HL Deb 12 July 1898 vol 61 cc631-47
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can inform the House on what authority or on what evidence the Vice-President of the Council stated publicly that the teaching of the Bible in Board schools in large towns was far superior to the teaching of the same subjects in Voluntary schools in the same places? My Lords, the state of the case is this: a little while ago the Vice-President of the Council publicly made a statement that the Biblical instruction in Board schools—not the doctrinal instruction, but the instruction in the contents and history of the Bible—was so far superior to that to be found in Voluntary schools that there was no comparison possible between them. Now, my Lords, I have two things to say about that. I would be glad if the Lord President would be kind enough to notice them. In the first place, I should like to point out that ever since 1870 the Education Department have given up all investigation into the religious instruction in these schools. Her Majesty's inspectors, neither in Voluntary schools nor in Board schools, look at the religious instruction. All that they have to do is to see that the time-table is kept, and that the proper time is given over to the subject in accordance with that timetable. But they do not examine the children, and they have no direct means of knowing what their religious knowledge is like. Now, then, when this system was first introduced of setting aside all examinations of the religious instruction, it was felt as a very serious loss to their own cause by all those who are very much interested in that part of education, because, my Lords, there can be no question at all that the fact that this was one of the subjects in which Her Majesty's inspectors examined gave to it a very much greater importance in the eyes both of teachers and learners. The children felt that it was an important matter since the Queen's inspector looked into it and the teachers felt that it was a very important matter, because, coming under the supervision of Her Majesty's inspector, it affected his Report upon the work of the teachers, and this advantage was entirely lost when the change was made. However, no complaint was made on that subject. It was thought that the promoters of Voluntary schools would be able to provide inspection of their own, which in some degree might make up for the loss which they had sustained; but, my Lords, it seems to me very hard, while we lose the advantage of that inspection, that we should, nevertheless, be subjected to criticism, and that, while inspectors have not authority to examine into the subject, nevertheless the Department, through the Vice-President, appears to form an opinion, and publish that opinion to the world. Moreover, the Department is necessarily looked upon by the world at large as very much led in the matter by the opinion of the inspectors, and by their reports upon what they find in the schools, and the inspectors, it seems to me, have no right to make reports when they have no right to make examinations. I venture to think it is stepping out of the province of the Department altogether to make criticisms of this kind. Even if the criticism was perfectly sound, I should still protest against its being made on a matter which does not come within the cognisance of the Education Department at all. Of course, the Education Department has a general supervision of all that is done in the schools, and as regards the moral government of the school that is a very important matter indeed; but as for the doctrinal instruction and the instruction on religious information, that seems to me to be altogether outside the scope of the Department. My Lords, this, of course, I should say, even if I believed that the statements made by the Vice-President of the Council were perfectly accurate. I am not at all prepared to deny that there is in Board schools exceedingly good teaching, and that there is in some Board schools exceedingly good teaching in the religious department of the instruction. I have no doubt about it. I have said it, and other bishops have said the same; but it is a very different thing to say that there is to be found in different Board schools very good religious instruction, and to say that, taking it generally, the religious education in Board schools is altogether superior to that given in the Voluntary schools. I do not know how the comparison has been made. All the evidence that I can get together points entirely in the opposite direction. I have made, naturally enough, such inquiry as I could make; our own diocesan inspectors altogether question this statement, and say they do not at all acknowledge that the Biblical instruction in the Board schools is better than the Biblical instruction in the Voluntary schools, and their own accounts of the results of their examination are such as to show that the Board school must, indeed, be something very different from what schools are generally, if the religious instruction in them stands above the kind of religious instruction in the schools of the Church. There are not many modes or means by which we cant actually compare the two, but one or two things have struck me particularly. This is one that was brought before me in a letter I received this morning from the diocesan inspector of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he says that he comes across the children educated in the Board schools and the children educated in the Voluntary schools, in the Sunday schools. He has to inspect the Church Sunday schools, and he says that he finds there that the children of the Voluntary schools are very superior to the children of the Board schools. That, of course, is no more than his opinion, but it is borne out by several others, who write to the same effect, and fully borne out by the accounts given in the Reports of our owns diocesan inspectors everywhere about the character of the religious instruction in the Voluntary schools. I hope, therefore, that the Lord President of the Council will be able to explain in some satisfactory manner how it is that the Education Department are stepping out of their province in this way, and also on what authority and what evidence the Vice-President bases such a criticism on that with which he has, properly speaking, nothing to do.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, the history of the incident to which the most reverend prelate has just called attention is, I think, a somewhat curious one. Its origin arose in a speech which was made by the Vice-President of the Council in the other House of Parliament, in opposing a Motion for the universal establishment of school boards. In the course of the Vice-President's speech on that occasion he said that he had always admitted that the education of most of the Board schools in the large towns was excellent, and he incidentally observed that—but perhaps I had better quote his own words. He said— He was not at all certain if it came to be a real test that they would not find that the facts and history of the Christian faith were better taught to the children in the Board schools. The Vice-President went on to say that he had always held that opinion as to the education given in the Board schools in the larger towns, but that the case in the rural districts was altogether different, and that, in his opinion, in the rural districts the country clergyman was a far better and more competent school manager than the farmers or tradesmen of whom the school board would be composed, and under whose management the education given was generally extremely inefficient. Well, my Lords, that statement of the Vice-President does not appear to me to be of a very aggressive or irritating character, but it appears to have called down upon him the severe animadversions and criticisms of some supporters of Voluntary schools, and especially, I believe, of some of the Church papers, and the Vice-President accordingly felt it necessary, in making a speech in moving the Education Estimates, to make some reference to the criticism to which he had been exposed. Of course, the most reverend prelate perfectly understands that any opinion which has been expressed by the Vice-President upon this subject refers solely to the Bible lessons which are given in common both in Voluntary and Board schools, and the Vice-President did not attempt to express or convey the slightest opinion upon the comparative value of that Bible instruction which was common to both classes of schools and the doctrinal instruction which, of course, could only be given in Church schools. I think I had better give the explanation of his statement in the Vice-President's own words. He has written to me a statement. He says— The statement was an expression of my own personal opinion, as the context of my speech shows, and was not based upon any official or other authority. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I think, in answer to those cheers, I ought to say that every noble Lord will see, who has carefully studied the statements to which the right reverend prelate has called attention, that the Vice-President never represented them in any other light. The evidence" (the Vice-President proceeds) "upon which my opinion was formed consisted partly of a comparison of the staffs of the two classes of schools, partly of personal communications with inspectors, teachers, and others, and partly of my own observation. Since I have held my present office I have seized every opportunity in town and country of visiting schools when I could do so without my official character being known. Personal experience, though unreliable as the sole source of knowledge, is a good corrective to opinions derived from the statements of others. One of the best tests of good teaching is the interest which the children take in the lesson given, and this is not very difficult to discern. When I determined to hear and see for myself the religious teaching in Board and Voluntary schools in London, I asked Mr. Ernest Gray, M.P., to select me a fair sample of each. It was impossible for me to visit a sufficient number of schools to make an average for myself. The Voluntary school selected was St. Matthew's, Westminster. This is what the head teacher is reported by the National Society to have said of it at a public meeting— 'This school in all its departments had invariably been awarded the highest grant by Her Majesty's inspector. The diocesan inspector had classed it as "excellent," and he was proud to say that the managers had staffed and equipped it as well as any Voluntary school in London.' The Board school, which I visited on the next day, was in Marlborough Road, Chelsea. The staffs of the two schools, as given me by the Education Department, are as follows. Then the Vice-President quotes certain figures, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, and goes on to say— My own convictions and the policy which, under your direction, I have while in office carried out are, as you know, strongly in favour of the maintenance of Voluntary schools. The disadvantages under which Voluntary schools are placed in great towns where they have to compete with Board schools are not in any way the fault of their managers and teachers. To them I have never attributed any blame. I think them, on the contrary, deserving of the highest praise for the extent to which they make the means at their disposal serviceable to the cause of education. But the difficulty of providing sufficient incomes for Voluntary schools in great towns does, in my judgment, seriously menace their prosperity and affect their efficiency, and should, in their interest, be faced and overcome. Well, my Lords, on this point I have only further to say that, in my opinion, this statement to which the most reverend prelate has called attention was not entirely a gratuitous statement on the part of the Vice-President, seeing that it was made in consequence of a very guarded and unaggressive statement of opinion made on quite a different occasion, having been severely called into question. I can only say, as the Vice-President has said, that it is the personal opinion of my right honourable Friend and his personal opinion only, and your Lordships may rest assured that it is, under the administration of the Education Department, no part of the duty of the inspectors either to inquire into or to formulate criticism upon the religious instruction given in the Board schools. I have only further to add, on this point, that the opinions expressed by the Vice-President do not relate, and do not purport to relate, to the religious instruction given in the schools of the country generally, but solely to those in the metropolis; and I do not see that this expression of opinion on the Vice-President's part need have given rise to any very great annoyance or irritation on the part of managers of Voluntary schools. I waited a little while, after the most reverend prelate sat down, to hear if any other observations were likely to be addressed to your Lordships upon the speech which has been called in question. I am, of course, perfectly aware that not only the point which has been referred to on this occasion, but several other points contained in that speech, have excited a great deal of public attention; have caused apparently some disquietude to the supporters of the Voluntary schools, and a proportionate amount of satisfaction to the supporters of Board schools. I have read, of course, that speech with a great deal of attention, and I confess that I do not find in it any traces of that hostile spirit towards the Voluntary schools which has been imputed to my right honourable Friend. The speech is evidently that of one who is anxious—sincerely anxious—to increase the efficiency of both Board and Voluntary schools, and of one who is deeply impressed by the difficulties under which elementary education suffers now, and which render the result obtained from it inadequate in comparison with the enormous expenditure incurred upon it. My right honourable Friend commented on a great number of obstacles which, in his opinion, impede the progress of education. Among them were the early age at which children leave school, their irregular attendance during their school period, the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, generally the inferiority of schools, Board or Voluntary, in rural districts, and the want of a sufficient number of trained teachers. Several of those obstacles can only be dealt with by legislation, and the Government have proved, by the Bill which they introduced in 1896, their desire to deal with some of those obstacles. That Bill would have raised the age of exemption from attendance of children at school from 11 to 12 years, and would have provided a more efficient organisation for education in the rural districts. That Bill, however, was defeated mainly by the efforts of those who are now loudest in approval of the Vice - President's strictures. The Bill which was passed by Parliament last year was intended in some degree to redress the inferiority of Voluntary schools in towns, to which my right honourable Friend referred. The proposal embodied in that Bill, to give to schools in urban districts a larger proportion of the grant in aid, was most strenuously resisted by those who are now loudest in applauding the Vice-President's comparison between the efficiency of Board and Voluntary schools in towns. The speech of my right honourable Friend appears to me to have been intended to enforce three points, not one of which, so far as I can see, is in antagonism to the interests of Voluntary schools. In the first place, he desires to raise the present age of exemption. That, as I have said, is a principle which already has received the approval of the Government, and has been embodied in a Measure, and which, if it could be carried into effect, would equally benefit Board and Voluntary schools. In the second place, he desires to see a better organisation of schools in rural districts, not for the management of schools, but for the support and assistance of schools, both Board and Voluntary—a Measure which, if carried out, would relieve Voluntary schools in rural districts from the danger to which they are now exposed of being supplanted by Board schools. In the third place, my right honourable Friend advocated, as he always has done, the giving of power to local authorities to afford some assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates. As I have said, two of these principles have been adopted by the Government, and I believe are generally acceptable to all the supporters of Voluntary schools. The third of them—that of assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates—has been very fully discussed, and, although it was not adopted by the Government, and although the Government are still of opinion that it would be inexpedient, and would not be a real or permanent good to the Voluntary schools themselves, still, it is a principle that was most strongly urged by the warmest supporters of Voluntary schools in many parts of the country, and the advocacy of such a Measure cannot, in my opinion, be deemed hostile to the present Voluntary schools. But in enforcing these points my right honourable Friend has dwelt upon deficiencies which he sees in our existing system, and especially those affecting Voluntary schools, in a manner which appears to have alarmed, and to some extent irritated, their supporters. It may be that some of the statements of my right honourable Friend may be open to question; it may be that different inferences may be drawn from certain facts from those he has drawn. For instance, the irregularity of attendance to which he adverted does not appear prejudicially to affect Voluntary schools in comparison with Board schools, On the contrary, the statistics prove that the attendance at Voluntary schools is somewhat better than in Board schools, and I think that, although my right honourable Friend is able to produce a large number of instances in which the attendance is miserably bad, and in which the authorities evidently fall short of their duty; yet, on the whole, I think my right honourable Friend has perhaps taken an unduly despondent view of the state of attendance in the elementary schools. It is now 81½ per cent. of the number on the books. The Department, I am informed, consider that a reduction of 12½ per cent. for unavoidable causes is not an unreasonable reduction; therefore, though striking instances to the contrary may be found in certain cases, taking the average attendance throughout the coun- try, it is only 6 per cent. below that which the Department consider to be a satisfactory attendance. As to the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, my right honourable Friend was, I think, careful to point out that that inferiority was due to no fault of the managers themselves, but solely to the inadequacy of their resources. He pointed out, and I think rightly pointed out, that the Act of last year only partially redressed that inequality of resources, and that if the subscriptions should fall off that partial relief would disappear. He referred to what he termed an ominous drop in the subscriptions. I wish that my right honourable Friend had pointed out that that ominous drop had taken place before the Act came into full operation, and that it was a drop from the previous year, in which the very highest amount of voluntary contributions which had ever been raised was obtained by the abnormal claims made on the supporters of Voluntary schools. But the danger which he pointed out is a real one. No doubt, if the effect of the Act of last year should be that the supporters of Voluntary schools should in any degree relax their efforts, it will be impossible, considering the competition to which they are exposed from rate-aided schools in large towns, for them to hope to continue with efficiency without further assistance. We have as yet not had time to form an opinion as to the working of the system of association brought into existence by the Act of last year; but, so far as we can see, we have reason to believe the system is working well, and the Department have every reason to hope that the object of that Act will be attained, and that the assistance given will be applied, as it was intended it should be applied, to promoting the efficiency of the schools, while voluntary subscriptions will not continue to decline, but may rather be expected to increase. There is only one other point in the speech referred to which appears to have given some pain to those who are interested in education. The Vice-President appears to have aroused a considerable amount of indignation by a quotation he made from a report of one of the inspectors, in which that inspector said that the farmer and the squire were no friends to education. My Lords, I do not deny that I regret that an assertion so wide, so vague, and of so sweeping a character should have been made by any official in the service of the Department, and I regret also that the assertion should be repeated in an official statement by a representative of the Education Department. If a statement such as that is true in any degree—no doubt there may be certain districts in which it may be true—it is a statement which is absolutely incapable of proof. That it is not universally true we know from our own experience, for it is within our knowledge that whatever may be the opinion of the country gentleman of England as to the value of education to the agricultural labourer, there is probably no class, as a class, that has done more for the cause of elementary education than country gentlemen, or have done it at a greater pecuniary sacrifice. In justice to Mr. Rankine, the inspector whose report has been quoted from, and to the Vice-President, it is only right to say that indifference to education or hostility to education was not imputed by them solely to squires and farmers. Mr. Rankine went on to say that the labourers are, a rule, absolutely indifferent to the advantages of education for their children, and as labourers are the parties chiefly and primarily concerned, certainly, until a different state of things exists and a different state of public opinion obtains in rural districts, I think it is impossble to expect that any great improvement will be obtained. There is a passage in the report by Mr. Rankine which follows that which has been quoted, and which, I think, might be usefully added. Mr. Rankine said almost immediately after the words quoted— The weakness of our system of education is that it does not work itself thoroughly into the national life. It is still too much an institution imposed by legislative enactment. The love of education for its own sake is wanting. These observations go very nearly to the root of the question. That weakness is not a weakness that can be remedied by premature attempts at legislation, or to impose burdens either on parents or ratepayers which they consider, perhaps mistakenly consider, are already almost too heavy to be borne. My Lords, I think I have dealt with the principal points in the speech which has called forth so much attention, and has alarmed and irritated managers of Voluntary schools. I think I have been able to show that, whatever the opinion your Lordships may hold as to the views expressed by the Vice-President as to the want of efficiency in our system of education, especially in Voluntary schools, the criticisms which he has made were not made in any spirit of hostility to that branch of schools. It has not been alleged, and I do not think a single instance can be alleged, in which the administration of the Department by my right honourable Friend has in any degree been biassed against Voluntary schools, or by any opinion he may hold as to the efficiency of that system. My Lords, with this explanation, I will conclude by assuring the most reverend prelate that, as to religious instruction, the Department have not the slightest intention of calling upon their inspectors to officially express any opinion, and that the observations from the Vice-President were entirely and solely the expression of his own personal opinion.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I do not trespass upon your Lordships' time in the position which, up to a short time ago, I had the privilege of holding, as Chairman of the London School Board, but I address your Lordships as an ardent supporter of our system of Voluntary schools; and as such I beg to tender my most sincere thanks to the right reverend prelate for the initiation of this Debate, and to assure him that I think he will receive the hearty thanks of all those who have the good of Voluntary schools at heart, for having extracted the opinion which has just been expressed by the noble Duke. There is one person, above all others, whom I should like to congratulate. I should like to congratulate the Vice-President of the Council on the fact of his good fortune in being subordinate to a chief who has shown such loyal and chivalrous feeling in defence of his subordinate. I am afraid the speech the noble Duke has made will not carry the same conviction to the lovers of Voluntary schools as it will carry to the mind of his subordinate. I know, myself, from what I have heard, and from expressions of opinion in another place, that no speech of recent date has caused such heart-burning, and has carried such dismay to the minds of some of the most devoted supporters of the Prime Minister at the last election, as the speech of the Vice-President which has been referred to, and which the noble Duke has so gallantly defended. I confess I should have liked to have seen the noble Duke take a totally different line. I should have liked to have heard him explain how it was that his subordinate was permitted to give expression to what he called his personal opinion. If I were a Member of the House of Commons, or if I were one in the country who read the statements made by the Minister who represents the Education Department in the House of Commons, I should imagine that that man who represented his chief in the House of Commons was giving vent to the opinion of his chief, because he was merely the mouthpiece of his chief; and I assure your Lordships that in the country it is firmly believed that the opinion which emanated from the Vice-President, and which we now hear was of a personal character, was the view held by the President of the Council, and by the other Members of the Cabinet. I cannot for a moment believe that such is the case. That part of the country with which I am associated returned, at the last election, a vast number of Members to Parliament to support the Prime Minister and his policy, and a great number of them owe their return to the fact that the present Government, when in opposition, pledged themselves to do what they could to benefit the Voluntary schools, to make them as efficient as possible, and, so far as they could, to put them on an equal footing with Board schools. That was a very important factor in the last General Election, and I think it would be hard to ask supporters of the Government to face their constituents who have elected them on the pledges given, and to explain this speech of the Vice-President of the Council in the House of Commons. My Lords, the Government, we can say, have certainly redeemed their pledges, and have endeavoured to benefit the Voluntary schools so far as laid in their power. I confess myself, as one who has practical experience of the Voluntary school system, that I should have been glad to have seen the Government benefit them to a greater extent, but that they have benefited them is shown by the Report which emanated from the Board of Education, and that the results have been satisfactory are also shown by that Report. I was only this afternoon looking through the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Mr. Cripps on this subject. He referred to the fact that the Vice-President of the Council did not call attention to the Report of his own Department, showing that the Act of last year had more than carried out all that was expected of it. That document expressed satisfaction with the result obtained by the Association of Voluntary Schools, with the zeal and discretion shown by the governing bodies, and with the reasonable spirit in which the school managers had co-operated. The success which had attended the administration of the Act had (it said) been shown by the absence of friction. I am glad to notice that the noble Duke apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech, in which, quoting with considerable glee, if I may say so, from the report of Mr. Rankine, he said that the squire and the parson were no friends of elementary education. That was a gratuitous insult to the squire and to the parson. I have practical experience of this matter. I conduct my own schools myself with the aid of the clergyman. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the efficiency gained is as high as it can be, and that is entirely due to the fact that the squire, the parson, and myself do all in our power to maintain the efficiency and the proper conduct of our schools. I think a more gratuitous insult could not possibly have been levelled at the squire and the parson by one who was speaking as the representative of the Education Department. I thank the noble Duke for having apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech; otherwise I do not think the Prime Minister would find the squire and the parson supporting him at the next General Election with the ardour with which they supported him at the last election. I am at a loss to understand what it is the Vice-President of the Council requires. Does he wish to repudiate the whole system of Voluntary schools? He certainly has thrown cold water on that system and on the efforts of the Government to benefit and maintain the position of Voluntary schools. Therefore, I should like to know what it is he does want. If he wants to abolish the system, the ratepayers of the country will not thank him for the extra taxation which would be involved, and an act of greater injustice could not be perpetrated. The noble Marquess below me made a great speech at Preston on education, and anything more contradicting that speech than the speech of the Vice-President of the Council could not be imagined. How are we to connect that speech of the noble Marquess with the speech recently delivered by the Vice-President, and which is now entirely repudiated by the Lord President of the Council? It is somewhat difficult to understand how far Under Secretaries are allowed to introduce their own personal views into Parliament. We have been told that the Vice-President spoke simply on personal grounds, but how are we to know when he is representing his chief and when he is representing himself? For instance, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs might make a speech of an unauthorised character which might embroil us in war, before the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had an opportunity of contradicting that speech in Parliament. I think it is quite time that those who are subordinate in office should understand their position. They should recognise that they are Under Secretaries, no matter what they call themselves, and that they are only the mouth-pieces of their chief. I sympathise with the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council in the difficult and chivalrous task he has performed to-day, but I cannot help my mind going back to 1891, when the Lord Privy Seal, then Secretary of State for India, had the somewhat difficult task to perform of repudiating his Under Secretary in the House of Commons. The Under Secretary had made a speech which was known as the "Poppy-head" speech, in the case of Manipur. That Under Secretary is the same gentleman who has been so gallantly defended to-night by the noble Duke. My Lords, the views I have put forward with regard to the question of Voluntary schools will, I think, commend themselves to the minds of all those who hold, as I do, a feeling of admiration for, and devotion to, our Voluntary school system; the views I have put forward with regard to the position of Under Secretaries will, I am sure, commend themselves to the community at large.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

My Lords, I venture to think that the noble. Marquess who has just sat down has been somewhat unjust to the Vice-President of the Council. No one could think, however, that the remark made in the other House of Parliament in regard to the attitude of the squire and the farmer, in regard to education, was just or generous. Your Lordships know, as the noble Duke has rightly said, there is no class who have done so much for elementary education in England, speaking roughly, as the country gentlemen. They support their village schools, ordinarily, almost entirely out of their own pockets. But, my Lords, there are truths which have to be said, although they may be extremely unpalatable, and I venture to think that if Sir John Gorst meant to say that in the long run our denominational schools will not be able to hold their own against schools entirely supported out of the rates, he said what was perfectly true. Anyone who is acquainted with the state of education in the north of England knows perfectly well, however disagreeable the truth may be, that in the long run denominational schools will not be able to hold their own unless they get what is only just and fair—a fair proportion out of the rates—and I hail with great satisfaction the words which fell from the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council when he alluded to the question of rate aid for denominational schools.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, the discussion has certainly wandered a very long way from the particular point which the most reverend prelate brought before us. I must say I so far sympathise with the Vice-President that I think he did good service to the cause of education in pointing out the defects in the schools which form part of the system. I do not believe that the supporters of Voluntary schools, or of any other schools, will gain anything by concealment of the defects and deficiencies in that system. What we, who are not such ardent supporters of Voluntary schools, and what I personally believe is that, from various causes, and without imputing blame to managers or teachers, many Voluntary schools, particularly the smaller ones, have fallen below the standard which ought to be the standard of education in this country. That, I apprehend, is also the view of the Government, because it was no doubt on that ground that they gave an extra subsidy to those schools. The noble Duke rather seemed to say that we were not to go beyond the wishes and the feelings of the people of the locality in regard to education. I hope that will not be the principle on which the Education Department will proceed. I trust that the pressure which has been exercised by those who have the interests of education at heart upon those classes in the country some of whom, at least, are not as much interested in education as we could wish, will be continued steadily by the Education Department. They should not do anything that is unfair; but at the same time I am certain that pressure is necessary to bring the schools up to a proper standard. I must say for myself that I agree with a good deal of what has been said by the noble Marquess opposite [the Marquess of Londonderry]. I do not think it is at all desirable that Members of the Government should express opinions, which may be described as personal opinions, upon matters which really concern the Government as a whole. The noble Marquess, I think, spoke rather disparagingly of the office of Vice-President. It is certainly one of an important character, and one not infrequently held by Members of the Cabinet. I think myself it is always a practice injurious to the public service, in the long run injurious to party interests, that any Members of the Government, and especially the higher Members of the Government, should express opinions of their own on matters of high policy concerning Departments with which they are not connected; and, therefore, I hail with joy the excellent principle laid down by the noble Marquess opposite.

The subject dropped.

House adjourned at 6.25.