools in England and Wales.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3,—

EXEMPTION FROM RATES OF VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
No person shall be assessed or rated to or for any local rate in respect of any land or buildings used exclusively or mainly for the purposes of the schoolrooms, offices, or playground of a Voluntary School, except to the extent of any profit derived by the managers of the school from the letting thereof.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he had given notice of his intention to move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 3:—
"The Education Department shall in every year cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of the proceedings under this Act during the preceding year."
He would certainly have supposed that this clause might be inserted in the Bill, and he was informed that in the other House some promise was given that this Amendment might be inserted at another stage, meaning in another place. He could not conceive that the Government could have any objection to the clause on its merits. Unless it was contended that this was so completely a money Bill that not one word could be altered, he did not see why this clause could not be moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdid not think this Amendment was one of those to which he made any objection.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid that in that case he would move the insertion of the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he meant it did not come within his objection as to privilege; he did not mean that the Government acepted it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYquite understood the noble and learned Lord to say it was not within his objection as to privilege. Of course, he
372
could not tell that no objection would be made. That was for the noble Duke to tell them.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid he hardly considered it necessary that they should send the Bill back to the other House for the purpose of inserting this single Amendment. He could assure the noble Lord that it was the intention of the Committee of the Council to report fully the operations under the Act just in the same way as if it were compulsory.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdid not see that the Bill was so sacred that not one word of it could be altered. He was rather surprised, as the Government was not powerless in the other House. He could imagine a weak Government being afraid of sending Bills back, but in the circumstances he could not understand the action of the noble Duke. He had been led to believe that some such Amendment as this would be accepted, and should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid he had not stated that it was of vital importance that no Amendment should be made in the Bill, or there would be any serious delay in sending it back; hut some delay would take place, and it was of importance that the Bill should pass at the earliest possible moment. No money could be distributed to the Voluntary Schools—some of which stood very great need of it—until the whole of the machinery to be set up under the Bill had been put into operation. It would be a work involving a considerable amount of time to form the associations, and when they were formed, they would have to frame their schemes for the distribution of the grants. He really would not take the responsibility of imposing any unnecessary delay. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYapprehended that the money was not voted yet, and until it was voted there would be nothing for the Department to distribute. Could it be supposed that the Voluntary Schools were in such a state of pauperism that it was impossible to get them to wait a few days? ["Hear, hear!"]
The Committee divided on the Amendment: —

CONTENTS

…

…

19

NOT-CONTENTS

…

…

65

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Coleridge, L.

Davey, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

Kimberley, E.

Russell, E.

Herschell, L.

Spencer, E.

Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

Stafford, E.

Reay, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Oxenbridge, V. [Teller.]

Thring, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Aberdare, L.

Welby, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Abinger, L.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Addington, L.

Aldenham, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Ampthill, L.

Arundell, of Wardour, L.

Cross, V. L. Priry Seal.)

Ashbourne, L.

Ashcombe, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Balfour, L.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Argyll, D.

Clinton, L.

Newcastle, D.

Colchester, L.

Portland, D.

Colville of Culross, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Landsdowe, M.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hampton, L.

Camberdown, E.

Harlech, L.

Carnwath, E.

Harris, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hylton, L.

Cowper, E.

James, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensburry.)

Lawrence, L.

Loch, L.

Manners, L.

Feversham, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Lucan, E.

Norton, L.

Minto, E.

Poltimore, L.

Selborne, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Stanhope, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Robartes, L.

Bangor, V.

Rookwood, L.

Knutsford, V.

Rothschild, L.

Llandaff, V.

Saltoun, L.

Templetown, V.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Ely, L. Bp.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

London, L. Bp.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Winchester, L. Bp.

Clause 4,—

DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "Voluntary School" means a, public elementary day school not provided by a School Board;
Any reference to the number of scholars in schools means the number of scholars in average attendance as computed by the Education Department;
The expression "local rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined;
Other expressions have the same meaning as in the Elementary Education Act, 1870 to 1893.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5, —

EXTENT OF ACT AND SHORT TITLE.
(1.) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.

(2.) This Act may be cited as the Voluntary Schools Act 1897.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, in reply to the Archbishop of Canterbury, assured him that what had previously fallen from his Grace as to the constitution of the associations would be carefully considered and attended to by the Education Department. There was not the least desire that these associations should be constituted in any way that would give rise to distrust or to want of confidence on the part of the managers. The object of the Government was that the associations should be constituted on the initiative of the schools themselves, and it would be the desire of the Department not to impose conditions which they were unwilling to accept. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL. OF KIMBERLEYwished to draw attention to what might be the consequences of not allowing any Amendments to be made, and of setting the precedent of proposing Bills in this shape, and sending them through the House of Commons without a single Amendment, and then bringing them up to that

375
House, where, from the nature of the Bill, no Amendments could be made. They could not fail to see that it might be possible for future Governments, acting on this precedent, to deprive that House entirely of any voice in the educational system of the country. Though for his part he did not deny that he shared in some respects the opinions expressed by the late Prime Minister, he at the same time could not conceive anything more disastrous than that as long as that House existed in any form as a revising chamber, it should be deprived of expressing an opinion upon the educational system of the country. He did not believe that there was anywhere a body of men more fitted than their Lordships, from their experience of affairs and their knowledge of the systems, to express an opinion on such a subject. He therefore could not help expressing regret that this Bill had been so conducted and so framed and so dealt with by the Government throughout, that Members of the House had been debarred practically from using the knowledge they possessed for the purpose of giving their advice with regard to a Bill of great importance which must affect the future of our whole educational system—introducing an era, he feared, of bitter and prolonged controversy on the whole subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he could not help saying, as he unfortunately came within, the noble Earl's observation, that he thought the noble Earl had a little confused the question by the use of a grand phrase like "our whole educational system." This was a Bill for the distribution of a sum of money which had been granted in aid of existing schools by the House of Commons, as to which he did not propose to enlarge at present. The House of Commons had always claimed the right of having unfettered discretion as to how it would appropriate the money it had granted. That might be right or wrong. That was the principle, and that was the only precedent their lordships had established. As to Amendments, the noble Earl seemed to think that if a Bill was so well drawn that it required no Amendment, it was a very bad Bill, and that if it was drawn so that it could be amended it was a good Bill.
376
[Laughter.] He did not concur in that. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he differed fundamentally from the view taken by the noble and learned Lord with regard to the scope of this Bill. Could anyone who considered the Bill be so blind as not to see that this Bill was not merely a Bill giving a little money to this or that school, but disturbed for the first time in the most serious manner the old compromise of 1870, and raised the whole question of the educational system of this country; and if noble Lords opposite supposed that this matter was going to rest, or that there was not on the part of very large bodies of people in the country the greatest possible opposition to the Bill, they were entirely mistaken. There were large bodies of men who felt the greatest indignation at the passing of the Bill. The Bill stirred up controversy on the education of the country. Though it was called a Bill for the distribution of a little money, an important change in the educational system was tacked on to it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid he agreed that the doctrine of the privilege of the House of Commons might be so pushed as to oust their Lordships' House from all legislative jurisdiction on Measures of the most important kind. If Measures greatly altering any system now prevailing were pushed through that House with the adjunct of money, on account of which alone their Lordships were not to touch them, that would be a most dangerous doctrine which, he should join with his noble Friend opposite in resisting. But he could not look upon this Bill as a case in point. It was really almost exclusively a money Bill. On the face of it it was a Bill to give money assistance to certain schools, and he thought noble Lords opposite had very much exaggerated its scope when they said it altered the educational system of the country. He could not admit that the Bill was an invasion of the compromise of 1870. It was the intention of that compromise to maintain the Voluntary Schools, and noble Lords opposite had expressed no desire to abolish them. They were, however, in danger of being abolished from pecuniary necessity, and the object of the Bill was simply to secure that they should not be allowed to fall. There was nothing in the Bill but a

377
fulfilment of the compromise of 1870. He thought exaggerated importance had been attached to the establishment of associations. It was a mere question of machinery. Parliament could no longer teach religion directly, and then were no other means of doing it than by giving assistance to denominational schools. That was the principle of the compromise of 1870, and there was nothing in this Bill contrary to that principle. Although his noble Friend assured the House that he was not opposed to Voluntary Schools, the whole spirit of his speech was strongly opposed to them. He attacked the clergy by name, and in the clause he proposed he intended to dictate to the various religious bodies the number of clergymen who should or should not be upon the management of schools. He was not himself, as he believed his hon. Friend was, a member of the Church of England; and if his noble Friend thought that he was in favour of what he called sacerdotalism—
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I never thought of accusing you of that.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: No, but he said that the system he was supporting was a system of sacerdotalism. The Church of England did not consist of the clergy only, but also of a great body of the laity, and he agreed that the laity should be largely represented; but surely it was the business of the laity to assert their own position in the government of their Church, and he had no doubt that they would succeed in getting a due share of influence. Where did the money come from? In a large degree from the laity, but he believed that the clergy had subscribed to their schools in a proportion to their incomes far greater than any other class, and he believed that the system of education would not have reached the comparative success it had now reached had it not been for the self-sacrificing zeal of the clergy. This Bill had adopted the principle of supporting Voluntary Schools for two great objects—one to secure, as it could not otherwise be secured, the religious education of the young; and the other to save to an enormous extent the immense burden that would be thrown on the ratepayers if the Voluntary Schools ceased to exist.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that the noble Duke had insisted that the action taken on the Opposition Benches had been dic
378
tated by hostility to denominational schools. He could assure the noble Duke that that was not the case. They had never expressed the slightest desire that one penny less than the Bill gave should be given to Voluntary Schools, but they did assert that the compromise of 1870 was disturbed unless the money was given to Voluntary and Board Schools alike. The Bill appeared to them a distinct infringement of a Measure the principle of which was that the aid grant should be given irrespective of the question whether or not a school was a Voluntary or a Board School. They could not move in that House to make the grant available for Board Schools as well; and the only; way in which they could act was the way in which they had acted; and he did not; think that the noble Duke would dispute that that was a perfectly fair way of asserting an opinion on the subject. If they could have increased the grant, no doubt they would have taken that course. His contention was that, if the Government came to the conclusion that the grant to Voluntary Schools should be increased, the principle of the Act of 1870 should be maintained, and the grant should be extended to Board Schools as I well.
LORD NORTONcontended that there was no claim that could possibly be made by the Board Schools for a grant such as was now being given to Voluntary Schools. The Board Schools had both Treasury and rate grants already. The whole cost of elementary and higher education was already given to Board Schools, and the claim of the Voluntary Schools was that only half was given to them. All that was now claimed by Voluntary Schools was that the additional cost of the higher education which had been added to the system of elementary education should be supported by the State. The position of the Voluntary Schools was that, if higher education was to be carried on in those schools, it must be at the expense of the Treasury, as in the Board Schools it was carried on by rates to which they contributed.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWN)in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the Act which it amended authorised Volunteer forces to borrow money to acquire land for military purposes, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners were empowered to advance the money. The present Bill authorised the borrowing of money to erect buildings for military purposes upon security of the land and buildings. He believed the Bill would be of great service to the Volunteers of this country.
EARL SPENCERasked whether money could be borrowed under the Bill for ranges, which would be so much wanted by the Volunteers in the near future?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that the Act of 1892 gave power to borrow money to acquire land, and this Bill gave power to borrow money to erect buildings, which would include butts and the necessary appliances.
EARL SPENCER: Will it include fagots for butts?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEimagined it would include anything that came within the expression "buildings or permanent works." Whether the works the noble Earl referred to would be permanent he could not take upon himself to say.
Read 2a (according to Order): and committed to a, Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

LAND COMMISSION.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNasked the Government whether Sub-Commissioners in Ireland had to pass any examination to test their qualifications for fixing judicial rents? He said that, according to the Report of the Irish Land Commission to March 1896, he found that the entire number of eases in which judicial rents had been fixed was 303,243; the old rent being £6,313,221, and the judicial rent £4,993,514, the percentage of reduction being 20·9. In round numbers, the amount of rents which would be liable to be fixed under the same head during the second statutory term, was about five millions. Judging by the reductions that
380
had come under his notice, more especially those to which he referred on the 17th of July last, it was difficult to suppose that the reductions under the second term would average less than those under the first terms. Over a million and a-quarter was taken off the rents of Irish landlords last term, but it looked, by the reductions that were now taking place, as it a still larger sum was going to be taken off the reduced rental. Those figures would, he thought, prove that very great importance attached to the qualifications of those intrusted with the duties of lay assistant Commissioners, and that Irish, landlords were entitled to ask that Sub-Commissioners should be men who had satisfied competent examiners that they were perfectly qualified for their duties; because, in some cases, he might say in many cases, the reductions at present being made meant nothing less than absolute ruin to Irish landlords. Not only were landlords entitled to demand that, but all those who were in any way connected with the land. Surely not only those who paid the rent, but the labourer who tilled the soil was entitled to demand it, for when reductions had reached a certain point it meant that the labourers would either be obliged to seek employment from the tenants, who were in many cases converting arable into pasture land to save their labour, or they would be forced to emigrate, as largo numbers had already done. The reductions of rents below a certain point, which, if it had not been reached at the present rate of reductions very soon must be, would have exactly the opposite effect also to that to which Mr. Gladstone looked forward in 1870, when, in speaking on the Land Act of that date, he said: —
"But the only great boon—and it is a great boon—which it is in the power of the Legislature to give to the agricultural labourer in Ireland is to increase the demand for his labour, and by imparting a stimulus to the agriculture of the country to insure its requiring more strong arms to carry it on, and thereby to bring more bidders into the market for those arms, and raise the natural and legitimate price of their labour."
Then there was another class deeply interested in this matter—he referred to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. He would not now go into a calculation of what amount of income tax had been lost to the Exchequer since the Land Act

381
of 1870, due to the Irish Land Acts; but whatever the amount, it had never been accounted for. Then there were also the motgagees, the various life insurance companies, and other societies who had money invested in Irish land, and the various chargeants, some of whom were already in receipt of relief from the Irish Distressed Ladies Fund. But great as those claims undoubtedly were, there was another claim, that of justice, which could not be long disregarded. He contended that the Irish landlords were at this moment, speaking generally, at the mercy of the lay Assistant Commissioners. When Mr. Dowse, the Solicitor General for Ireland, was speaking on the Land Bill of 1870, what did he say? He laid it down that "No man ought to be left at the mercy of his neighbour, no matter how just that neighbour might be." If it was wrong for the tenants, was it not wrong for the landlord to be in that position? He would preface his remarks on the Return lately issued to Parliament with a reference to a work on Rent Fixing. It was laid down in Pardon's book on Land Valuation for Rent, "That there can be no doubt that to be a good judge of land and qualified to appraise the conditions attaching to a holding as well as the soil itself, one must have a taste for agriculture, have had experience, be a keen observer, and possess a judicial mind." And then it was indicated what a valuer should know as regards the effects of science on agriculture, freights, and effect of imports of cattle, be should have a thorough knowledge of at least seven soils and their texture and improvability. He must have a knowledge of plants, indicating the quality of soils, and must be equally familiar with the value of grass lands, mountain and bog lands, while he must know how to allow for proximity to or remoteness of a farm from towns, railway stations, etc. Many other things were named that he should thoroughly understand. If he was rightly informed, a man could not be appointed as messenger in a Dublin public office without passing some sort of examination, yet, if he was not mistaken, no examination whatever was asked of the Sub-Commissioners who had live millions of rents at their mercy, and therefore the fortunes of goodness knew how many
382
thousands of men, women, and children. He now came to the Return of the 5th March 1897, giving the names and other information about the lay Assistant Commissioners holding office on January 25th 1897. Out of 73 Sub-Commissioners three only were owners, and they owned respectively 300, 200, and 60 acres; two were agents, one farming only 70 acres, and the rest were tenants. Out of the 73, under the heading of "What experience in valuing, mapping, surveying?" he found the answers were in four cases "None;" in seven cases, "Studied at college;" in three cases, "Studied at school;" one case, "Chiefly self-taught;" one "Has fairly good knowledge;" one "Has assisted father;" four "Have studied surveying and mapping;" one "Has some experience in valuing, none in mapping;" one is a "farmer;" one "Has experience in mapping and scaling," but apparently none in valuing, and in seven cases no answer was given at all. He would refer to one or two cases. One permanent lay Commissioner was educated at Moy and Dungannon; he farmed 200 acres as tenant, but had no other experience of agriculture, and his experience in mapping and surveying and valuing was valuing and mapping at school. Another permanent lay Commissioner was educated at Dublin Academic Institution, farmed 60 to 70 acres as tenant, and his other experience in agriculture consisted of "Visiting numerous farms in various counties;" his experience in valuing, mapping, and surveying was "Chiefly self-taught." He would refer to the last case, that of a temporary lay Assistant Commissioner. He was educated at Omagh Classical School, and private tuition. He farmed 205 acres as tenant; other experience of agriculture, "Member of Tyrone Farming Society;" experience of valuing, mapping, and surveying, "None." His criticism of the qualifications would, he hoped, have made it clear that there was no standard of qualification, or past employment, or experience which had to be possessed by a lay Sub-Commissioner. He did not for a single instant wish to press hardly on any particular cases, but he could not help expressing deep concern that five millions of Irish rents were

383
at the mercy of men of whom the Government said that some of them had no experience in valuing, mapping, or surveying, and of others that their experience under these heads, as represented by the Return, could not be stated at all.
THE EARL of RANFURLYsaid the official answer was that the gentlemen appointed to the position of assistant Land Commissioners in Ireland were not required to pass a formal examination before being appointed. The utmost pains however, were taken to ascertain their qualifications for the functions they were called upon to discharge. ["Hear, hear!"] He would like to add that the Chief Secretary himself interviewed every one of the new Sub-Commissioners who had been appointed, besides many hundreds of others who made application. He had to choose from a large number and he gave much time and patience and the best of his ability to the selection. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL of ARRANasked if the Chief Secretary himself had any knowledge of land?
THE EARL of RANFURLYwas afraid he could not answer that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, in moving the adjournment of the House, said it might be convenient if he made known the arrangement it was proposed to make as to the business. As he had already said, he intended to move the Third Reading of the Voluntary Schools Bill on Monday. It was also proposed to Read a Second time the Military Works Bill, which would come from the Commons, on Monday; and if there was no objection, as he understood there would not be, it would be passed through its remaining stages on Tuesday. There would be a Royal Commission on Thursday for receiving the Royal assent to several Bills, after which it would be proposed that the House should adjourn until Monday, May 3. ["Hear, hear!]"
House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.