Lords Sitting of 1 December 1902

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off from the total amount of notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour). (No.190.)
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SCHOOL TEACHING OF COLONIAL HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY—PROPOSED "EMPIRE DAY."
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Education whether in the schools connected with his Department he will lay greater stress than at present on the teaching of the history and geography of the Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire; and whether he will suggest to the school authorities that the 24th May in each year, being the anniversary of the birth of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, might very appropriately be called "Empire Day," and be kept as a half-holiday by the scholars attending State-aided schools, and that the remainder of the day might be spent by them in exercises of a patriotric character, and in pleasant instruction in matters appertaining to the Empire and its responsibilities. On Thursday next your Lordships will be engaged in discussing a Bill of first-class importance dealing with the subject of education. The questions I have just asked are also connected with that subject, but they are probably
  814
  not questions which will excite very great interest outside this House, nor are they likely to lead to controversy. But at the same time, though they are very small reforms in the practical working of education, I venture to think that, if carried out, they may have a greater and more far-reaching influence over the destinies of the Empire than would appear at first sight. I think it is difficult to exaggerate the importance to a citizen of the British Empire of a thorough knowledge of the history and geography, not only of this country but of those Colonies and Dependencies which are under the rule of our Gracious Sovereign. And when I say history and geography, I mean, as regards the latter, not only a knowledge of the capes and bays, rivers and mountains, and the towns of the countries in question. but also some knowledge of their agricultural, mineral, and botanical resources, and of the men and women who inhabit them.
  Why do I lay such great stress upon the teaching of the history and geography of the Empire as a whole? Because it is very difficult to realise the vast responsibilities which lie upon the people of this country. There is no other nation in the world which has such a vast dependent population. What do I mean by that? I mean that there is no other nation which has such a large number of subjects who have no voice in the ruling of their destinies. Our Gracious Sovereign, as a Constitutional Monarch, rules, through Parliament, over an Empire which is situated in all five continents of the world, whose extent is spread over 12 million square miles, and whose population consists of 400 millions. It is very difficult to realise what is meant by 400 millions. Perhaps the easiest way of bringing it to our minds is to say that, roughly speaking, the population of these islands is 40 millions, and that the population of the British Empire is ten times as great. Now out of these 400 millions there are only 50 millions who can be said to be self-governing, forty millions inside these islands and ten millions outside. Consequently there are 350 million people dependent upon the goodwill of Parliament, and Parliament is elected—who by?—by the

  815
  men who have been educated in our State aided schools. They are in the majority. They have it in their power either to govern this Empire well or ill, and to bring either happiness or misery to these 350 million people who are dependent upon their voice;and unless they are educated so as to know something about these people, where they live, and their customs and habits, how possibly can they influence Parliament to govern righteously and properly?
  I freely acknowledge that since I brought this subject before your Lordships some years ago a vast improvement has been effected by the Education Department in this particular branch of education, but, although much has been done, I am very firmly of opinion that a great deal more can be done in the way of reform. What does the ordinary elector know of the past history, experiences, customs, and habits of thought of the people over whom we rule? What knowledge has he generally of the vast populations that inhabit the British Empire? I fear his knowledge is very limited. When I first brought this subject to the notice of your Lordships, matters were certainly very much worse than they are now. At that time there was practically nothing taught as regards the Empire as a whole. I will tell your Lordships a story which will illustrate to a certain degree my meaning. I was invited some years ago to give an address to some young lads, many of whom had just left school, the others being in the higher standards of the school. After thinking over the matter, I decided to try and interest them in the subject of heroism, and I selected for my subject, "How the Victoria Cross was gained in the Indian Mutiny by some of our most distinguished officers." As soon as I began my address I noted that there was a distinct lack of intelligence in the eyes of those I was addressing, and I at once saw that I was out of touch with them. I thought that the words "Indian Mutiny" were evidently strange to them, and I substituted "Sepoy Mutiny," but there was still no sign of intelligence. I then thought I would try and put it in a roundabout way, and I referred to it as "the great war, which all of you must have heard of, in which we retained, with the utmost
  816
  difficulty, our Indian Empire." There was absolutely no response, Feeling very uncomfortable, I said I should be very much obliged if those lads who had heard of a war in India, or of a Sepoy war, or of an Indian Mutiny would hold up their hands, but only one hand was held up. I could not understand it, and after I had concluded my address I went to the schoolmaster of the village —it is a village within twenty-five miles of London—and I said:
  "Do you mean to say you have never taught your boys anything about the Indian Mutiny?"
  His reply was:
  "No, my Lord, how could I? You would not have been able to do it either. These boys leave at 13 years of age. I am bound by the Education Department to teach them from the very beginning, the Saxon period and the Roman period, and the Tudors. There are a few who go as far as the Stuarts, but there is not one boy who has heard of the Hanoverian period."
  What must be the condition of mind of a boy leaving school and imagining that Queen Elizabeth was the predecessor of Queen Victoria? True, that is not the state of things now, for an improvement has been made since I last spoke in the House on the subject. I said then that the proper way to teach history was to teach it backwards. The events of the Hanoverian period, when the liberties of the country were on the anvil;the great struggle which occured between what are now the United States and this country;all the progress of thought which led up to the French Revolution, and which we are still feeling the effects of;the gigantic struggle with Napoleon—these and other comparatively modern events were at that time a blank to the great majority of those who were taught in the State-aided schools. It is not so bad now, but still I belive that if you were to go down to your schools, you would be very much astonished to find how few scholars there are who have any real knowledge of events of comparatively modern times.
  Having once launched into this question I looked still further, and found that at that time it was impossible for girls to learn needlework, history, and geography, and that, because these three subjects were class subjects they were only able to take up two. There are now no longer any class subjects, and

  817
  the block system has worked infinitely better. At the time of which I speak I engaged a schoolmistress to teach one of my infant children, and I found she did not know that Australia was British. At the same time I found that all the boys knew that Alfred the Great had received a cuff because he did not properly carry out some culinary process. Incidents such as these had been taught them with great trouble, but of what value to them in after life such knowledge can be thought to be I cannot imagine. I am thankful to see that amongst the compulsory subjects which are at present enforced are included needlework, science, geography, and history;but there is one that I am not thankful for—namely, grammer. I am also not thankful to find that a certain paragraph which was put into the Education Code after my speech in this House has been omitted. The paragraph I refer to is as follows:—
  "Inspectors, in the examination of the Fourth and higher Standards in elementary schools, will call the attention of the scholars to our distant possessions, their productions government, and resources, and to those climatic and other conditions which render them suitable fields for emigration and honourable enterprise."
  Why it has been left out I do not know. It is certainly a retrograde step, and I trust that some similar paragraph may be reinserted. It is to me a matter of vital national consequence that all who dwell beneath the protecting influence of the Union Jack should have some correct understanding of the history, extent, power, and resources of the great Empire to which they belong, and some idea of the operative forces, geographical, social, and political, which have been at work in constructing this vast and prosperous State.
  How much time is devoted in our schools to history at this moment? One hour a week only. The other half hour, which I suppose the Department would say is devoted to history, is really devoted to reading, for the whole of the attention of both master and scholar is directed to how the latter reads and not to the subject of history. Consequently I assert that there is only one hour a week devoted to history. The same amount of time is devoted to geography. As regards geography, I have here the Education Code. Nine model or speciman schemes of instruction for the guidance of masters are
  818
  given in the Code, but of these there are only four which, under the heading of geography, mention the Colonies at all;and there is not a single mention anywhere under the heading of history of the Colonies or of the Empire. It may be that this knowledge is imparted, for reference is made in the schemes to Historical Readers. I have no doubt that some of these Historical Readers do refer to Imperial matters, but what I want to ask the President of the Board of Education to do is this. I want him not to leave it to the discretion of teachers as to whether they will or will not teach subjects connected with the Empire, but to say that he desires, as the representative of the Government, that the citizens of this country should know something about the British dominions beyond these islands. That is what I hope may be the result of the discussion this afternoon. Another question to which I should like particularly to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Education, is that of the maps which are hung up on the walls of schools, many of which are so ancient that they are absolutely useless. What are known as the Howard Vincent and the Navy League maps are excellent ones, giving the latest information, and I hope that, wherever it is possible the noble Marquess will use his influence to see that these or equally up-to-date maps are procured, for it appears to me to be very much more important that a British subject should be acquainted with the British Empire than that he should be an expert in all the geographical details of Germany or France.
  One of the objections that will be raised to my remarks will be this. It will be said that there is so much already to be done in the schools that it is quite impossible to do anything more. I quite acknowledge that there is a great deal to be done, and that it is most difficult to impart all the necessary knowledge to boys and girls who leave at the early age of thirteen. But I have a suggestion to make on the subject. Can any one tell me that the study of grammar has ever really benefited those of the poorer classes who have gone through these schools? Personally, I have never yet met one who has been the better for all the hours spent on grammar. No doubt, after leaving school, a bright lad will

  819
  teach himself to write and speak correctly, but my assertion is that the great mass of the younger children spend hours on grammer which might be spent on more useful subjects, and that they go out of the school to their homes, and talk and write just as incorrectly as before. If I am right, then grammar should be taught only in the higher classes, and more practical subjects substituted in the case of the young.
  My second question, in regard to Empire Day, is one upon which I lay great stress. My proposal is that a day be established throughout the entire Empire on which the attention of all children attending Stat-aided schools should be specially directed to matters appertaining to the Empire and its responisiblities to the Empire and its responsibilities. Such a movement would be calculated to hasten the time when the whole Empire would be more closely bound together than at present. The children, moreover, would obtain a knowledge which would enable them to receive the advantage of closer federation, and would promote an affectionate regard for their fellow-subjects in other portions of the Empire. I have suggested May 24th as the most suitable day. I do not say that it is the only day, but it is the day which, I think, has commended itself to most people. We know how the Empire has expanded during the reign of our late gracious Sovereign. We know the interest she took in the Empire and its growth;and I do not think there could be a more appropriate day than the anniversary of the birth of the late Queen Victoria. This idea is no new or untried one. Empire Day in its full significance—that is to say, a day on which for several hours the children's attention should be drawn to matters of Empire, and for the rest they should be allowed to amuse themselves—is already in operation in four Colonies in different parts of the world, viz.,in Nova Scotia, in Ontario in Manitoba, and in Natal. In addition to the full Empire Day being in operation in these four Colonies, and also, I believe, in Cape Colony, May 24th is kept already as a holiday in a large number of other Colonies. It is established by law as a legal holiday throughout the whole of the Dominion of Canada, in the West Indies, Barbadoes, Jamaica, and in
  820
  the Straits Settlements. In India it has been gazetted as a holiday under the title of Empress Day. Therefore May 24th is already kept as a special holiday throughout the greater part of the British Empire, and the special instruction which I suggest should be given on that day in this country has been given on that day in this country has been given in the schools in many of our Colonies. The Colonial Secretary, to whose attention I brought this subject before he left for South Africa, was kind enough to express sympathy with the idea, but said, very naturally, that he did not see his way to recommend the proposal to the Colonies or Dependencies until it had been adopted at home. He, however, gave me to understand that if the holiday were established at home, he would be happy to do his best to recommend it to the Colonies. At the Colonial Secretary's suggestion, I have corresponded on the subject with the different statesmen and representatives of the Empire who visited this country at the time of the Coronation. Sir Wilfrid Laurier writes to the effect that they had already established May 24th as a legal holiday throughout the whole of Canada. The Prime Minister of Ontario writes—
  "The matter is one of great importance to the future of the Empire, and I am delighted to see that your Lordship is taking it up."
  The Prime Minister of British Columbia states—
  "The sentiment is unanimous here in favour of an Empire Day."
  The Agent General for New Brunswick writes—
  "I am entirely in Sympathy with your object."
  The Prime Minister of New Zealand, in his reply to me, writes—
  "I need hardly say that I am strongly of opinion that the establishment of such a day would be fraught with much good to the Empire."
  The Postmaster-General of Canada writes—
  "The Object meets with my most cordial approval."
  The Prime Minister of Newfoundland writes—
  "I am entirely in accord with your views, and shall have much pleasure in aiding the movement."
  Lord Milner says—
  "Your proposal to establish an Empire Day is one which has my sympathy."

  821
  Lord Grenfell, the Governor of British Honduras, the Governor of Jamaica, and the Governor of Mauritius write very much in the same way, and I have also received letters from a number of Indian princes expressing approval of the proposal. After this unanimous expression, I shall indeed be disappointed if His Majesty's Government do not seize this splendid opportunity of taking the lead in a movement which, in future years, will be regarded as having exercised no inconsiderable influence on the strengthening and consolidation of the British Empire.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I trust my noble friend will not censure me when I say that I do not think it is possible for me to follow him over the whole of the ground covered in his interesting speech. I shall confine myself to briefly answering the Questions put to me by the noble Earl. Although I fear that my answer will not be thoroughly satisfactory to my noble friend, still in the object which he has in view he has my entire sympathy. In the first place, my noble friend asks me whether in the schools connected with my Department, I will lay greater stress than at present on the teaching of the history and geography of the Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire. In reply to that question, I have to say that history and geography naturally occupy a very important place in the Code;but it would be with great hesitation and reluctance that I would propose at the present moment to add to that Code by insisting on the teaching of certain details of history and geography in the elementary schools. But the Colonies are not lost sight of in the Code. My noble friend will see that the instruction to be given to the pupil teachers includes the subjects of Africa, America and Australia, with special reference to the chief British Colonies and Dependencies and the United States.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: That applies to pupil teachers.
  THE MARQUEES OF LONDONDERRY: That is so. I merely mentioned it to show that the matter was not lost sight of. But I do not see why the Code might not be to a certain extent enlarged
  822
  in the direction which the noble Earl indicated, and there is one very attractive way in which these questions might be brought to the attention of the children of this country. Your Lordships, no doubt, have in your mind the tour accomplished recently by the Prince and Princess of Wales, and it may be that some of your Lordships have read the elaborate work describing the tour written by Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace. It is, to my mind, an interesting, instructive, and attractive work, and I am informed that it will shortly be condensed and published in a cheaper form. I would be glad to see the managers of schools take advantage of that work in their schools, and, in doing so, they would receive every encouragement at my hands. Communications are now taking place between the Board of Education and the Colonial Office with regard to extending a knowledge of the Colonies among children in England, and a knowledge of England among the children of the Colonies, and a Committee has been formed to carry Mr. Chamberlain's proposal into effect. On that Committee there will be a repersentative of the Board of Education.
  The noble Earl next asked whether I would suggest to the school authorities that May 24th in each year, being the anniversary of the birth of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, might very appropriately be called "Empire day," and be kept as a half-holiday by the scholars attending State-aided schools, and that the remainder of the day might be spent by them in exercises of a patriotic character, and in pleasant instruction in matters appertaining to the Empire and its responsibilities. This part of the question also has my entire sympathy, but my noble friend must go to an authority far greater and more influential than I am for the carrying out of his suggestion for an "Empire day." With regard to observing such a day as a half-holiday, I should be very unwilling to move in such a matter and interfere with the managers of the schools in reference to school attendance. The time, I hope, is not far distant when the local authorities will be associated with these managers, and I am most anxious that when that day comes the local authorities should co-operate cordially with the Board of Education. I cannot help thinking that those bodies in the future, and the managers at present, would look

  823
  askance at the President of the Board of Education if they thought he was taking matters which were really in their prerogative out of their hands. I will, however, again assure my noble friend of my entire sympathy, and, if it is possible to carry out his suggestions, he will find in the Board of Education the most hearty co-operation.

  PRIVILEGE—THE LORDS AND MONEY BILLS—THE FINANCIAL CLAUSES OF THE EDUCATION BILL.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the debate on the Committee stage of the Voluntary Schools Bill on the 2nd Apirl, 1897;and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to adhere to the views laid down by the Lord Chancellor, and adopted by the House on his advice, with regard to its procedure on the forthcoming Committee on the Education Bill of this year. I am taking this somewhat noval course for the convenience of debate in the different stages of the Education Bill and especially in the Committee stage, which will be taken next week. This Question raises the very important question of the privileges of the two Houses of Parliament. I believe that it is undisputed that this House can throw out a financial Bill and even throw out a Clause of the Bill as long as that Clause is a separate issue from the rest of the Bill. I am not going to try to minimise the privileges of the other House;all I wish is to be quite clear as to what comes within the question of privilege and what does not. The Resolution of the other House which now regulates this matter was passed in 1671, and is asfollows—
  "That in all aids given to the King by the Commons the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords,"
  and there is a second Resolution dated July 3rd, 1678, which declares—
  "That all aids and supplies 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 changed or altered by the House of Lords."†
  † The first of these Resolutions gave rise to fierce controversy between the two Houses.
  824
  That Resolution is a very sweeping one, and it has been applied in a very sweeping way by the greatest legal authority in this House, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I should also like to quote the opinion of the late Prime Minister and Leader of the House. The noble Marquess has on several occasions spoken on the subject, but not always, I think, distinctly and clearly. In 1891, on an occasion to which I will presently refer, Lord Salisbury said—
  "I think, in assenting to the Amendment" we ought to indicate that, though we do so for the sake of the Bill being passed, we cannot consent to the doctrine stated in the reasons sent up by the House of Commons being made a precedent hereafter, that anything which may indirectly lead to an increase in the public charge is outside the competence of this House."
  That is a very strong opinion. In 1896 the noble Marquess said, on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Rating Bill, that—
  "We cannot, according to our ordinary practice, when we get into Committee, alter the details of the Bill, and therfore comments on the mere Committee part of the measure are not very relevant to the issue which is now before us. No one can say that this Bill has been insufficiently discussed in the other House of Parliament."
  I take the following from the same debate—
  "The EARL OF ROSEBERY": It is a little difficult to tell where to take the noble Marquess with regard to the Bill. He has told us, though not in very clear terms, that we are not exactly competent to discuss so financial a Bill.
  "The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that.
  "The EARL OF ROSEBERY: Will the noble Marquess state again what his doctrine is?
  "The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My doctrine is that we are perfectly competent to do what he proposes, namely, to throw out the Second Reading, but according to the practice of Parliament—I do not say we are intrinsically incompetent to do it—it would be a grave departure from ancient practice if we altered the Bill in Committee."
  That is not a perfectly clear statement, for the noble Marques sad admitted that
  Several Conferences were held, and the precedents, back to the time of the first Edward, were examined. (See Parliamentary History,IV., 480). The Lords Journals during the Seventeenth and eighteenth centuries contain a number of "Protests" of great interest in connection with this subject.—[ED.]

  825
  we were not intrinsically incompetent to do it, and yet said it would be a grave departure from ancient practice if we altered the Bill in Committee.
  I wish to refer to the interpretation which has on different occasions been put on the Resolution to which I referred in the beginning of my speech. First of all I will take the great Education Measure of 1870, which provided grants out of the Exchequer in aid of education. When that Bill came to this House the Earl of Powis moved an Amendment in Clause 94 to the effect that the proceedings should be carried on by a teacher certificated by the Education Department. That was allowed to be put but was not carried, and Lord Salisbury then moved to add at the end of Clause 94 the words:—
  "Provided that no conditions shall be requried to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant by any Minutes of the Education Department not in force at the time of the passing of this Act, unless such Minutes shall have been laid for six weeks upon theTable of both Houses of Parliament and shall not have been objected to in an Address to Her Majesty from either House."
  This Amendment was carried. Therefore I think it is clearly shown that Amendments which might almost come under the term "conditions" were permitted in the Bill of 1870 to be moved in this House. To the Elementary Education Bill of 1891 over twenty Amendments were moved by noble Lords. One remarkable Amendment, which was carried, went down to the House of Commons, where attention was drawn by, I think, Sir Henry Fowler, to the fact that its effect would be to increase the rate or charge under a section of the Bill. The Speaker gave his opinion that the Amendment was against the privileges of the House of Commons, and the Government of the day having taken time to consider it, Lord Cranbrook, who was Lord President of the Council at the time, said that he did not agree with the decision of the Speaker, but as it was important that the Bill should pass he would modify the Amendment so as to stipulate that no increase of rate could be made. The amended Amendment was then agreed to. Lord Salisbury, although he concurred on that occasion in the change, thought it necessary afterwards to move the following Resolution which was carried:—
  "That this House, in agreeing to the said Amendment, makes no admission in respect of any deduction which may be made from the
  826
  reasons offered by the House of Commons, and does not consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent."
  The Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897 was not solely a money Bill, for it raised the whole question of the settlement of 1870, but it did deal with money payments. When the Bill came before your Lordships I moved the first Amendment, to provide for a representative of the local authority, or the parents, on the management.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The noble Earl ought to read the firsrt words of the Clause he then proposed to amend. That Clause dealt with grants that were to be paid.
  *EARL SPENCER: I agree that it was one of the provisions that grants should be given. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave his opinion that the Amendment came within privilege, and therefore I did not press it. Several considerable Amendments which came in the same category were ruled out. I admit that they depended on grants, but at the same time they would have had a general effect on the management, just as would be the case with some of the Amendments we would like to make in the Bill of this year. I wish to know what the Government intend to do with regard to that Bill, as there are a great many points on which we should like to move Amendments, and the Episcopal Bench would doubtless desire also to move Amendents. Does the noble and learned Lord intend to adopt the same procedure that he adopted in 1897? I do not wish in the slightest degree to diminish the privileges of the other House, but I desire a clear and distinct statement as to the intentions of the Government and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (THE Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, no one will complain that the noble Earl has raised this question in a preliminary manner. AS far as I am able to answer the noble Earl, I will tell him frankly what my view is. On the occasion last referred to nothing was ruled at all. In the interest and convenience of the House, and ,as I thought, of the regularity of our proceedings, I pointed out that this House

  827
  was the guardian of order and that I was not, but that I thought that in the case of that particular Bill it would be impossible to contend with the other House that it was not an infringement of the privileges of the other House to change the destination of money voted. The section of the Act of 1897 which the noble Lord then proposed to amend provided that
  "For aiding voluntary schools there shall annually be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant not exceeding in the aggregate 5s. per scholar."
  and so forth. I thought then, and think now, that unless the House of Commons agreed to waive its privileges, the only result would be that your Lord-ships would debate those Amendments and that they would be summarily rejected in the other House. One noble Lord, I think, rather protested against that proceeding—it was the Earl of Camperdown—and thought it was undesirable to lay down any rule. For my own part I protest that I never affected to rule at all.
  *EARL SPENCER: But the noble and learned Lord gave advice which was followed by the House.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It seems a slight correction, but it is an important one. The House did not do anything of the sort. Every one of the noble Lords withdrew his Amendment on his own responsibility. The House did not act upon my advice. I should be happy and proud to think they had done so, but as a matter of fact they did not. The noble Lords themselves were convinced, I suppose, that what I had pointed out was the truth, and they withdrew their Amendments. Although I quite agree that this little discussion is convenient and advantageous to the House, when we are dealing with a question of this sort, to lay down a priori what you will do with reference to a particular Bill without knowing anything of the exact section which is the subject of discussion would be the most imprudent thing in the world. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to look at the Amendments that are suggested, and if the House is good enough to desire my advice I shall tell your
  828
  Lordships what I think about them. There are two or three questions which will arise. There will be not only the abstract question of whether or not if the House of Commons were to insist on its privileges such Amendments could be passed against them, but there will be the question whether, in reference to a Bill of very great importance, one might not fairly expect the House of Commons, even if they took the extreme view that it was against their privileges, to consider and possibly to agree to the Amendments or some of them. I have a great number of precedents where that very question has been discussed. At the instance of Lord John Russell, and with the full approval of the Speaker, in the case of the Irish Poor Law Bill the advice and assistance of your Lordship' House in framing the different Amendments to give effect to the real intentions of Parliament were treated as of most valuable importance to the community. I will just read one or two of the observations made on the subject. On the Order of the day being read for considering the Lords Amendments to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill in the House of Commons on 24th July, 1838, the Speaker said:—
  "He owed it to himself to make a few observations to the House on the subject. The House was no doubt aware that when Amendments were made in any Bill sent up to the House of Lords which were considered at all likely to be an infringement of the privileges of this House it was customary to communicate with the Speaker on the subject. It so happened, therefore, that he had been applied to by a very distinguished person in reference to this Bill. In reply to questions which were put to him, he them said that if his opinion were called for on the subject of these Amendments he felt bound to say that he considered them as an infringement of the privileges of the Commons' House. But, at the same time, as the Bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable. As the authorised guardian of the privileges of the House, he had thought it right to explain his conduct on the present occasion, which he trusted would meet with the approval of the House. At the same time he must add that he thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed."

  829
  After receiving that advice from the Speaker, Lord John Russell said—
  "There was a very material Amendment with respect to which it was very probable that the Speaker might have to consider whether or not it came within the privileges of that House. It was, in the first place, an omission of a Clause inserted in that House with regard to £5 tenements;and, in the second place, a substitution of another Clause with respect to the charge which might be taken bt the owners on the payment by rates of such tenements. According to the Bill as it went up from that House, the occupiers of tenements under the value of £5 were not in the first instance to pay the rate, but that they should have the power of charging the whole rate on the landlords. They were, therefore, in limine, exempt altogether from the rate. Now, the House of Lords had determined that these persons should, in the generality of instances pay the rate;at the same time they did not alter the total amount of rate, whatever it might be, which was settled by the board of guardians on application to the commissioners, and they proposed another Clause by which an arrangement took place between the landlords and tenants with regard to the small holdings. What the House of Lords proposed was, in substance, that the owner and the tenant should make an arrangement between themselves by which the owner might agree to a certain deduction not exceeding 10 per cent. for the sum to which the small tenements were liable, and with the approbation of the guardians, and the sanction of the commissioners, that such payment by the owners should exempt the occupiers of tenements. He thought it would be a very vexatious and inexpedient proceeding if they were to insist on this privilege as a ground of objection to this alteration. He thought it one of those alterations which didnot touch the general question of taxation. It was not with the view of exempting those persons as being a class which ought to be free from such a demand that the Clause was originally introduced."
  The result of the discussions which then took place was that the whole of the Amendments of the Lords were discussed and some of them agreed to. If we substitute the question of Education for the question of Poor Law, every one of the observations then made would apply. I very much doubt whether, where the House of Commons was convinced that it was for the purpose of rendering a Bill more efficient, they would reject an Amendment. In those circumstances, I think it would be extremely rash for any one to predict, without hearing the discussion on each Clause, how an Amendment would be dealt with by the other House. If it were inconsistent with any control of the House of Commons over the funds provided by the Bill, very likely they would reject it, but if it were one intended to be ancillary and to give greater
  830
  effect to what the House of Commons intended, then I should very much doubt whether the other House would think it necessary to assert their privileges in such a way as to prevent the Amendments moved in your Lordships' House from being adopted so as to improve the provisions of the Bill. I can only say that if my advice were asked I should wait to see what the concrete case was before I ventured to give your Lordships any advice whatever on the subject.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that we must wait to see what the Amendments in a concrete case are before we can say that any particular Amendment would be contrary to what has been called the privileges of the Commons, but what I should prefer to call the constitutional law of the country. But I wish to point out that, if the Amendments to the Bill of 1897 were struck out because it was not thought right to pass Amendments which should be contrary to the constitutional law of the country, that would, it seems to me, cover almost any Amendment of sunbstance—any Amendment that anybody would care to have—to the Bill that is coming before us. Suppose we find that the Bill grants a sum of, say, £1,300,000 for the sustenance of schools to be maintained, conducted, and managed in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Can anybody possibly say that if we alter the provisions relating to the maintenance, conduct, or management of the schools in a material manner we are not altering one of the conditions, qualifications, and limitations—and I would say, even the ends and purposes—for which the money grant is made by the Commons? Let me give a concrete example. I will take it that the Bill proposes that the School Boards at present existing should be abolished, and that their powers should be vested in a new local authority, to be constituted in a particular manner. Now, suppose Amendments were moved, altering in any way the constitution of the local authority, or even proposing that the School Boards should be retained in certain places, such as in big towns, for example, or doing anything to substantially affect the local authority which is to administer the Act. Can it be said for one moment that, either as a matter of form or of substance, such

  831
  Amendments would not affect the condiditions, qualifications, of limitations upon the strength of which the grant had been made? As a matter of substance, I have no doubt they would. It seems to me that the principle upon which the House acted in 1897 would have a material effect upon the Amendments which might be moved, which were Amendments of any material value.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord who has just sat down has attributed an extremely wide effect to the advice that was given to the House in 1897, but has omitted to notice the preliminary words of the House of Commons Resolution on which that advice was founded. The Resolution which was quoted was as follows—
  "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."
  The rest of the Resolution applies to what is to take place in regard to any such Bill. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Voluntary Schools Act was in its main purpose and intention a Bill for the granting of such aids and supplies. The substance of the Bill was to grant certain aids to voluntary schools, and, therefore, all the subsequent provisions in the Resolution of the House of Commons would apply to it. The Bill which your Lordships expect to receive this week does a great deal besides granting aids and supplies. In fact, a great part of the Bill does not refer to granting any aids and supplies at all. Therefore the provisions of that Resolution, which are directed to money Bills, nees not apply to a Bill which is essentially not a money Bill.
  LORD DAVEY: I would call the noble Duke's attention to the last part of the Resolution, viz.—
  "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 changed or altered by the House of Lords."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That applies to "all such Bills"—Bills for granting aids and supplies.
  LORD DAVEY: A Bill which contains a Clause granting a named sum to His Majesty for certain purposes is, I think, conceived within the Clause.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, though I had forgotten having made any remarks on the occasion to which he referred, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I entirely concur with all that the Lord Chancellor has said tonight. I agree that it is much better not to express any opinion with regard to any Amendment which may be moved before we see the Amendment. In the meantime, as a Member of your Lordships' House, I protest against the statement which has been made that it is not in the power of your Lordships to make any Amendment of substance in such a Bill as the Education Bill which is coming before us. It is a Bill of a much larger character than the Bill of 1897, and contains not only a grant of money but many other matters on which it is probable that your Lordships would wish to express an opinion. It would be premature and extremely unwise at the resent moment to impose any limit to any action we may see fit to take.
  LORD TWEED MOUTH: My Lords, I wish for a moment to insist on the very great length to which the advice given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack went with regard to the Bill of 1897. That Bill did not, as my noble friend has just said, deal merely with a money grant. There were four separate proposals in it firstly, the proposed money grant of 5s. per child;secondly, the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit;thirdly, the relief of voluntary schools from the payment of rates;and, fourthly, the very important provision, which was purely permissive, which allowed associations of schools to be formed, and these associations were to be allowed to be the channel by which the money grant was conveyed to the schools within their area. The first Amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Spencer proposed to limit the 5s. grant to those schools which were willing to have a certain number of parents on the Board of Management. I can well understand

  833
  that Amendment being ruled out, because it struck out certain schools from receiving any grant at all. But Lord Kimberley moved an Amendment with regard to these associations which certainly did not involve any interference with the money grant. Lord Kimberley proposed that at least one half of the managers of these associations of schools should be non-clerical. Nobody can say tht would have interfered with the money grant, but on the advice of the noble Earl on the Woolsack that Amendment ws decided to be incompetent.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not decided.
  THE EARL OF CAMPEDOWN: It was withdrawn.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: There was no division. We on this side of the House are in a peduliar position, and have very often to exercise that discretion which is the better part of valour. My point is that if the noble Earl on the Woolsack advises the House to follow the asme advice that he gave with regard to Lord Kimberley's Amendment, theat advice will be far-reaching indeed, and almost every Amendment will be cut out. I contend that the advice now suggested by the noble and learned Earl is entirely opposed to that which he gave in 1897. He now says:Let us wait for the Amendments, and, even if there sholuld be one which clashes with the privileges of the House of Commons, the latter is very well able to take care of iteslf and can strike that Amendment out. In 1897, he said:Do not let us send down incompetent Amendments;do not let us discuss Amendments and be subject to the rebuff of having them struck out in the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord is inaccurate. I did not advise Lord Kimberley at all. Lord Kimberley came forward and said the argument appeared to him to cover his Amendments, and therefore he withdrew it.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: But you assented.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, in moving the adjournment of the House,
  834
  said: It is hoped that the Education Bill may be read a third time in the other House on Wednesday, and this House will sit to whatever hour may be necessary to receive the Bill. it is proposed to take the Second Reading on Thursday.
  EARL SPENCER: Will the Bill be in the hands of noble Lords before Thursday morning?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Bill, as amended on Report in the other House, will be circulated tomorrow moring.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.